SOALAN:

TUNKU ABDUL AZIZ BIN TUNKU IBRAHIM minta MENTERI LUAR NEGERI menyatakan pendirian Kerajaan terhadap cadangan menyatukan semua penuntut ASEAN terhadap Spratly Asia Tenggara supaya menggunakan satu entiti untuk berunding dengan negara China dalam masalah pertikaian kedaulatan. Pernahkah pihak TLDM menjejaki kapal perang / penguatkuasa China memasuki kawasan EEZ Malaysia tanpa notis.

JAWAPAN:

Terlebih dahulu saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Yang Berhormat Mulia Senator Tunku Abdul Aziz di atas soalan yang dikemukakan.

2. Seperti yang telah dimaklumkan di dalam dewan yang mulia ini sebelum ini, wujud tuntutan bertindih kawasan maritim dan tuntutan bertindih ke atas ciri-ciri geografi di kawasan Laut China Selatan. Tuntutan bertindih di Laut China Selatan ini melibatkan Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei Darussalam, Filipina dan Republik Rakyat China. Untuk makluman Dewan yang mulia ini, Republik Rakyat China menuntut keseluruhan laut China Selatan termasuklah Kepulauan Spratlys.

3. Seperti yang telah dimaklumkan di dalam Dewan yang mulia ini, isu berhubung tuntutan ke atas pulau-pulau, terumbu dan kawasan maritim ini ditangani berasaskan kpeada semangat dan aspirasi yang terkandung dalam Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) yang ditandatangani oleh negara-negara ASEAN dan Republik Rakyat China pada 4 November 2002. Melalui Deklarasi ini, pihak-pihak yang mempunyai tuntutan bertindih di Laut China Selatan bertekad untuk menyelesaikan pertelingkahan dan perbalahan berhubung tuntutan wilayah maritim bertindih di Laut China Selatan secara damai melalui jalan perundingan tanpa menggunakan kekerasan atau pun ugutan. Dalam masa yang sama, usaha-usaha juga diambil bagi membina keyakinan (confidence building) di antara negara-negara yang terlibat, Dalam hal ini, sukacita saya ingin memaklumkan perbincangan sedang dijalankan untuk melaksanakan aktiviti-aktiviti kerjasama di bawah kerangka DOC bagi mengingkatkan keyakinan dan mengelakkan ketegangan di kawasan Laut China Selatan.

Tuan Yang Di-Pertua,

4. Malaysia sentiasa peka dengan isu-isu yang melibatkan tuntutan bertindih ke atas pulau-pulau dan wilayah Malaysia. Usaha-usaha sentiasa dilaksanakan demi mengukuhkan tuntutan Malaysia ke atas ciri-ciri geografi di kawasan maritim berkenaan. Malaysia percaya penyelesaian kepada isu tuntutan bertindih boleh dicapai melalui perbincangan secara damai tanpa menggunakan kekerasan. Dala hal ini, Malaysia sentiasa mewujudkan rundingan dua hala dengan negara jirannya bagi membataskan sempadan di kawasan di mana belum ada lagi perjanjian sempadan maritim. Malaysia berpendirian bahawa tuntutan bertindih wajar diselesaikan secara rundingan dua hala dan rujukan kepada pihak ketiga seperti Mahkamah Keadilah Antarabangsa (ICJ) atau Tribunal Timbang Tara adalah merupakan opsyen terakhir di dalam mencapai penyelesaian.

5. Dalam masa yang sama, Malaysia juga sentiasa mengambil kira perkembangan semasa yang berlaku. Pada masa ini, Malaysia berpandangan bahawa isu tuntutan bertindih di Laut China Selatan wajar diselesaikan secara dua hala atau pelbagai hala dan hanya melibatkan negara-negara yang mempunyai tuntutan bertindih. Pada masa ini, tidak ada sebarang cadangan daripada mana-mana negara ASEAN yang mempunyai tuntutan bertindih untuk bergabung sebagai satu entiti dan beruding dengan Republik Rakyat China.

