APABILA membincangkan tentang perpaduan, kita semua sudah pasti berbangga dengan kejayaan Malaysia menjadi sebuah negara yang aman-damai walaupun didiami penduduk berbilang kaum dan agama.

Bagaimanapun, kejayaan itu bukan bermakna kita boleh leka kerana terdapat pihak-pihak tertentu termasuk parti politik dan pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NGO) yang cuba memainkan api perkauman bagi meraih sokongan.

Bagi memastikan perbuatan pihak terbabit tidak merosakkan keamanan yang telah dicapai sejak merdeka, maka bermula Julai 2009 telah ditubuhkan Yayasan 1Malaysia bagi memupuk perpaduan di kalangan rakyat negara ini.

Ia adalah badan bebas yang tidak berasaskan keuntungan bagi menyokong inisiatif-inisiatif kerajaan dan sektor swasta dalam membangunkan perpaduan nasional.

Antara aktiviti penting yang diatur yayasan itu adalah menggalakkan diskusi berhubung isu-isu hubungan kaum secara rasional dan seimbang serta memberikan peluang kepada rakyat Malaysia menceritakan pengalaman yang boleh mencerminkan semangat 1Malaysia.

Jawatankuasa Eksekutif yayasan itu dipengerusikan oleh Dr. Chandra Muzaffar dan ahli-ahlinya ialah Pengerusi Institut Kebangsaan Kesihatan dan Keselamatan Pekerjaan (NIOSH), Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye; Ketua Eksekutif Institut Pengajian Antarabangsa dan Strategik (ISIS), Dr. Mahani Zainal Abidin dan Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Kumpulan AirAsia Berhad, Tan Sri Tony Fernandes.

Dalam pada itu, Chandra yang diminta mengulas usaha memupuk perpaduan di negara ini berkata, walaupun ketibaan 2012 menandakan masuk tahun ketiga yayasan itu ditubuhkan, pihaknya tidak menggangap telah berjaya sepenuhnya untuk mencapai matlamat penubuhan badan itu.

“Saya menganggap usaha memupuk perpaduan ini sebagai satu usaha yang berterusan dan ia adalah satu perjalanan.

“Oleh kerana ia satu usaha berterusan, sudah tentu kita tidak boleh mencapai segala-galanya dalam tempoh dua tiga tahun,” katanya kepada Utusan Malaysia di pejabat yayasan itu di Petaling Jaya, baru-baru ini.

Mengulas lebih lanjut, Chandra berkata, yayasan itu akan meneruskan perjuangan bagi mempertingkatkan kesedaran rakyat mengenai pentingnya perpaduan menerusi pelbagai aktiviti termasuk seminar dan bengkel.

“Mesej penting yang ingin kita sampaikan kepada orang ramai adalah soal perpaduan di negara kita tidak boleh dipisahkan daripada dua faktor iaitu sejarah negara dan keadaan semasa. Dua faktor ini harus difahami oleh rakyat dan kedua-dua ini harus kita mengimbanginya.

“Apabila menyentuh mengenai keseimbangan, kita harus memahami betapa pentingnya Perlembagaan Persekutuan kerana ia bukti paling indah tentang konsep keseimbangan ini,” ujarnya.

Beliau berkata, contoh keseimbangan itu boleh dilihat daripada langkah menjadi bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa kebangsaan.

“Itu satu pengiktirafan terhadap sejarah, pengiktirafan terhadap realiti kawasan atau rantau ini apabila bahasa Melayu menjadi bahasa pengantar selama beratus-ratus tahun.

“Pada masa sama kita menerima keadaan semasa dengan menganggap bahasa-bahasa lain yang digunakan dalam masyarakat seperti bahasa Inggeris, bahasa Cina, bahasa Tamil dan lain-lain bahasa adalah sebahagian daripada negara kita,” ujarnya.

Jelas beliau, contoh lain melibatkan langkah menjadikan Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan, seperti yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan negara.

“Langkah ini dibuat berdasarkan hakikat sejarah, tetapi pada masa yang sama kita tahu bahawa dalam tempoh beberapa dasawarsa ini wujud kaum-kaum yang lain dengan agama masing-masing.

“Bagi mengimbangi hakikat sejarah dengan keadaan semasa maka agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan tetapi pada masa sama, penganut agama lain kena menerima agama Persekutuan ialah Islam,” katanya.

Menyentuh mengenai program-program bagi memupuk perpaduan yang telah dijalankan, beliau berkata, antaranya membabitkan bengkel dua kali setahun melibatkan pelajar tingkatan empat hingga enam termasuk daripada aliran Cina dari Lembah Klang.

“Pada November 2011, kita juga menganjurkan seminar untuk ahli-ahli politik muda Barisan Nasional (BN) dan pembangkang supaya mereka berkongsi pandangan tentang perpaduan,” katanya.

Sementara itu, jelasnya pada awal bulan ini, pihaknya turut menganjurkan Dialog Antara Budaya.

Dialog sehari yang dianjurkan dengan kerjasama Association of Voices of Peace, Conscience and Reason (PCORE) itu bertujuan berkongsi dan bertukar pengetahuan tentang kepelbagaian etnik, budaya dan agama yang terdapat di Malaysia.

Dialog yang pertama kali dianjurkan itu disertai kira-kira 200 peserta tempatan dan asing. Ia dirasmikan oleh Sultanah Johor yang juga Penaung PCORE, Raja Zarith Sofia Sultan Idris Shah.

Beliau berkata, perbincangan ketika seminar ini cukup bagus dan konklusi daripada dialog adalah identiti kaum, komuniti dan agama tidak bertentangan dengan identiti nasional.

“Tetapi sekiranya kita melampaui batas dalam soal identiti kaum, umpamanya kita memperjuangkan bahasa suku kaum tertentu, sehingga mengetepikan bahasa kebangsaan, ini sudah tentu bertentangan dengan identiti nasional.

“Ini bermakna kita harus mengimbangi identiti kaum dan identiti nasional,” katanya yang juga Profesor Pengajian Global Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM).

Katanya, contoh lain melibatkan tindakan mendewa-dewakan sekolah aliran Cina sehingga tidak memberi keutamaan kepada sekolah kebangsaan, yang sudah tentu bertentangan dengan aspirasi kebangsaan.

Tambah beliau, seminar itu turut memberi penekanan kepada nilai-nilai bersama yang didokong oleh semua kaum sebagai faktor penyatu.

“Ini termasuk nilai hidup harmonis dengan alam sekitar, menghargai peranan keluarga sebagai asas masyarakat dan menghormati ibu bapa.

