CHALLENGES AHEAD If there are many unanswered questions, there are also as many challenges. First, the question of the sequencing of reforms. This will differ from country to country, but actually working out precisely where to start in the process is an important one as it will dictate much of the path ahead. It
is in this context that the ―national integrity system workshop‖ can be most effective, providing as it does an opportunity for all stakeholders to participate in a process that otherwise tends to be dominated, for no good or compelling reason, by lawyers. A particular challenge for the outsider is to identify the appropriate (and clean) partners in a given country. There may be many who offer themselves, but the outsider must be able to determine what hidden agendas there may be and what individual motivations are as well as gain a reading on where the people concerned stand in their community. This dictates a special role for civil society in a country from the very outset so as to
ensure that the reform process is fostered with the right ―champions‖. The road blocks, too, need to be identified from the outset, and the base line of acceptable (or perhaps better described as tolerable) conduct which the people are prepared to live with, defined. The credibility of enforcement and watchdog agencies is crucial to the building of public trust and confidence. Credible agencies will attract public co-operation, both as complainants and as witnesses. An institution lacking in trust will not. And at the heart of credible institutions lies their manifest and popularly-accepted integrity. Their leaders must role model conduct of the highest kind. The donor community also has a significant role to play in developing countries, both as part of the problem and as part of the solution. They are part of the problem because in many quarters they are viewed as having turned a blind eye to corruption in the projects they have been funding, and to tolerate the misappropriation of public funds to suit their own ends. However unfair some may think this to be, it is a perception that is very real. And in many instances there is substance to the complaint. So donor organisations must re-examine their own practices, something which many have been doing. And as part of the solution there are activities which donors can, should and do fund, but it is essential that these be locally owned and driven. The traditional form of expert aid — a foreigner flying in for a short period, doing a job and going — has has been conspicuous by its failure to achieve sustainable development. Whatever may may have been the position in the past, most countries now have have the human resources to tackle their own problems, but they may need access to information, the tools
they need to undertake the job and, at times, a word of encouragement. Thus the donor‘s role is to be low key, supportive and facilitative. The more more conspicuous the role of the donor (dominating (dominating small group discussions etc.) the less likely the efforts are to bear fruit. The donor community can; in particular, back up the data collection processes needed to empower civil society to hold the civil service accountable — to to turn public servants into servants for the public. And they can help stress a focus on the bribe giver, and not just the bribe receiver. This is particularly the case in so-called
―grand corruption‖, where for a generation or more exporters from the industrialised countries have
been accustomed to bribing officials in developing countries to win business or to create what in
many cases became ―white elephant‖ projects. Frank acknowledgement of the role of the rich countries in contributing to the present decline, and with it an equally frank admission that no country can claim any sort of moral supremacy when it
comes to corrupt practices, goes a long way towards cementing a meaningful partnership. The ―hand that gives‖ must also be addressed at the national level, but concerted action against the ―grand corrupters‖ from abroad (and the OECD treaty signed in December 1998 offers a way forward for the industrialised world) creates a climate of change and the moral ground necessary to address forms of corruption at lower levels. There are many lessons to learn, and the final one is information sharing. The task countries confront is daunting and everyone needs access to as much experience and
information as possible. This is not an area in which ―experts‖ should develop stand-alone and discreet information bases. This is why TI are joining with the Vienna-based UN Crime Prevention Programme and the Commonwealth Secretariat in London to build a web site which will contain as much best practice as possible. This will be added to, and pruned from, as experience grows. And we would conclude with an invitation to others to join in this project as being one from which all can benefit through sharing.
Ades, A. and R. Di Tella. 1996. ―The Causes and Consequences of Corruption: a Review of Recent Empirical Contributions.‖ IDS Bulletin. University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies (U.K.); 27:6-11. April. Allen, J. R. 1994. Developing and Using Performance Indicators: The Case of Canada. Presentation at National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, D.C., Sept. 27, 1994. (Mimeo). Anderson, Neil. 1996. Evidenced-based Planning: The Philosophy and Methods of Sentinel Community Surveillance. EDI.