Tuan Yang Di-Pertua,

6. Berhubung dengan isu sama ada pihak Tentera Laut DiRaja Malaysia (TLDM) menjejaki kapal perang / penguat kuasa Republik Rakyat China memasuki zon ekonomi eksklusif Malaysia tanpa notis, sukacita saya ingin maklumkan bahawa Malaysia menjalankan rondaan dan pengawasan secara berterusan di kawasan maritim yang dituntut di Laut China Selatan. Dalam masa yang sama, peruntukan undang-undang antarabangsa membolehkan kapal-kapal belayar di lautan di bawah prinsip freedom of navigation tanpa perlu memohon kebenaran sesebuah negar berpantai. Dalam masa yang sama, kapal-kapal yang menjalankan aktiviti yang bercanggah dengan prinsip navigation, seperti menjalankan kajian saintifik marin dan sebagainya di dalam kawasan zon ekonomi eksklusif Malaysia, akan diambil tindakan sewajarnya, Dalam hal ini, sukacita saya maklumkan bahawa pihak TLDM sentiasa memantau aktiviti-aktiviti kapal perang negara-negara luar di kawasan maritim Malaysia di Laut China Selatan.

Sekian, terima kasih.

JUNE 5 — I am told on good authority that you cannot make good china with poor clay, and it is so obvious that we should know it instinctively. By the same token, I expect you cannot form an effective Cabinet with general election rejects.

Appointing them to Cabinet posts in such large numbers through the Senate is not illegal, but is it ethical? Jesse Jackson in a speech to the 1992 National Democratic Convention reminded his audience that what was morally wrong would never be politically right.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak, as our prime minister, would do well to ponder and reflect on the wisdom of this self-evident truth so that he would feel encouraged and inspired to bring moral and ethical principles to bear on the governance of this nation. I naturally hope that in the process, and with God’s help, he will find some time to dwell upon his many grave lapses that have brought his fitness for the highest political office in the land into serious question.

Some months ago I had occasion to allude to the fact that no prime minister in our country’s history had come into office, bent over not with the burden of leadership which would have been understandable, but in Najib’s case, it was his oversize baggage comprising a mix of potent allegations of impropriety ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous.

While some may be nothing more than coffee morning tittle-tattle among the leisure classes, and, therefore, to be treated with the contempt they deserve, one worrying aspect of Najib the man that refuses to evaporate into thin air is corruption.

People still point to the arms purchases made during his long stints as minister of defence, and what he got out of them through his redoubtable defence/political analyst, Razak Baginda.

Would the MACC care to take a look at the wealth behind the man so as to give our 1 Malaysia prime minister a chance to clear his name? And while they are looking at Najib, I think it only fair that they take a look at the wealth of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his family. To show that they are not being selective, they might like to check out Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his family. I am sure these great leaders of ours are dying to clear their names for the sake of their reputation, however defined.

To return to the blatant abuse of the function and role of the Senate in the constitutional life of our country, it is clear that Najib does not put great store by basic rules of the game. He obviously plays by his own rules that postulate the inevitability of immoral behaviour in politics and that scruples are not for the prime minister of Malaysia.

This is a sad commentary on 50 years of Barisan Nasional rule that has seen this once proud country now on its unstoppable decline in social, political and economic terms. Is this the promised just reward for the people of this country for putting their blind faith in the Umno leadership?

It is also a sad reflection of the bankruptcy of ethical values that those whom the people of this country, exercising their rights to choose, cast aside in a democratic process, have now been brought back into the Cabinet.

Who are these recycled seconds supposed to represent? Even if they were a galaxy of Nobel laureates, it would still be totally indefensible for Najib to show such utter contempt and disregard for public opinion by appointing them to the Cabinet. And these are by no means the crème de la crème of Malaysian brains-those that have not disappeared overseas.

Najib plays by his own rules. For him, offering inducements to voters as played out in the Hulu Selangor by-election with a repeat performance in Sibu was par for the course. He obviously could see no contradiction in urging the people to fight corruption while he himself breaks the law with complete impunity, as always aided and abetted by the ever independent Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, so it proclaims, and the equally fearless Elections Commission.

When will Najib learn that there is no substitute for integrity in national life? It is within his power to clean up his act so as to lessen the burden of the negative views and innuendos that he carries on his back to the detriment of his effectiveness as PM.

He must learn quickly that the ultimate decision whether he remains in office, and his party in power, will be made by the very people for whom he has shown such blatant contempt. He may, at this rate, be the last Umno prime minister. — mysinchew.com

SOALAN:

Tunku Abdul Aziz bin Tunku Ibrahim minta PERDANA MENTERI menyatakan laporan penilaian terhadap penubuhan Angkatan Marin dalam mempertahankan kepulauan-kepulauan Malaysia dari menjadi perebutan dengan kuasa kuar.