“Penghormatan kepada mereka yang berusia, keadilan dan kebebasan adalah juga beberapa nilai bersama yang kita tekankan,” ujarnya.

On the occasion of the 200^th birth anniversary of the celebrated English writer, Charles Dickens, one senses that many well-heeled, well-educated Malaysians harbour some “Great Expectations” about the future of the nation once the Barisan Nasional (BN) is ousted from power in the 13^th General Election.   There are various dimensions to these Great Expectations.

There are Malaysians who are convinced that a Pakatan Rakyat (PR) government in Putrajaya will usher in a magnificent era of honest, competent governance. They forget that when a government is overthrown in a democracy there is no guarantee that its successor will be able to ensure the triumph of good, clean governance partly because the scope for radical, holistic change in a competitive party system with deep, vested interests is limited. The Janata Party in India, in spite of its popular crusade against corruption within the ruling Indian National Congress, failed to curb the scourge and was in power for only three years from 1977 to 1980. Similarly, the opposition coalition that replaced the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in 1993 hardly made a dent upon the institutionalised elite corruption that has plagued Japanese politics for a long while.

The PR, it is true, has, at the state level, initiated a couple of measures that reflect good governance such as the declaration of the assets of Executive Council members and a ‘Freedom of Information Act.’ Mentri Besar Azizan Abdul Razak in Kedah and Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng in Penang are perceived by a segment of the public in the two states as men of integrity. Nonetheless, questions have arisen in these and other PR states about flood mismanagement, under-priced land sale, shady sand deals and nepotism. Besides, there are high profile leaders in the PR who were deeply involved in money politics and vote-buying not so long ago.

This is why in the struggle against corruption one should not expect a miracle to happen with the advent of a new government. The exercise of power invariably opens the door to temptation. Abraham Lincoln was right when he observed that the “true test of a person’s character is not when he is in adversity but when he has power.”  This also explains why institutions outside the arena of power politics such as the Courts, enforcement agencies and people’s movements have been more effective in curbing corruption in democratic societies. It is these institutions that Malaysian citizens should help to strengthen.

There is another dimension to Great Expectations that many Chinese and Indian Malaysians in particular subscribe to. The PR leadership, they fervently hope, will bring to an end, policies that favour Malays and Bumiputras in certain specific areas. This will not happen because the Special Position of the Malays and the Bumiputras of Sabah and Sarawak is an entrenched Article in the Malaysian Constitution under the direct protection of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Conference of Rulers. Neither the ballot box nor Parliament can change this. Even the Democratic Action Party (DAP) — seen as the vehicle for some of these expectations— has at its recent party congress reiterated its support for the Special Position Article in the Constitution.

The most that one can hope for is that the PR will implement policies emanating from Special Position in a fair and equitable manner. The BN— many objective analysts will argue— has also attempted to implement Special Position policies with an appreciable degree of justice.  There have been occasions, however, over the last 54 years when BN leaders have faltered and failed. This has created anger and unhappiness among a lot of non-Malays and some Malays. Since the inability to place the public good over private gain is often the reason for deviation, one can expect this human failing to occur even when the PR or some other group is in power. Hence, the importance of eternal vigilance on the part of the citizenry.

A third and final dimension of Great Expectations is confined largely to the Muslims in PR and their backers.  They are praying that with PR in power, the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) will be able to move steadily towards its ultimate goal of an Islamic State. Those issues that affect non-Muslims directly may be put on the back-burner for a while but other aspects of Fiqh (jurisprudence) pertaining to women, male-female interaction, culture and entertainment, and hudud, it is quite conceivable, will be implemented one way or another. PAS’s constituency which will be much more massive once it is on the saddle of power, its ideological orientation, and the influence of the ulama within and without the party, will ensure that it remains faithful to its agenda.  It is very unlikely that Muslims from other parties in Parliament will openly oppose PAS’s Islamic agenda given the uncritical acceptance of ulama authority among Malaysian Muslims.

That PAS is determined to fulfil its ideological mission is borne out by its conduct after its best parliamentary performance ever in the 1999 General Election. Though it promised to uphold the common manifesto it shared with its other three partners in what was then collectively known as the Barisan Alternatif, — a manifesto that made no mention of an Islamic State or hudud or fiqh— PAS, which had captured Trengganu from the BN, proclaimed almost immediately that it would be enforcing the kharaj, an antiquated tax meant specifically for non-Muslims, in that state.  The proposal was subsequently aborted partly because of protests from its partners.  Nonetheless, PAS Trengganu later went ahead with its hudud legislation to prove its fidelity to its vision of Islam.

What this shows is that if Pakatan Rakyat comes to power in Putrajaya,  PAS may be in a better position to achieve some of its Great Expectations compared to the DAP. Political and constitutional realities will constrain the latter. As for other Great Expectations about governance and integrity, Malaysians would do well to adopt a critical but balanced approach towards politicians of all stripes.

Our best hope lies in continuing to speak truth to power on both sides of the divide.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Yayasan 1Malaysia and Professor of Global Studies at Universiti Sains Malaysia.

12 February 2012.

Brain drain is a political football in our country. Critics of the government cite this as another casualty of the government’s discriminative policies. The government feels so defensive that it recently formed the Talent Corporation to bring back some of the talents that have supposedly flowed out.

Brain drain is a phrase originally coined by the British Royal Society to refer to the exodus of scientists and technologists from the United Kingdom to the United States and Canada in the 50s and 60s. In today’s context, it has come to mean the flight of a nation‘s most highly skilled individuals like engineers, physicians, scientists, and other professionals, from developing to developed countries.

Type “brain drain” in Google and thousands of stories surface, from demands for wage increases to curtail the outflow of doctors in Pakistan, to claims that Malaysia’s brain drain is retarding its economic progress. Here the term “brain drain” has evolved into an emotionally-charged phrase, implying serious loss.

While it is generally accepted that it is undesirable to lose our well-educated people, it is still not clear how much, and at what point, the “loss” becomes damaging to the country. For example, if a few young lawyers, engineers, accountants, doctors were to leave Malaysia and work elsewhere or migrate elsewhere, has it harmed us in any way?

Statistically, one could make a case that it is affecting the ratio of doctor to patient in the country etc.  However, if someone like Hassan Merican , the former CEO of Petronas, Lee Shin Cheng of IOI or Tony Fernandes of AirAsia were to go elsewhere today, then one would definitely say it’s a great loss to the country.  One is Malaysia’s only approven CEO on a global scale and the other two are great entrepreneurs.

It seems to me there is insufficient clarity as to the factors that drive brain drain and its effect on our country.  Most discussions about brain drain in our country are underpinned by one assumption: brain drain is a zero-sum game where the recipient country gains and the donor nation loses.