Bardhan, P. 1997. Journal of Economic Literature. Volume 35. September. Beckhard, R. and W. Pritchard. 1992. Changing the Essence: The Art of Creating and Leading Fundamental Change in Organisation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Brunetti, A., G. Kisunko, and B. Weder. 1997. ―Institutional Obstacles to Doing Business: RegionbyRegion Results from a Worldwide Survey of the Private Sector‖ Policy Research Working Paper, 1759. The World Bank. Bryson, J. 1996. Creating and implementing your strategic plan: a Workbook for Public and Nonprofit Organisations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. CIETinternational. 1995. Performance and Perceptions of Health and Agricultural Services i n Uganda. Dalziel, M. 1988. Changing Ways: A Practical Tool for Implementing Change within Organisations. New York: American Management Association. Fink, A. 1995. The Survey Kit (9 vols.) Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Goerzen, Jean (ed.). 1996. Service Delivery Surveys: Applying the Sentinel Community Surveillance Methodology, Country Overviews. EDI.
BASIC STATISTICS and FACTS Malaysia ranks 43
rd
in Transparency International‘s Corruption Perception Index (CPI) 2007,
rd
down from 33 place in 2002. Transparency International‘s Global Corruption Barometer 2007 (GCB) shows 6% of Malaysian respondents having paid a bribe, with 13% as the total sample average The police, political parties and business sector were perceived to be the most corrupted sectors in Malaysia in the GCB 2007. 63% of Malaysian respondents felt that corruption would increase in the next three years, GCB 2007. 53% of Malaysian respondents felt that Government‘s efforts to fight corruption are effective, 37% ineffective, GCB 2007. http://www.ourdifferentview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ELECTIONS-%E2%80%9808DAILY-POLICY-FACTSHEET-.pdf
JUDICIARY CORRUPTION
Ever since Abdullah Badawi took over as Prime Minister of the country from Dr Mahathir, there have been many high-sounding pronouncements declaring an aversion to corruption. We have been led to believe that a total battle has been waged against corruption to eliminate it altogether. After 12 months in the seat of absolute power, nothing seemed to have changed. If anything, corruption stares at Abdullah daily; it mocked him in September when the UMNO Supreme Council was elected. There were many allegations of corruption involving money politics. Indeed, there were proven cases of money politics and disciplinary actions have been instituted against party leaders who have been found guilt y. A whole lot of 11 traffic policemen from Bukit Aman were nabbed for accepting bribes recently in Karak. Likewise, there are many instances of corruption all over the country, involving contractors, civil servants, policemen, clerks, politicians and many others in positions of authority. But corruption affects us most insidiously when we are made to believe that it exists in the Judiciary. This is not only disturbing but it is most devastating because the Judiciary is looked upon as the dispenser of justice. It is seen as the last hope for the weak seeking justice and protection against the powers of the state. But when that institution is seen to be corrupt it destroys our notion of justice and fairness. This is why the Judiciary must be perceived as being honest and clean. And whenever some doubt is cast, an immediate investigation is necessary to cleanse the Judiciary and restore public confidence. Unfortunately serious investigations have not been the norm – very often such undertakings are meant to whitewash and pretend that everything is fine.
You may recall the incident of the poison-pen letter in 1996. It listed a litany of serious allegations – 112 in all – against 12 judges. Of the said total, 21 were allegations pertaining to the abuse of power, 39 of corruption and 52 of misconduct, immorality and other indiscretions. It claimed corrupt payments of RM50,000 with recipients graduating to accepting millions from named persons. This poison-pen letter totally discredited the Judiciary and did irreparable damage. People were shocked into disbelief reading the detailed accounts of gross misconduct. It would have warranted a Royal Commission to investigate these allegations but that was not the case. An internal police investigation concluded that the allegations were ―wholly untrue and baseless.‖ If that was the case, why was no action taken against the writer for fabrication and false publication? Weren‘t Lim Guan Eng and Irene Fernandez convicted for allegedly committing a similar offence? Was it the fear that the writer would spill the beans and reveal details of incriminating evidence that prevented an open trial?. The writer was believed to be Justice Syed Idid of the High Court and he should know better! Appearing before preferred judges. You may recall the controversial Ayer Molek Rubber Co Case. This case exposed the scandalous situation in the Judiciary. Lawyers were found to file their cases in such a way that they could manipulate their way to appear before their preferred judges. This apparently was prevalent in cases involving commercial crimes. Even the New Straits Times was moved to comment in an editorial that ―…questions are already being asked why the courts and judges are speedy in hearing commercial cases, especially when big companies and big business were involved, and the apparent ease with which parties choose courts to go to and which judge to seek out…This is inevitable when thousands of criminal and civil cases have been held up for years. Some remand prisoners have to languish in jails for years while waiting to stand trial.‖ (3 Sept 1995). The Court of Appeal in this case went so far as to say that from the facts, it gave ―the impression to right thinking people that litigants can choose the judge before whom they wish to appear for their case to be adjudicated upon.‖ The Court of Appeal pointed out that the High Court judge had ignored the provisions of the law and seemed to allege that injustice was indeed perpetrated by the court. Justice N. H. Chan observed that the process of the High Court was abused and that the Court proceedings were manipulated to win the injunction against Ayer Molek. He asserted that the ―plaintiffs through their legal advisers have abused the process of the High Court by instigating the injustice through misuse of the Court‘s procedur e by