JAWAPAN:

YB DATUK LIEW VUI KEONG
TIMBALAN MENTERI DI JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI

Tuan Yang Di Pertua,

Kesemua Agensi Penguatkuasa Maritim (APM) Negara dan Tentera Laut Diraja Malaysia (TLDM) telah, sedang dan akan terus melaksanakan tindakan-tindakan yang selaras dengan perundangan negara dalam memastikan keselamatan dan kedaulatan pulau-pulau dan entiti geografi yang berada dalam perairan Malaysia sentiasa selamat dan sentiasa dipertahankan. Antara tindakan-tindakan yang diambil dalam usaha mempertahankan kepulauan dan entiti geografi negara Malaysia dari perebutan kuasa luar adalah seperti berikut:

i. Pelaksanaan rondaan pengawasan harian secara berterusan oleh APM Negara dan TLDM;
ii. Menguatkuasakan undang-undang maritim negara di kawasan tersebut;
iii. Menggazet dan menamakan semua pulau dan entiti geografi yang terdapat dalam perairan negara;
iv. Merekodkan semua rondaan yang dilaksanakan;
v. Mewujudkan kehadiran di seluruh kawsan perairan negara terutamanya kawasan yang mempunyai tuntutan bertindih maritim; dan
vi. Membina sruktur monumen fizikal di pulau-pulau dan entiti geografi negara bagi tujuan pengukuhan kedaulatan seperti di Batuan Tengah, Tawau dan Pulau Layang-layang.

Sekian, terima kasih.

By their very nature, we cannot escape the fact that no matter where in the world, federal arrangements will lead sooner or later to ugly, acrimonious, and bitter controversies and confrontations.

The history of federations is littered with political stillbirths and abortions, and the Malaysian federation is beginning to show cracks with Kelantan, on at least two occasions, expressing unhappiness over the handling of oil revenues by the central government, and now Sabah, to a less extent Sarawak, complaining about not getting a fair crack of the whip in what they see as a hopelessly unequal partnership.

Sabah and Sarawak are the two survivors of the countries, (Singapore opted out after two years) that agreed to join Malaya to create a new country called Malaysia based largely on the Federation of Malaya constitutional model. Federation in the Malaysian context is a myth. We are a unitary state and governed as such from Kuala Lumpur with no pretence that it is otherwise. Without the entry of Sabah and Sarawak, agreeing to come in and lending their considerable weight to the Malaysia concept, there would have been no Malaysia to begin with.

Singapore saw very quickly that it was going to be treated no better than any of the Malay States in the Federation of Malaya and made a hasty exit. It has never looked back. Sabah and Sarawak did not at their then stage of development appreciate what they had got themselves into.

Today, in these two countries, there is a heightened awareness of the distortions and contradictions in the federal arrangements that leave Sabah and Sarawak, the second and third legs of the Malaysian body politic in a limbo.

Their position cannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as in any way subservient to the Malay States collectively known as Malaya or sometimes referred to as Peninsular Malaysia. Malaysia is in effect a tripartite arrangement that should confer equality of treatment. But in reality, the three component parties are not in all respects. Sabah and Sarawak deserve better.

This leads me to a consideration of the urgent need to recognise the importance of Sabah and Sarawak in the overall scheme of things by giving them their rightful place as equal partners and be treated as such. I repeat that they are not Malay states. They have their own proud traditions and identities and resent being exploited by Malaya-based political parties looking to bolster their chances of forming the federal government. Sabahans and Sarawakians have attained a level of social and political development when they may reasonably expect to play a bigger and more meaningful role in their countries’ affairs.

They have benefited from their association with us, and we should be happy to let them develop on their own. They must be given a bigger voice in the running not only their countries, but also Malaysia as a whole. There is no place for overbearing condescension over people who more than four decades ago were persuaded against their better judgement to throw in their lot with a political arrangement they did not fully understand.

I cannot see these two countries not flexing their muscle and demanding a more just and equitable role for themselves consistent with their enhanced level of political maturity. It is better to be proactive in defusing their sense of injustice before matters go out of hand. We need to revisit the constitutional arrangements we have with Sabah and Sarawak and for this purpose a group of experts from Sabah and Sarawak, together with those representing the Government of Malaysia be appointed.

I believe there is still a great deal of goodwill for Malaysia, but it has to be a new Malaysia in which Sabah and Sarawak can see themselves playing a bigger role commensurate with their true worth and value as important lynchpins in the whole mechanics for sustainable growth of the nation.