In my opinion, this theory is problematic for a number of reasons. It assumes a limited supply of skilled workers in the donor nations and its depletion will retard its development. This may not always be true. For example, the Philippines, which sends more nurses abroad than any other developing country, still has more nurses per capita at home than UK does. According to the World Bank, Britain has more professional émigrés than any nation in the world. California’s research labs are dominated by Brits, yet UK science has gone from strength to strength.

India’s experience of brain drain may have a few lessons to offer us. In Silicon Valley, California, the Indians have played a very significant role and contributed much to the success of its ICT industry. However, once opportunities increased at home, they moved back, taking skills and abilities gained overseas to create one of the world’s most dynamic IT industries, prompting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to say, “The problem of brain drain has been converted happily into the opportunity of brain gain.”

The most problematic assumption with the brain drain theory in Malaysia is the suggestion that the primary reason for migration is political motivation. Is it true? Let me illustrate my point with the following stories.

Recently, I met the grandson of my late friend who came back from England for a holiday. This young man, Teck Teh is credited with having made an important discovery in cancer genes. I thought I would ask if he would come back. His reply was, although he misses home and loves Malaysia, there is no way for him to return home just now.  The reason is that in his field of work, Malaysia doesn’t have the infrastructure nor the scientific peers needed for his research work.

My old friend and business partner Koon Yew Yin has four children, out of whom three now live overseas. All received their education in England’s public schools. One became a psychiatrist, married an Englishman and now lives in England. The second daughter trained as an architect and married an American and now lives in USA.  His only son married a Filipino girl here and after some years, migrated to Canada because his wife  wanted to be with her family who had all settled there.  The only one in Malaysia is his accountant daughter who married a Malaysian and now lives here.

My late classmate and close friend Dr. Gopal Kumar and his doctor wife also had four children. In the 80s, they took their family to Australia for the sake of their education. After his children graduated, he and his wife came back because they love Ipoh. Their eldest son went to England to train as an eye specialist, got a job and settled down there.  A daughter, also a doctor, married and settled in Australia.    Another son who had spent most of his life in Australia liked the Australian lifestyle and decided to settle there. The only one in Malaysia trained in computer science, married a Malaysian and now lives in Ipoh.

In the seven cases above, emigration decisions were clearly driven by universal concerns such as lifestyle, career and family.  In the case of my former classmate and business partners’ children I would suggest that one reason for their emigration was that they went overseas too young, got used to the lifestyle and formed relationships including falling in love.  When it comes to the matters of the heart I doubt the Talent Corp can do much.

Speaking of the heart, for years I have argued that the debate on brain drain has focused too much on discussing the wrong organ.  A brain drain is only a problem if it is be accompanied by a heart drain.   Take the case of Jimmy Choo who had to struggle for decades in London and became a shoemaker to the rich and famous.  The Jimmy Choo brand is the only global luxury brand created by a Malaysian.  Jimmy Choo’s heart has always stayed in Malaysia.  He has now come home in his retirement to offer his skills and experience to help his countrymen.

Then at a more humble level you have the thousands of Chinese Malaysians who “parachuted”  into Japan, Canada, US and Europe to work illegally and remit money back to Malaysia to support their family and hopefully to accumulate enough savings to come home to start a small business.  Why do they do have to leave Malaysia?  Wages here are insufficient to support their families and off they went without rancour anyone.  These are big hearted Malaysians.

In the case of China it is well known that thousands of Chinese American scientists have gone back to China to contribute to Chinese science up to nuclear bomb level!

We should perhaps look at the Malaysian Diaspora as an asset.  Aside from the benefits of remittances, migration can open up channels for knowledge transfer, leading to the proliferation and spread of trade, investment, technology, and ideas as shown by India and China. Also two of the countries with the highest recorded multi-decade growth rates in history – Taiwan and South Korea – had few qualms about thousands of their best and brightest going abroad.

Perhaps in our debate about brain drain we should not worry too much about the brain but be really concerned about the heart. I always thought Malaysia is not a difficult country to love, though it can be painful sometimes.

UNITEN INAUGURAL INTEGRITY LECTURE SERIES, 3^rd. February 2012

INTEGRITY: YOU KNOW IT BUT DO YOU HAVE IT?

By Tun Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Mohamad (Former Chief Justice of Malaysia)

I thank UNITEN and the Institut Integriti Malaysia for giving me the honor of delivering the first lecture of this series. I am more honored by the fact that this lecture is on integrity which makes me believe that I must have some integrity, at least sufficient to deliver this lecture, provided that the invitation is not a mistake !

As I am not an academician, I have decided to speak about what I have seen, heard and experienced throughout my life, vis-a-vis integrity. So, if you were to ask me how long I took to prepare this lecture, my answer is “Sixty nine years and ten months!”

I hope you will bear with me for a while, while I narrate the story of this man whom I am taking as an example.

At the close of the nineteenth century, a baby was born in Permatang Tinggi Bakar Bata, Kepala Batas, Province Wellesley. He grew up in the village, attended a pondok school in Kedah, then in Kelantan and later spent a few years in Makkah where he attended classes at Masjid al-Haram.

He returned home, married a girl from the same village, worked as a rice planter. He taught the Qu’ran on a voluntary basis twice a day to the children in the village, besides being the Imam of the mosque in the area.

In 1950’s there was no school in Bumbung Lima. He and the people in the area decided to build a school. They collected money after every harvesting season which was entrusted to him for safekeeping. They went into the nearby forest to cut down trees and bamboo and, in the gotong royong tradition, built a three-classroom school made of attap roof and woven bamboo walls and windows. The Government provided the teachers and the children in the nearby villages went to school.

The  mosque with woven bamboo walls, was old and rotting. He initiated a fund to rebuild it, collecting RM15 (if I am not mistaken) from each family after every harvesting season. He kept the money in safe custody, bundled in an old piece of cloth and known to the wife and children as duit Masjid and no one would touch it. During that period, he bought an old Austin 8, the first car in the village. Fearing that people might think that he had misused the duit Masjid to buy the car, on the following Friday, he carried the bundle of money to the mosque. Before the prayer started, he placed the bundle on the floor of the verandah of the mosque (called balai lintang because it lies horizontal to the main building) and announced to those present. ”Those of you who think that I bought the car with the “mosque money”, come and count it.” There was a complete silence. The mosque was built and completed, wholly from the money collected from the villagers and their sweat.