manipulating it in such a way that it became manifestly unfair to the defendants.‖ He added that ―by doing what they did, these unethical lawyers have brought the administration of justice into disrepute among right thinking people.‖ Justice N H Chan in that famous quotation remarked, ―All is not well in the House of Denmark.‖ It is a damning indictment. Incidentally, the Court was housed in the building called ―Wisma Denmark‖. Of course, the Federal Court overruled this judgment. Chief Justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, in delivering judgment asked, ―Why should the learned judges of the Court of Appeal go on a frolic of their own and find fault with the High Court judge, criticize the conduct of the applicant‘s solicitors in a very disparaging manner?‖. Inexplicably, Eusoff Chin ordered the damning remarks of the Appeal Court judges to be expunged from the records. Why? Was it because they were incriminating and exposed the rot in the Judiciary? But the composition of the Federal Court which heard and decided the appeal was clearly unconstitutional according to Article 122(2) of the Malaysian Constitution, thus rendering its decision null and void and of no consequence. Yet, that ruling, void as it was, still stands as a terrible injustice mocking the Judiciary. You may recall that in early 1998 photographs of Tun Eusoff Chin, the Chief Justice, holidaying in New Zealand with a lawyer who also had appeared before the same judge were published on the Internet. This rightly caused an uproar. This was improper behaviour and that such socializing was not consistent with the proper behaviour of a judicial personality, observed Dr Rais Yatim. This was a scandalous episode that did irreparable damage to the Judiciary. It is totally unpalatable that the cause of this damage should be the Chief Justice of Malaysia himself. You may recall what the High Court Judge Datuk Muhammad Kamil bin Ahmad had to say when declaring the State election held in March 1999 for the Likas Constituency in Sabah null and void. He revealed that he had received directive over the phone to strike out the two election petitions without a hearing. The Malaysian Bar viewed this blatant and corrupt attempt as an ―affront to judicial integrity and independence of the learned judge and the Rule of Law ‖ and called for action by the authorities concerned. As to be expected, nothing transpired. But when Anwar allegedly instructed the police regarding his case he was convicted for corruption. Grave wrong must be righted. Similarly, there is still grave concern about the Judicial Crisis of 1988. What transpired – the intrigue, the plotting, judiciary conspiring with the executive – is still crying out for justice and demanding that a grave wrong be righted. Likewise, the choice of the
judge and the manner by which the judge was chosen to hear the Anwar case has to be investigated. The way the judge became an active combatant in this case rather than adopting a strict neutral stance needs to be looked into. Why evidence given under oath had to be expunged when the case wasn‘t going well for the prosecution has to be clarified. This entire sordid and shameful episode surrounding this case which was reeking with injustice was very aptly summed up by the Chairman of the Bar Council then, R. R. Chelvarajah, ―The unusual manner in which the trial itself was conducted — for example, the refusal of bail; the expunging of evidence given on oath; preventing the accused from raising every possible and conceivable defence and limiting him to particular defences; compelling the defence to state beforehand what evidence the defence sought to adduce through various witnesses; disallowing witnesses from testifying and making rulings as to their relevancy without first hearing their testimony; citing and threatening defence lawyers with contempt proceedings including sentencing a defence lawyer to three months‘ imprisonment for contempt while in the exercise of their legal duties — raises questions impinging on the administration of justice.‖ It is imperative that the actions and conduct of the judges must be beyond reproach and above suspicion and be seen and perceived to be so if they are to command the respect and confidence of the public. The image of the Judiciary has been severely battered and shattered through the unbecoming conduct and questionable behaviour of some unethical judges. They have insidiously and brazenly destroyed an institution that was in the past viewed with admiration and awe for its high standards of ethics and sound judgments. There is now an urgent need to restore and maintain the dignity, integrity, independence and impartiality of the Judiciary. This can only be achieved when a Royal Commission is established in an honest attempt to restore its lost respect and confidence and purge the Judiciary of all the negative elements plaguing it. P
Ramakrishnan,
Aliran
Monthly
Vol
25
(2005):
Issue
1.