If we cannot meet the legitimate aspirations of these countries, then we should let them go free if this is what they really want. I know the Malaysian Constitution does not allow states to secede from the federation, but the thing here is that if they want to part company and with our approval, why not? They might become tomorrow’s Singapore, who knows. I have throughout this piece referred to Sabah and Sarawak as countries by way of emphasising their distinctive character. They are not to be treated as Malay states.

We hope it will not come to this, but we ignore their cries in the wilderness at our peril. Let it not be said that it is a case of too little, too late.

A mere footnote at the bottom of a page of Malaysia’s political history or a tome on political change that recreated and revitalised a sick and openly corrupt society into a vibrant and prosperous democracy for all?

Pakatan Rakyat must decide quickly where it wants to be. On present showing, it has not a ghost of a chance to ever breach and occupy the still impregnable Putrajaya citadel, in spite of the credible 8 March 2008 electoral onslaught. It does not have to look far to find out why it is in such a sorry state. Lim Kit Siang’s warning of a “one term miracle” could well become self-fulfilling and Putra Jaya would be just a gleam in the eye if his words are not taken to heart.

Pakatan Rakyat leaders must come to terms with the reality that is Barisan Nasional. We may despise its politics of immorality, of corruption and injustice, but even the most rabid alternative political practitioners must readily concede that it is still a formidable organisation with an armoury of unsavoury tricks they have to contend with.

Remember Perak, and the bad after taste that lingers on and on. Pakatan must wake up from its euphoric pie in the sky self-induced dream that the one off massive voter handouts would be there for the asking at the next general elections. There will be no repeat performance until and unless it gets its act together. The electorate owes PR nothing. The truth is that Pakatan Rakyat owes their supporters everything.

PR leaders must lead by putting the larger interests of the nation above individual parochial party issues with their tendency to be unnecessarily divisive, emotive and controversial. Are these issues really so fundamental that they are incapable being discussed rationally without adding to the fragility of a coalition that is apparently about to be torn asunder?

I wrote some time ago about the difficulty of reconciling the conflicting claims of the many different ideological and doctrinal sacred cows represented by the PR partners, but they must direct their intellectual energies to finding a solution to what the people of multi-racial Malaysia will and will not put up with.

They must open their minds to the larger, and therefore, more relevant social, economic, political, religious and cultural concerns of our people than to insist on playing the same old race and religious cards with their declining appeal to right thinking people. These are barriers to overcome.

If PR is, as it seems, incapable of even getting to the most important item on the new national agenda, then it is offering nothing better to the people of this nation than what BN has been doing for half a century and more. More of the same is an unworthy option for a long suffering people who deserve better. PR leaders must, in all good conscience, ask themselves whether they can lead this complex and difficult nation if they themselves are apparently incapable of agreeing on basic fundamental principles of cooperative engagement to deepen their commitment to values of justice in its widest sense for every Malaysian.

If PK leaders feel that they have neither the will nor the stomach for the sacrifices they are expected to make in order to take the new national non-race based agenda forward on the long march to Putrajaya, they should come out with a straight answer that should leave the people of this country in no doubt where they stand. There is no place for personal agendas in the national scheme of things; certainly not where it is a matter of saving the people from a particularly rotten and unjust system of governance.

Pakatan Rakyat has a great deal to offer by way of a commitment to a clean corruption-intolerant administration and it deserves to be given a chance to govern Malaysia. It cannot be worse than the Umno dominated administration. But then the political game is not about sentimental nonsense. It is determined solely by the dictum “Perform or Perish”, and the PR state governments must prove to the satisfaction of the people in those states, and by extension the nation, that they can be trusted to govern good, and to govern well.

This coalition, even if it were made in heaven, could still come a cropper. PR leaders have themselves to blame in the event.

The Royal Malaysia Police, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as the leader of the pack, and this is a perception that will be difficult to shake off because there have been far too many unexplained incidents involving deaths in custody which have led people to believe that torture, in one form or another, is part of the standard police operating procedure. All this is unfortunate because in a police service as old as ours, it is replete with its own detailed rules and procedures governing every conceivable aspect of modern policing. So, what really has gone wrong with the police?

The only reasonable explanation we can offer is that because of the generally abysmal quality of the officer cadre, these rules are more honoured in their breach than their observance. All this leads me to my favourite observation that there are no bad rank and file, only bad officers. The Inspector-General must be held accountable for the present sorry state of affairs of the service. The responsibility is his and, this dear Tan Sri Musa is the ultimate price and challenge of true leadership.