There was an Imam Muda, a lebai from Kedah, married to his niece. There was a rumor that he used to go and collect money from the taukeh of a shop where gambling was going on. A date was fixed for a “hearing” and, as usual, on Friday. Our subject challenged those who saw the incident to come forward and repeat their allegation. Two men came forward and swore that they were in the shop and they saw the Imam Muda came and took money from the taukeh. The Imam Muda was relieved of his position. There was no Majlis Agama Islam yet at that time.

There was an Indian man by the name of Banggaru living just outside the village. He had eleven young children and his wife had died of childbirth. Their mud house was flooded. He invited Banggaru and his children to live temporarily underneath his Malay-type kampung house  built on stilts. They lived there until the flood subsided. About thirty years later, a car came to our subject’s house. There were three Indian men in the car. The two younger men carried an old and sickly man, sitting on the back seat of the car into our subject’s house, which was a new one though on the same spot as the old one. The old and sickly Indian man was no other than Banggaru. He wanted to meet “Haji” (that was how he called our subject) for the last time before he died and to thank “Haji” for all his help. Banggaru died soon after that. He knew how to say “thank you”.

There were two Chinese families living just outside the village. They always quarreled with each other and would run to “Haji‘s” house to complain about the other. Needless to say, our subject would advise them to live as good neighbors, after all there were only two of them there.

Another Chinese man. a complete outsider, came to open a bicycle shop in the nearby Bumbung Lima. He had no money. He went to see our subject to borrow a few hundred Ringgit who gave him the money and mind you, strictly without interest as interest is riba‘. The Chinese man’s business grew and he ventured into other businesses before he died. His children inherited his businesses and are well off now but I doubt whether they know the story.

One day, the aged mother of the Penghulu came to his house crying: her son had chased her out of the house. More than a decade later, the Penghulu himself, now retired, came to him   complaining that he had been chased out of the same house by his son. Of course, our subject reminded the Penghulu of the earlier incident.

He was already very old then but he could still cycle. Someone informed him of some people gambling in the bushes nearby the village. He cycled there and on seeing him approaching they all fled. It was not a case of fear but ashamed to be seen by him gambling.

He died at the age of about 100, unfortunately we do not know his date of birth. Even then, he died in style. He had complained of feeling feverish. He wanted to take his ablution, which he did. He asked for a clean sarong and baju Melayu, He dressed up for prayer, placed the prayer mat facing Ka’abah and said “Soon the Imam will come”. Not comprehending what he really meant, his son replied, “No, it is still too early for Maghrib”, He collapsed, dressed for prayer and while waiting for it, complete with ablution. Then the children understood what he meant by “Soon the Imam will come”. That night, three generations of his students kept awake and recited the Qur’an for him. The youths in the village insisted that  they wanted to carry his body to the cemetery about two miles away instead of being transported by van.

Why do people go to him for advice, for settlement of disputes and for all kinds of things? Why do people not want to be seen by him doing something wrong? The answer is that they have a lot of respect for him. Why do they respect him? Simply, it is because of his integrity.

Who is that man? Today, sixteen years after his death, UNITEN and Institut Integriti Malaysia, not knowing the story, invite his youngest son to deliver this lecture. Yes, that man is my father, Haji Mohamad Bin Haji Abdullah or known as “’Pak Su’ or ‘Pak Cik’ Haji Ahmad”, depending whether you are from the paternal or maternal side. If I deserve this invitation, I owe it to him and I dedicate this lecture to him. May Allah bless his soul.

What can we learn from him regarding “integrity”?

First, he did not even know the word “integrity” whether in Malay or English, what more words like “transparency”, keutuhan and so on. But he knew what was right and what was wrong and he always chose to do what was right. I surmise that, most probably, he knew such Qur’anic words like haq and batil, ma’aruf and munkar which could have influenced him greatly, as they did on me. My point is, you may live a life full of integrity without realizing it but by doing what you know is right and avoiding what you know is wrong.

Second, I believe he knew the word jujur and ikhlas but, in all my life, I did not hear him use those words even once. But what he did not preach through words, he, perhaps without realizing it, was preaching through examples. There is nothing more effective than preaching through example. As far as I have read that was what Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. did. Due to his excellent examples and more so being a Prophet, the sahabah like Abu Hurairah would follow him, observed   every movement he made and every word he said, in answer to questions or otherwise, and recorded them faithfully. All those examples became traditions and followed all over the world for one and a half millennium now. That is the power of leadership by examples, good examples.

Why was “Kepimpinan Melalui Teladan” forgotten almost as soon as it was launched? Because the good examples were not forthcoming. As a result, very few people, took it seriously and soon it became irrelevant and was forgotten.

Even Madonna, the “material girl”, knows how to appreciate integrity when she speaks about her father:

“My father was very strong, I don’t agree with a lot of the ways he brought me up. I don’t agree with a lot of his values, but he did have a lot of integrity, and if he told us not to do something, he didn’t do it either.”

Now, listen to this:

“O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do?

Great is hatred in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do.” –  Al-Saff  (61): 2 and 3. (Sahih International)

I do not think anyone would suggest that Madonna and/or her father had read those two verses!

Third, integrity has to be earned the hard way throughout our life. You may have spent years or decades doing the right thing and accumulating your integrity, but one misstep, one mistake, one indiscretion affecting your honesty or morality, the whole of what you have accumulated, is wiped out.  Once you lose it, it is even more difficult to accumulate it again.

Fourth, a person’s academic qualification is quite irrelevant for a person to attain integrity even though it helps to understand it. But understanding integrity does not make one a person of integrity. A person may be an intellectual but he may be intellectually dishonest or he may be dishonest with his maid or driver both of which, trivial as they appear, would put a blot on his integrity. You will be surprised that what appears to be trivial may have a big negative effect on a person’s integrity.

On the other hand, a person may not be able to define integrity.  He may not be able to give lecture on it. With the fitrah that Allah has given us, with right upbringing, right surrounding, a person would know, what is right and what is wrong. True enough that right and wrong could be subjective, greatly influenced by your religion, culture, society and law. Yet, when it comes to honesty, the core ingredient for integrity, I do not think there is any room for a difference of opinion. So, lack of integrity is not due to ignorance. You know integrity but the question is: do you have it? Whether you have it or not depends on you, on what you do throughout your life. In other words, it boils down to our character. But, we are all human. Everyone has moments of weakness and indiscretion. However, what makes the difference is how serious and how often. When such moments of weakness and indiscretion become the norm rather than the exception, what more when those “wrongs” have become “normal”, then there is something really very wrong with the person.

Fifth, a person’s position is irrelevant too. He may hold a very high, important and powerful position. If he has no integrity, the very same people who salute him, bow to him, greet him and try to please him, may not have any respect for him deep in their hearts. A good indicator is what people say behind your back or how the same people treat you after you retire: whether, seeing you walking at the supermarket, people whom you don’t even remember or recognize would walk up to you, greet you, introduce themselves, ask how are you and wish you well or, even those you recognize just turn away. That is why I used to say that the real assessment of our career while we are still alive is when we retire. The final one is when we die.