Retrieved
by
:
http://aliran.com/archives/monthly/2005a/1i.html
Corruption a real danger to the people
Many Malaysians share William Leong's views and no doubt will be looking forward to reading Tay Choo Foo's book ‗Lawless'. But don't expect them to be shocked because a royal commission into judge-fixing and our observations of Anwar Ibrahim's Sodomy II trial have already exposed the questionable conduct of those in the Judiciary.Lawlessness is not only when society breaks down in anarchy but can occur without any apparent civil disorder. Such
lawlessness is worse than open chaos. Victims often suffer in silence without redress and recourse to a public hearing because the system is stacked against them while the perpetrators enjoy impunity.For law-abiding citizens who believe in the rule of law and rely on the judiciary to be a house of justice, any hint of a tainted system is unacceptable, let alone the blatant incidents of judicial impropriety. Judicial corruption is well known in Malaysia since the Lord President was unceremoniously and unfairly sacked in 1988 and judges have had to face their dilemma every time they preside over a politically-connected case, thanks to the one who corrupted the judiciary, the Father of Dilemmas and his retinue of corrupt judges and high officials who left their posts, beckoned to his call and bent to his will in his heyday. Improper conduct of those upholding the law
The dangers for society are not only the corruption of the judiciary but every public institution. Which public institution in Malaysia has not come under the thumb of the politicians who abuse their powers and subject everyone to their lawless ways? Is that not why we read of improper conduct by those who should be upholding the rule of law?
The police force has been demoralised and reduced in some instances to acting as nothing more than henchmen for the politicians. It was refreshing to read of a former senior police officer damning those who are corrupt and calling for their accounting. For all their faults, I still believe there are good and honest cops. Watching student leader Adam Adli being assaulted in front of a police station must have been a more painful experience for bystandersand those who saw the
YouTube
clip of the incident. Those policemen should not
need an invitation to enforce the law, for it was exceedingly clear the perpetrator was attempting to commit criminal assault on the hapless student. This is no way for an older person, supposedly a policeman not in uniform, to abuse a young student that way. It makes you wonder what they do to those in their custody, hidden from the cameras.
Another troubling problem is the failure of the government to separate its political and administrative roles. A government should not be politicisng its role when acting in its capacity as the Executive. When governments play politics while performing their executive functions, they risk being accused of abusing their powers. A government is not synonymous with the political party that runs it. As an analogy, the managers of a public company do not own the company but are its professional managers. Likewise, a political party in power does
not own the government and can do as it likes without accountability or limits. If you are a steward, you don't behave as if you own the place or what is entrusted into your safeguarding. We're conditioned to think gov't owns the country
Sadly, over the years, the people have been conditioned to think the government belongs to one political party, and worse those in power think they own the country. But now more and more Malaysians realise that no one has the perpetual role in government and least of all, one that has had more than its fair share of innings in power. It is not only time for change, but change is past overdue. After 54 four years, the people have seen some decent development, albeit having to pay for them, for example high and elaborate tolls and various taxes, but sadly there is also a more disappointing fragmented society, a cabinet including allegedly corrupt ministers, a new class of racist and religious extremists and subversives, a former country leader and PM-destroyer who gives new meaning to retirement from politics, countless ‗illegal citizens' and ‗phantom voters', families struggling to make ends meet and a litany of other problems. Real progress has been confined to only certain groups of people and the majority of Malaysians still struggle to eke out a living and make ends meet. Raising the average income to about RM1,500 is a joke, just like Bob Hawke promised there will be no poor child in Australia when he was in government. It would be cowardly of Malaysians to not face the truth and realise their country is not speeding toward the promised high-income economy but to a furtive future as the managers help themselves and violate the people's trust in questionable and flagrantly corrupt dealings. The promises do not match the reality. It is time for all politicians to choose who they will serve, even as Malaysians are soon to be asked to choose who they want to govern their country. Crooks masquerading as politicians
That crooks are masquerading as politicians and legitimising their crooked ways through the corrupt political patronage system will only result in an impoverished nation and the birds will have flown when people realise they have been robbed. I was tickled to read a Harakah article describing Abdul Razak Baginda turning over a new leaf. It is not the time to exploit religion for what is a matter of plain morality. You don't need to be religious to be moral but it will give you the motivation when you supposedly see the light. There is the