Those shiny bits and pieces elbowing for space on your overcrowded epaulette have far greater significance than their decorative effect. They symbolise the power conferred on you to do what is right, according to the law for the benefit of all Malaysian citizens, without reference to race, colour or creed and for whose rights to safety and security you took an oath, a long time ago, to uphold.

The overwhelming majority of urbanites do not rate your leadership in curbing serious crimes too highly. Many, again rightly or wrongly, believe that you have reached the limits of your competence. It is time for change in the stewardship of the police: we deserve batter, don’t you think?

It is time, too, for the foot dragging over the IPCMC or to give it its full name, the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission to stop. As a member of the Royal Commission chaired by Tun Dzaidin inquiring into our police service in 2004-2005, listening to the many oral submissions, reading large numbers of written documents, and together with visits to the Hong Kong Police and Scotland Yard in London, I am more than ever convinced that there will be no change in the police culture of impunity until and unless Najib has the political will, and fire in his belly, to put IPCMC not on the back burner, but in the driving seat where it really belongs.

It works, with minor adjustments to suit local conditions, in the UK, Hong Kong and Australia among other countries that embrace unequivocally the rights of citizens to protection against the criminal elements.

The IPCMC is not about the chattering masses interfering with legitimate police work: it is there to protect both the people and the police. The police, believe it or not, need the IPCMC more than the rest of us in order to protect themselves against unfair and unjustified public criticisms.

The police plead for public support and cooperation in their fight against crime. They do realise, after all, that they cannot do it alone, but do they know why members of the community are not falling over themselves to bear witness to crimes committed in their communities? A modicum of human respect would assuredly help in restoring public confidence. Treat witnesses as suspects, employ illegal methods of interrogation and you turn potential friends into potentially hostile and indifferent citizens.

The police must change in their attitude to the public. They must think more about human rights, stewardship and duty in the public interest rather than their rights under the Police Act. They have chosen the police as a career and as the saying goes, the lot of a policeman is not a happy one, and for the IGP, whose own reputation is on the decline in the estimation of the public, trying to lead a beleaguered force out of unfriendly territory cannot be everyone’s idea of fun.

A man in his position should reflect upon the futility of holding the fort against a fast rising tide public opinion. An extension of contract? Surely not. Najib’s 1 Malaysia cannot take root and flourish in an environment of public indifference to the police in whom all trust has but evaporated. Police reform based on the 125 recommendations of the Dzaidin Royal Commission must be the starting point for a thorough overhaul of the Royal Malaysia Police.

Published on August 1, 2009 | My Sinchew

Regaining public confidence will not be a walk in the park for the government given its abysmal record of dealing with deaths in police custody. The government should never have adopted such a patently careless and cavalier attitude when dealing with matters of public concerns. The loss of trust in the government and its agencies is extremely unfortunate because by doing the “right thing” they could have earned and retained our respect, confidence and gratitude.

The initial handling of the Beng Hock “death in custody” case by the MACC could hardly be described as professional and this has fuelled a million and one speculations. All this is extremely unfortunate, but understandable. People simply do not trust the very organisations that are supposed to protect them anymore and, for many, the suspicion they harbour is based on their bitter personal experience of official encounters with the country’s enforcement agencies. Can the government fairly blame the people for feeling angry and resentful with the way the police, and now the MACC, apparently conduct their work?

I have never hidden my true feelings about the MACC. I have been critical of this organisation which, a few months ago, I described in my weekly Sin Chew column, as OLD WINE IN A NEW BOTTLE. I wrote in my opening paragraph:

“What a waste of public funds! The creation of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission will go down in history as a feeble and pathetic final clutch at the straws by a sitting duck prime minister best remembered for his inexhaustible supply of good intentions but with nothing to show for them. The MACC was hastily conceived against a murky background of a web of duplicity and deceit. It was a desperate attempt at deluding the people of this country and the world anti-corruption community that the Abdullah Badawi administration still had a lot of fire in its belly to make corruption a high risk and low return business. The whole process was nothing more than a charade, a sleight of hand that we have come to expect from this government. In the meantime corruption continues to be in robust good health.”