Sixth, integrity requires no advertisement if you have it, neither can you hide it if you don’t have it. Actually, a person’s honesty can be seen on his face. I am sure you have experienced listening to a speaker whose delivery was impeccable, who was very fluent and witty and who spoke without text. You were mesmerized by him but, when he stopped and the moment the sound of clapping died down, you wondered whether he meant what he said. On the other hand, you would have experienced listening to another person, who read his speech with some difficulty but even as he spoke, to quote Allah yarham Tun Mohamed Suffian, “you could see his honesty shining through his forehead.” [ii]

Out of curiosity, I tried to check what other people have said or written about integrity, focusing on the word “integrity” itself in relation to “individual integrity” as against “organizational integrity”. I find the results interesting. Let us run through a few of them.

• “A person is not given integrity. It results from the relentless pursuit of honesty at all times.” – Unknown.
• “Integrity is what we do, what we say and what we say we do.” – Don Galor
• “Integrity is the essence of everything successful.” – Richard Buckminster Fuller[iii].
• “Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching.” -  Anonymous.
• “Have the courage to say no. Have the courage to face the truth. Do the right thing because it is right. These are the magic keys to living your life with integrity.” – William Clement Stone[iv].
• “Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people.” – Spencer Johnson.[v]

Surprisingly, they seem to be talking about the same thing.

I have been talking about integrity at individual level. To me that is where it begins, whether you are looking at individual, group, society or organization level. Of course, at group, society and organizational levels, other additional factors come into play.

Let us take a glance at the society level. First, let us take a few random samples focusing on honesty, the key ingredient to integrity.

A Professor of Polish origin who taught at the National University of Singapore, told me whenever he crossed the causeway to Johor Bahru he would take a taxi driven by a man  wearing a white cap  because he found him more honest.

A Professor from the United States left his jacket with his purse and passport in it in a train in Japan. He rang up the number on the ticket. He was told to go and collect it at the next station. He found everything intact.

A Captain of an international merchant ship told me that the worst port in the world in terms of cheating is a port in a predominantly Muslim country in the Middle East.

Traveling in Switzerland I saw farmers placing a table on the side of the road with vegetables for sale. The vegetables had been weighed and each bundle had a price tag on it. There was a box on the table for you to put money into. If you have no change you may open the box and take your change. Mind you, there was no one around. (I told a friend about it. He said that if we were to do it here, even the table would be gone!)

A friend of mine told me of blatant cheating at a temple that he went for pilgrimage to.

In 1981, I was transferred to a State as the State Legal Advisor. A few days before the Aidil Firti, I went to the mosque to pay my fitrah. The Bilal, an ‘amil was there. He asked me whether I had “registered”. I replied “No. I have just come to live here”. I  paid him the required amount. He put it in his pocket. I waited. Then he said, “Dah selesai”. I asked “What about the receipt?” He replied, “No need because you have not registered.”

If you go to Makkah you will find that the moment the azan is heard, shop keepers would just leave their merchandise and head for the mosque. You are impressed by it. But, when you want to buy something, then you realize that you don’t even know the reasonable price for a particular item. You are at the mercy of the shopkeeper. He may quote whatever price he likes, sometimes  taking advantage of the ignorance and the naivety of the customer. It is up to the customer to bargain. To him it is legal, Strictly from the fiqhi perspective it may be legal, but is it honest? Is that what the Shari’ah is all about? To me, Shari’ah is not only law. It has a soul. The soul is iman and honesty is an integral part of it.

A few years ago, I went into a sports shop in The Hague, Netherlands. I liked a pair of shoes with a tag of 25% discount on it and I told the shop attendant about it. He went to fetch the other side of the shoe and came back to me. He pointed to a small hole on the side of the shoe.”You see the hole here. We only have this pair, I cannot sell you for 25% discount, If you want this pair, I’ll give you 50% discount. Or, you can go to our other branch and get a new pair” (at 25% discount, of course.)

The Makkah and the The Hague experience are very interesting really. The Hague shop assistant was actually practising the Shari’ah principle that it is obligatory for the seller to disclose the defects in the goods he is selling, without knowing that that is a Shari’ah requirement. On the other hand, the shopkeeper in Makkah was practising the common law principle of caveat emptor (buyers beware) without knowing it either. Between the two practices, which is more Islamic?

Perhaps, it is these kinds of things that made Mohammed ‘Abduh[vi] to remark after his trip to Europe: “I saw Islam without Muslims”. I do not know whether back in Egypt then he saw Muslims and Islam or Muslims without Islam.

Looking at these samples, my first comment is that you can find both honesty and dishonesty everywhere, only more here or less there. Neither can you point to one particular factor as the reason why one group of people whether in the same country or in different countries are more honest than the other. You cannot say it is religion, for example, because you will find that people in developing countries who appear to be very religious, at least ritually and appearance-wise, are less honest than the people in developed countries, the majority of whom care very little, if at all, about religion. The examples I gave earlier would bear testimony to this statement.

We also cannot generalize that people belonging to a particular religion is more honest than the other. We find that people belonging to the same religion in one country is more honest and less corrupt than in another country.

I think the answer lies in a combination of factors. Including,          religion, moral, ethic, culture, education, upbringing, level of economy, opportunity (in the case of corruption), greed and competition (especially in the business world) and  law and order.

Besides these factors, the behavior of members of organizations, e.g. in Government departments and companies, I think, depend very much on the leadership and the philosophy of the organization. The story of the professor who left his jacket on the train in Japan, the story of the shop assistant in The Hague, the story of the shopkeeper in Makkah are examples of the philosophy of the organization.

At national level, more so in the fight against corruption, there must be political will: the determination to fight corruption and the example of not being involved in it.

Singapore has been quite successful in this. Admittedly, politics in Singapore is more straight forward. There is no opposition, really. There, a political party does not need big capital to fight an election. On the other hand, there is a completely different election culture here. Sadly, that has become the Malaysian culture. My worry is that we have reached a stage where voters are “offering their votes for sale” to the highest bidder purely for short-term personal gains and the political parties have no choice but to keep bidding,  disregarding its effects on the country and the nation, what more if the politicians have stopped thinking beyond five years!

Once I was in The Hague on a general election day. I would not know that it was an election day had I not been told about it: there was not a single poster along the road. Still there was an election.

Whatever it is, corruption is not always in the form of political donations. It is more personal and direct.