story of a tax collector who, upon conviction of his sinfulness by Jesus, not only publicly confessed his wrongdoings but offered to make restitution and to pay back four ti mes what he had unfairly extorted from the taxpayers. Will Razak Baginda set the record straight and do what is right, not only in the eyes of his God but the Malaysian public? I hope so, because those who repent must produce fruit in keeping with repentance. I hope the report is reliable because there is no future for those who are corrupt and who corrupt others. Every Godfearing and country-loving citizen has a moral obligation to expose any wrongdoing that is at the expense of other people because to conceal such crucial evidence and let the innocent suffer is tantamount to criminal and moral culpability. We speak out for those who are unjustly treated because we are our neighbours' keepers and we have a moral obligation to seek justice for them. The one we help is all that matters when we don't know who or how to help. It is better to be an enemy than a friend of injustice. There can never be a future for any corrupt politician because their wrongdoings will inevitably catch up with them, sooner or later, and while they may think themselves esteemed with their ill-gotten gains while alive, they leave their children and children's children a cursed legacy. Meanwhile, I applaud NECF leader Reverend Eu Tong Seng for his bold statements and wise decision to not change that which is not changeable and the wisdom to know the difference by deciding to not comment further on what he has stated clearly in his recent speech. There are desperadoes out to bait others and create mischief for their political masters and Christians are used to persecution and being victims of slander and injustice, and wise enough not to provide the fuel for others to burn them. So far as it is possible, they are to be at peace with those who do them wrong. Any fool will quickly quarrel. People who do nasty things to others only hurt themselves and will rue their stupidity in more sober moments. There is virtue in not casting pearls before the swine and whatever is not clear will be made clear in time, but that does not preclude concerned individuals from having their say in a responsible, candid and honest manner in the public arena. Reasonable people debate but unreasonable people threaten and coerce. When the choice is between good and bad governance, the task of picking who to vote for becomes simpler. Who wants more bad governance and more corruption? http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/185181
Judicial System Individual Corruption
According to a Merdeka Center for Opinion Research Peninsula Malaysia Voter Opinion Poll July 2008, the public is very concerned about the fairness and independence of the Attorney General and the judiciary, and satisfaction with the courts is low. Corruption is assumed to be one of the main reasons behind this popular dissatisfaction with the courts. According to Freedom House 2011, public frustration over several incidents including the lack of judicial integrity was sparked off in 2007, based on allegations of the executive's influence over the judiciary. Long delays and opaqueness in trials of high-level politicians have fed perceptions
of
judicial
bias.
On
the
other
hand,
according
to
Transparency
International's Global Corruption Barometer 2010, a majority of the surveyed households who had contact with the judiciary in 2009 stated that they had not paid a bribe. Business Corruption
According to Transparency International's Bribe Payers Index 2008, the judiciary is perceived by surveyed business executives to be one of the most corrupt institutions in Malaysia. Furthermore, business executives surveyed by the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011 identify the judicial system as being influenced by members of government, citizens and companies enough to constitute a competitive disadvantage. Likewise, they identify the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge government actions and/or regulations as constituting a competitive disadvantage. Political Corruption
Many observers have expressed concerns over political interference in judicial matters. Freedom House 2011 reports that a judicial crisis broke out in August 2007 involving alleged politicisation of the judiciary. In addition, according to several sources, including the US Department of State 2010 and Freedom House 2011, there are reports of arbitrary or politically motivated verdicts, selective prosecution, and preferential treatment of lawyers and litigants in the legal system. In recent years, there have been numerous publicised examples of dubious judicial practices and political interference in court matters:
- In September 2007, Anwar Ibrahim, the former Deputy Prime Minister, released a tape with evidence of corrupt dealings between a well-connected lawyer, a minister and a businessman involving the brokering of appointments with various judges, fix ed high-profile cases and the arrangement of the promotion of judges. The tape provoked public outrage and concern within the judiciary. An independent Royal Commission of Inquiry has subsequently been established and is continuing to investigate judicial corruption, and the so-called 'businesspolitician-judges nexus'. - In mid-2008, the Royal Commission of Inquiry released its findings and determined that several high-ranking political figures had been involved in manipulating judicial appointments and improperly influenced the promotion of judges. Later, the Attorney General announced that his office would investigate the allegations. However, in June 2008 all the cases were closed due to a lack of evidence. http://www.business-anti-corruption.com/country-profiles/east-asia-the-pacific/malaysiaversion-10/corruption-levels/judicial-system/