I also touched on the much hyped “Hong Kong model” upon which the new corruption fighting machine is apparently based — the less said the better about this. It is clear for all to see that the MACC falls far short of the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption’s template on at least two counts. The first and most obvious short coming is an absence of a legal provision that will allow a MACC officer to call anyone to account for his wealth and lifestyle that are obviously beyond his known legal income. There is the anti-laundering provision, but this is not the same.

The second is its much touted independence. The MACC is NOT independent. No one believes it is independent because its leadership has allowed it to become a political instrument that is seen by the people to work to the Barisan Nasional agenda. This is because we are manning the MACC with the self-same functionaries who developed second guessing into a fine art form under Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s special guidance. They cannot reasonably be expected to change their work practices which have become almost second nature to them.

I should feel happy because I have been totally vindicated by the recent events but I cannot, in all conscience, bring myself to rejoice amidst a great human tragedy, the totally unexpected death of Teoh Beng Hock, a young loyal Malaysian of great promise who believed passionately in change for a better, safer Malaysia.

If the government wants to retain its legitimacy to govern, it must rededicate itself to the principles of international best practices predicated on justice for all, transparency and accountability in the conduct of the affairs of state. It must clean out its unsavoury stables of corruption because it is corruption that has reduced this country to its present sorry state. As for the MACC, in its present form it is of no use to either man or beast.

Its senior officers have to accept full responsibility for what has gone so horribly wrong so soon after its establishment. Seriously, they should get on their bicycles in full ceremonial uniform dripping with gold plated buttons and other bits and pieces and ride off into the sunset of shame and degradation.

Published on July 23, 2009 | My Sinchew

Nazri of all people should not be too quick off the mark to denounce the trio or any one else for that matter as “crooks” because I expect he himself would be the last to claim that he is a person of complete moral rectitude and that he has not once offended against the code of ethics of his chosen profession, if one could dignify the practice of politics as a profession, in the best sense of the word.

Before I go on, let me say that Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz has always been kind and courteous to me, a gesture I greatly appreciate and happily reciprocate. I write this more in sorrow than anger.

I would not normally give two hoots about Nazri’s boorish and tiresome behaviour, but when he has the gall to go out of his way to blacken the good name of a distinguished former civil servant and a fine gentleman of great honour and integrity, then I feel duty bound to say that his remarks are clearly beyond the pale. I cannot claim to know the other two gentlemen as well as I have known Hanif, but that does not mean that I am not equally saddened by Nazri’s totally uncalled for remarks about them. Nazri has overstepped the bounds of common decency.

In calling Hanif a “crook,” Nazri has strayed into the realm of intellectual dishonesty. As a minister of the crown, he owes it to them whom he described as “crooks” to justify his unkind and indefensible outburst. However, based on the man’s history of intransigence, it would be totally out of character were he to acknowledge that he had wronged these pillars of society by his mindless utterance. Being sensitive is obviously not his strong point.

Any one who has had the privilege of knowing Hanif will readily understand why he continues to be held in such high esteem long, long after he had retired as the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), a position that in his time represented complete and utter dedication, personal and professional honesty and integrity in discharging his duties and responsibilities. It is worth reminding ourselves that it was not for Tan Sri Hanif, as he then was, to go cap in hand to ask for an extension of contract. He offered voluntarily to step down on at least three occasions, and each time his request was turned own by the Prime Minister of the day.

He was the last of that special breed of distinguished Malaysian IGPs who maintained the honour and prestige of the Royal Malaysia Police. He was without any doubt the most outstanding Malaysian IGP to have served this country.

With possibly one exception, his successors have generally been a disgrace to the King’s uniform. A harsh judgement, perhaps, but I stand by my opinion.

AN EXTENSION FOR THE IGP?

And all this leads me to a consideration of whether the Najib administration should give in to pressure from certain quarters to renew the current IGP’s contract. The Prime Minister I am told keeps his ears close to the ground, and if this is true, then no doubt he must be aware of the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of concerned Malaysians about Tan Sri Musa Hassan’s continued service with the Royal Malaysia Police. No IGP in recent memory has been pilloried to the extent that Musa has been, and for very good reasons. The public perception of both the man and the service he leads has been anything but complimentary.

Najib, the self-anointed reformer, makes some hard choices on a whole range of issues on a daily basis, but in the case of the nation’s IGP, he must listen to what the people are saying. What they are saying is that they do not have any confidence in the ability of the police under the direction of the IGP to confront the country’s criminal elements decisively. The do not believe that the IGP has what it takes to keep this country safe. They fear for their safety, and based on the current state of affairs, this is understandable. Police crime statistics are fine as far as they go, but they are no comfort to those who find themselves crime victims with no prospect of getting police protection in a timely manner.