What is important is that the political leaders, top level administrators, corporate leaders must be serious about combating corruption and must lead by examples, good examples.

When I mention “corporate leaders”, I am referring to all the “givers”. Very often, people tend to focus only on the public sector while the private sector escapes attention: Government, public servants, Judges and others must be clean; companies and businessmen need not be clean as they are only to be judged by how much profit they make.  That culture has to change.

When I mention “politicians”, I mean all politicians, whether they are at the moment running the government or in the opposition.  For those in power, the attitude that they are an exception is definitely not going to help. In the fight against corruption, no one is special and no one is an exception. For those in the opposition, the attitude that today is your turn and tomorrow will be our turn is not going to help either.

Unfortunately, even in combating corruption, political interest still rules. I was Chairman of the Advisory Council of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) until I resigned because of my long hospitalization. During the two years that I was Chairman, I saw the frustrations of the officers who were discharging their duties diligently and honestly. They should get the full support from everyone because the fight for corruption is a common ground for all. Instead, some groups, take side according to their vested interests, in the name of the people, justice, fairness, equality, freedom of speech, human rights, democracy and so on. They screamed for action to be taken against their opponents. But, when their members were investigated, they alleged that they were persecuted. When their opponent was arrested, charged, tried and convicted, there was a complete silence from them. When one of their men fell from the office of the MACC and died[vii], they straight away blamed the MACC for it. The NGOs too joined in. When an inquest was held, it was criticized forgetting that such inquests were normally held in such cases since the British introduced the Criminal Procedure Code in this country. While the inquest was going on, demonstrations were held, in effect demanding that decision be made the way they want it to be. That inquest took 51 working days over a period of 18 months.[viii] It was followed by a Commission of Inquiry of five members which took another 51 working days of public hearing.[ix]

Everybody sympathizes with the deceased and his family. Nobody wants such an incident to happen. But, we should be fair to all. Let the process of the law take its own course, first, at least. Independence of the judiciary does not only mean non-interference by the Executive.  What applies to the Executive equally applies to everybody.

In a very similar incident involving a Senior Customs Officer[x], which happened about two years later, only an inquest was held. It proceeded quietly and smoothly and it took only 15 working days over a period of three months.[xi] There was no Commission of Inquiry. There were no demonstrations and even the NGOs that were so vocal in the first case were notably quiet in the second case. How do you explain that?

I am also a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission. (Let me make it clear that I saying all these in my personal capacity). We are doing our best to recommend the right candidates for appointment as Judges and also for promotions. We are also trying to restore the integrity of the Judiciary which was at its lowest following the V. K. Lingam video clip incident. I dare say that the integrity of the Judiciary has improved significantly in the last four years. Besides, the Courts have succeeded to reduce the backlog and to reduce the period taken for the disposal of cases to such an extent that even the World Bank has given a favorable report about it.

But, look at a recent case involving an opposition political leader[xii]. (I am not saying whether the judgment is right or wrong. I am only talking about the proceedings.) His trial took 88 working days over a period of 2 years and 10 months. During the trial he made 17 applications and 8 appeals. Amongst his applications, 3 were to disqualify the Judge[xiii] on the ground of bias which, in reality, was challenging his integrity. We also read reports of attempts to discredit the Judiciary and to question the independence of the Judiciary not only domestically but also internationally. There was a campaign to release him even before the judgment was given.

However, when the judgment turned out to be in his favor, he said that he was acquitted because the Government (I repeat, the Government) was worried about the negative image abroad if he were convicted[xiv]. Is that not equating the Court with the Executive? Is that not an allegation or an inference that the Judge took instruction from the Executive to arrive at his decision or that the Executive dictated the decision to him? Or, to use the “popular terminology”, is that not an allegation or inference that there was a “conspiracy” between the Government (i.e. Executive) and the Judge (i.e. Judiciary) to acquit him? By that statement, is the independence and the integrity of the Judge, the court and the Judiciary not brought into contempt? (It is interesting to note that on the following day, his own counsel denied (“sangkal”) the reason given by his client for his acquittal and went on to say that the judgment was based on evidence and that the Government had nothing to do with it.)[xv]

During the same period, a former Menteri Besar[xvi] was charged for corruption. The trial went on smoothly and quietly. It only took 19 working days over a period of one year.[xvii] Even when he was convicted, he did not criticize the Judge or the Judiciary. Similarly, Datuk Haji Harun Bin Haji Idris[xviii], Haji Abdul Ghani Bin Ishak[xix], Dato’ Wa’ad Bin Mansor[xx], Datuk Haji Zulkifli Bin Datuk  Abdul Hamid[xxi], Datuk Sahar Arpan[xxii], Dato Haji Mohamd Muslim[xxiii], Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim[xxiv] or, for that matter, Tun Dr. Ling Leong Sik[xxv] and Dato’ Chan Kong Choy[xxvi], whose trials are still pending, all fought or are fighting their respective cases on merits, not by attacking the Judges and the Judiciary.

I sympathize with those Judges and government officers. I know a great majority of them are discharging their duties diligently and honestly, without even looking at the clock. However, they should not despair because, eventually, truth will prevail and honesty will supersede all. Believe me. I am speaking from experience.

Actually, on every human being, on every one of us, there is a price tag, an integrity price tag, though unwritten and not displayed, is known and agreed to by all. Behind the praises, the handshakes and the smiles that people give us, deep inside their hearts, it is that invisible integrity price tag attached to us that matters. Perhaps that is why Ralph Waldo Emerson[xxvii] said. “A little integrity is better than any career.”[xxviii]

To conclude, and with the voice that Allah s.w.t. has given back to me, let me remind myself and those who do not mind being reminded with the words of Allah:

We have indeed created man in the finest of molds,

Then We reversed him to the lowest of the low,

Except those who believed and did good works; for them there is a reward unending. -  At-Tin (95): 4,5 and 6 (Maududi).

Hopefully, we will be among the exceptions.

Thank you.

[i]  Searchquotes.com

[ii] He was referring to Tun Hussain Onn

[iii] American systems theorists, architect, engineer, author, designer, inventor and futurist.(1895-1983)

[iv] Businessman, philanthropist and New Thought self-help book author (1902-2002)

[v] Writer. (1940- ) Searchquotes.com

[vi] An Egyptian jurist, scholar and reformer regarded as the founder of Islamic modernism. (1849-1905)

[vii] Teoh Beng Hock, a Political Aide to a DAP State Assemblyman. Date of incident 15.7.2009.

[viii] Source: Office of Chief Judge (Malaya)

[ix] From first day of hearing until the report was completed (printed). Source: Office of Chairman of Commission of Inquiry.