In short they would like to see a change in the top police leadership. The police must surely have a succession plan. I do not believe that no one is ready to step into Musa’s shoes? What, heaven forbid, if Musa should fall under a bus?

After all, we do have a Deputy IGP, all ready and able, waiting in the wings for the cue to perform. By the law of averages, he cannot be worse that his superior. To extend the IGP’s contract given the prevailing mood is to fly in the face of public opinion. Public opinion does matter.

Published on July 18, 2009 | The Malaysian Insider

I am glad that Lee gave Mahathir a wide berth. It would have left a bad taste in the mouth if he had asked to meet the bitter old man of Malaysian politics. Mahathir could have been relied upon to be obnoxious and boorish as only Mahathir knows how. His reference to Lee as the little emperor from a small Middle Kingdom is vintage Mahathir, dripping with venom and uncharitable innuendoes. The man, Mahathir I mean, is a total disgrace to the Malay sense of gracious hospitality and traditional decorum. I suppose the kindest thing to do is to ignore Mahathir and let him continue to entertain the sad fantasy that he is an indispensable part of our country’s process of governance.

Lee Kuan Yew is far from perfect. His record on human rights and media freedom is well documented, and there is not a great deal to choose between his and ours. We should wipe off that feeling of smugness. On balance, though, Lee runs a tight ship and Singapore’s pre-eminent position as a modern, affluent and corruption free society owes entirely to his vision and his determination. What he has achieved for his country in the face of the hopelessly impossible challenges says a great deal about his single minded devotion to public duty in the public interest. Enriching himself or his family has never been part of his game plan.

He has never wavered in his belief right at the outset that corruption, humanity’s greatest curse, was not going to be a feature of Singapore’s governance model. His administration is both clean and efficient, and Singapore’s economy is among the most competitive in the world. Judged against most indicators, Singapore is among the top global performers. While we wallow in corruption and are daily buffeted by one financial scam after another, the ‘Little Red Dot’ – the highly offensive name former President Habibi of Indonesia gave Singapore – continues to notch one accolade after another. Singapore has shown that size does not matter.

I am often asked the reason for my being such a loyal Lee Kuan Yew fan. It goes a long way. As I have said, he is not without a blemish or two, but no man has done more to curb corruption in public life as Lee, to the eternal gratitude of his people who are well served by a corruption free civil service and political leadership. The benefits for Singapore have been enormous in reputational terms. Investors know that their investments are safer in Singapore than in many other jurisdictions because Singapore operates a justice system that is incorruptible.

Singapore has succeeded in curbing corruption to a degree that is rarely achieved elsewhere in Asia, except possibly Hong Kong. Singapore does not need a bloated anti-corruption bureaucracy such as we have with our ineffectual Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission that is a drain on public funds. But what Singapore has in large measure is political will riding on the shoulders of a remarkable leader whose abhorrence for corruption takes on an almost messianic crusade. When we think of Singapore before Lee Kuan Yew, what comes to mind was a country that was a corrupt colonial backwater, filthy, ugly and smelly, not unlike Hong Kong at that time in its history.

Today, Singapore has shown the world that by confronting corruption decisively, and by putting in place systems and policies specifically to make unethical public behaviour a high risk and low return business, a country will become competitive which is the name of the game in the globalised economy. How do we fare by comparison?

The government, in spite of protestations to the contrary, tolerates corruption in all its manifestations. I am not just talking about money changing hands. That is bribery, but equally insidious is bending the rules and exploiting loopholes with a view to defrauding the nation’s coffers. The Port Klang Free Zone scandal is a case in point, and yet we are being told to move on without any of the perpetrators being called to account for their part in this multi-billion ringgit swindle. The government must do its duty in ensuring that those responsible are brought to justice. A scandal of this order of magnitude even for a country such as ours that is so used to living cheek by jowl with grand corruption on a daily basis beggars the imagination. We wait with bated breath to see what Najib will do in this case. Or is he no different from Mahathir and Badawi?

Through sheer force of character, and leading by example, Lee Kuan Yew has been able to make a difference to the lives of his people. Singapore is able today to punch way above its weight. It is a respected name, human rights NGOs may disagree, and I for one wish Singapore well in its relentless fight against man’s most debilitating social ill.

Published on June 19, 2009 | My Sinchew