[x] Ahmad Sarbani Bin Mohamed. Date of incident 6.4.2011

[xi] Sourse: Ofice of Chief Judge (Malaya)

[xii] Y.B. Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim

[xiii] Source: Office of Chief Judge (Malaya)

[xiv] Utusan Malaysia Online 10.1.2010

[xv] Utusan Malaysia Online 11.1.2012

[xvi] Dato’ Mohd Khir Bin Toyo

[xvii] Source: Office of Chief Judge (Malaya)

[xviii] Datuk Haji Harun Bin Haji Idris v. PP (1977) 2 MLJ 155 (FC)

[xix] Haji Abdul Ghani Bin Ishak & Anor. v. PP (1981) 2 MLJ 230 (FC)

[xx] PP v Dato’ Waad Bin Mansor (2005) 1 CLJ 421 (FC); (2003) 3 CLJ 833 (CA)

[xxi] Datuk Haji Zulkifli Bin Datuk Abdul Hamid v. PP (1981) 1 MLJ 112 (FC)

[xxii] Datuk Sahar Arpan v. PP (2007) 1 CLJ 326 (CA)

[xxiii] PP v. Dato Haji Mohamed Muslim ((1983) 1 MLJ 245 (HC)

[xxiv] Dato Mokhtar Hahim & Anor. v. PP (1983) CLJ (Rep) 101 (FC)

[xxv] Former President of Malaysian Chinese Association

[xxvi] Former Minister of Transport

[xxvii] American essayist, lecturer and poet. (1803-1882)

[xxviii] Searchquotes.com

tahamidm@yahoo.com

Corruption in our country is rampant. People have become cynical and take it for granted that all politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen are corrupt if given the opportunity. How did we arrive at this state of affairs?

To better appreciate the issue of corruption, I thought I should tell the story of my first encounter with corruption at the age of 18 in 1952.

I had joined the Technical College Kuala Lumpur. We had hardly settled down when my college mates started talking about the opportunities for making money from contractors after graduation. It came as a shock to me. How did my young college mates know about such matters? Public Works Department was considered the most desirable, since there were more dealings with contractors, while those joining the survey and telecoms departments were pitied for having no opportunity to make money. The words “corruption” or “bribe” were never used.

The stories I heard in college were played out in real life when I began working in the Irrigation Department in a small town. It was known to everyone in the office that those connected with any dealings involving suppliers and contractors would get some “reward”. The sums involved were small and the transactions always friendly. Later I resigned to practice as a consulting engineer. I was rather taken aback when my father’s friends—some of whom were well-respected community elders—called me a fool for leaving the “lucrative” government service.

With the onset of large-scale property development, these transactions became more substantial in the ‘60s. The rights to land concessions, especially in prime areas like the Klang Valley, imparted enormous wealth to recipients. It was the same with land conversions from agricultural use to building, as well as the rights to forest concessions particularly in East Malaysia. The “coffee money” of the old days soon became serious money running to millions of ringgit.

The floodgate of corruption really lifted in the ‘80s when the ruling elite, impatient to get the country going, adopted so-called Western economic practices like privatization and public-private-partnerships. Negotiated contracts were undertaken to fast-track development. These initiatives were carried out without proper safeguards in place and resulted in high costs and much defective work. Since these transactions were negotiated by bureaucrats, prices could be manipulated to benefit the parties involved. As the Chinese proverb goes, “After three years in a position of authority, even an upright official is enriched.”

With opportunities to make millions at their fingertips, many politicians and bureaucrats colluded with businessmen and it became a case of pagar makan padi. It is easy to appreciate the temptation faced by the bureaucrats when you consider the recent case of the many British parliamentarians, both Conservative and Labour, who were found guilty of having cheated on their expense claims. These were the cream of the British society, and the amounts involved were pittance.

In discussions on corruption in Malaysia, there is the impression that corruption is confined to dealings with the public sector. Sadly, corruption has always been pervasive in the private sector, though the nature and sums involved are somewhat different. Just ask anyone who has to deal with purchasing. Collusions among contractors bidding for work – or what we term as “pakat” – has been part of the local business culture long before corruption was seen as a threat to the well-being of our country.

Singapore is said to be corruption-free. Here, it must be pointed out that the government’s approach is completely different. In addition to enforcing strict competitive tenders for land concessions and contracts, they argue that their politicians and bureaucrats should be paid so well that they won’t be tempted by corruption. Hence Singapore, a tiny country, has the world’s most highly paid politicians and bureaucrats. According to one report, one prominent octogenarian is earning SGD3.5 million a year – plus bonuses, which ran to 7 months in one year. In a perverse sense, they are buying the honesty of their ministers. Or one could say, they have legalized corruption by legitimately overpaying themselves. These amounts have been somewhat reduced as a result of the citizens’ wrath after the recent elections in Singapore.

I think that we just have to acknowledge the fact that corruption has always been part of our culture. From the benign coffee moneys of the old days, corruption has developed into a malignancy eating away at the fabric of our society.

Our government has intensified efforts to eradicate corruption in recent years. In spite of their initiatives, there have been hardly any meaningful convictions. And when it happens, it involves small sums, prompting the public to cry, “What, only ikan bilis? What happened to the big fish?”

Will we ever succeed in wiping out corruption? Is it even possible?

Yes it is. And in fact, it is easier to get the big fish than the ikan bilis.

To do so, we need to cut off their lifeline – by getting rid of the opportunities for corruption. All contracts, licences, concessions etc should be awarded on the basis of competitive open tenders. In this manner, the big fish and their cronies will be unable to manipulate prices to benefit themselves.

As for the ikan bilis, the starting point must be to raise their wages, both in the private and public sectors. Even China, a country once notorious for its low wages, is today paying their workers better than we in Malaysia. The situation here is made worse by imported foreign labour, and further compounded by the attitude of the local employers, who recently protested against a mere RM50 wage increase proposed by the Indonesian government. This, in spite of the severe labour shortage in the country!

Finally, another important point has escaped the public’s attention. We tend to think that it’s taxpayers’ money that is being lost. In fact, it is not. Whether he pays tax or not, every citizen is an equal shareholder of the nation’s wealth and resources. If a government gives away contracts, concessions and lands without getting the best prices, it is the shareholder-citizens who are losing out as the leaked funds could have been used for public good.

As the Malays and other Bumiputeras make up 60% of our population, it is these communities that suffer the greatest loss from corruption, thus defeating the objective of the NEP which was designed to help this group.

JUDGING from the behaviour and attitude of a large number of Malaysians, I have serious reservations about the effectiveness of the on-going campaign to promote courtesy among the people and make it a way of life.

Despite our technological progress, we are confronted with the issue of decaying morality in our daily lives.

The negative behaviour syndrome as reflected in problems like road bullies, traffic rule breakers, litterbugs, abusive and cheating taxi drivers has clearly proven that we are still far from being courteous and polite.

The time has also come for all of us to ask whether we have done enough to ensure the success of the national five-year campaigns to promote courtesy and noble values among Malaysians.

From my observation, virtues of courtesy, politeness, patience, humility, tolerance and respect have yet to become our way of life.

A lot more remains to be done to inculcate these virtues among Malaysians, particularly among the young.

Emphasising campaigns to inculcate public courtesy and noble values is very essential in view of the deterioration of such values and virtues.

Many students these days are not even prepared to say “thank you” when something is given to them. Many do not seem to practise courtesy despite learning it in schools.

I have on several occasions given out certificates or awards to students in recognition of their academic achievements and with the exception of a few, most of them just walk away without even saying “thank you”.

Then there are the inconsiderate lot – driving and parking, littering in public places, vandalising public property, jumping queue and not saying “sorry” when a mistake is made.

Other issues are talking rudely to customers, smoking in non-smoking areas, spitting in public and not giving up seats to the elderly, disabled and pregnant women. The list can go on and on.

It is time for all Malaysians to address these issues and ask ourselves to what extent we have been courteous and, if we are practising good noble values.

Having a campaign to promote courtesy and noble values is important but what is even more essential is to put into practice in our daily life courtesy and noble values.

Leadership by example is essential for the success of the campaign.

In this connection all ministries, government departments and agencies should instill noble values among their staff.

The civil service, for example, should promote courtesy among counter staff dealing with the public.

They should respond to calls and reply to letters from the public.

This should be followed by the private sector and the Malaysian public at large.

The success of any courtesy campaign must start from schools where courtesy and noble values must be taught.

In this connection, Moral Education or Pendidikan Moral in schools should be reinforced to emphasise the importance of learning and practising the 36 noble values in schools.

Memorising the 36 noble values for the sake of passing the subject is certainly not good enough.

What we want is to put these noble values into practice in our daily life.

The attainment of vision 2020 will only be meaningful of we are able to inculcate a culture of courtesy and noble values among Malaysians.

TAN SRI LEE LAM THYE,
Trustee of 1 Malaysia Foundation.

PRIME Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s call for the rejection of violence and extremism in all forms and the upholding of moderation as the way forward is highly commendable and deserves the support of all rational-minded and peace-loving people.

In his keynote address at the inaugural International Conference on Global Movement of Moderates, the Prime Minister spoke of the need to hear from moderates of all religions and expounded the concept of “wasatiyyah” or moderation.

In his maiden speech to the 65th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York in September 2010, Najib called on world leaders to embark on building a “Global Movement of Moderates” from all faiths to pursue the agenda of peace and pragmatism and to marginalise the extremists.

It has been proven time and again in many parts of the world that extremism in whatever form poses the greatest threat to peace and harmony.

It is time for all peace-loving people to stand up for moderation. The world has to accept moderation and put it into practice in all aspects of life.

However, it must be emphasised that for moderation to succeed it must not only be just lip service. It must be upheld and practised by the people as well as the national leadership.

It is important, as moderate behaviour and attitude based on mutual respect and acceptance can ensure positive change for the good of the nation.

Extremism is not acceptable as it has proven to be destructive to the community and the nation. It is only moderation that can pave the way for peace and harmony.

While we would like to see moderation on the world stage, we in Malaysia must take the lead and set the example of moderation by putting it into practice in our daily life.

In this regard, political and religious leaders as well as all members of the Malaysian community must commit themselves to moderation in all their words and deeds.

The three initiatives announced by Najib – the setting up of the Wasatiyyah Institute under the Prime Minister’s Office, the Global Movement of Moderates Foundation and a chair at Universiti Malaya – are positive steps to promote the concept of moderation as a way to peace, harmony and stability.

The concept of 1Malaysia, which incorporates the Federal Constitution and the Rukunegara, is a reflection of “wasatiyyah” and in line with moderation.

What is essential is for everyone to be committed to its implementation.

TAN SRI LEE LAM THYE

Trustee,

1Malaysia Foundation.

PRIME Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s call for the rejection of violence and extremism and upholding moderation as the way forward is commendable and deserves the support of all rational and peace-loving people.

In his keynote address at the inaugural International Conference on Global Movement of Moderates,  he spoke of the need to hear from moderates of all religions and expounded the concept of wasa-tiyyah, or moderation.

In his maiden speech at the 65th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September  2010,   Najib called on world leaders to embark on building a Global Movement of Moderates from all faiths to pursue  peace and pragmatism and to marginalise the extremists.

It has been proven, time and again, in many parts of the world, that extremism poses the greatest threat to peace and harmony.

It is time for all peace-loving people to stand firm for moderation.

However, it must be emphasised   that for moderation to succeed, it must not  be just lip service.

It must be upheld and practised by the people and the leadership.

Extremism is not acceptable as it is  destructive to the community and the nation. Only moderation  can pave the way to peace and harmony.

We in Malaysia must take the lead  by putting moderation into practice in our daily lives.

The three initiatives announced by Najib –  the setting up of the Wasatiyyah Institute under the Prime Minister’s Office, the Global Movement of Moderates Foundation  and a chair at Universiti Malaya –  promote  moderation for future harmony and stability.

The concept of 1 Malaysia, which incorporates the Federal Constitution and the Rukun Negara, is a reflection of wasatiyyah.

The Intercultural Dialogue on the theme Towards Greater Awareness: Community Identity & National Identity, jointly organised by Y1M & PCORE on 1st February 2012 at Institut Integriti Malaysia. Admission is free.

HRH Raja Zarith Sofiah will grace the occasion and the Keynote Address will be from YB Datuk Seri Idris Jala.

REGISTER NOW!!

It is commendable that members of the Penang State Executive Council have declared their assets to the people. The public declaration of assets of elected leaders embodies a fundamental principle in governance: the principle of accountability and transparency. At a time when the honesty and integrity of officials elected by the people is being vigorously questioned in many parts of the world, this is a principle that should be put into practice.

However, the declaration of assets should also be accompanied by disclosure of liabilities. The assets and liabilities of spouse and children above 21 years of age should also be made known to the public. There are standard rules pertaining to this practice observed in countries such as Sweden and New Zealand for decades that can serve as guidelines.

It was on the eve of the 1978 General Election, as the head of an NGO that I first made a plea to candidates contesting parliamentary and state seats to declare their assets and liabilities to the voters. A couple responded but society as a whole ignored our call. In 1990, in a face-to-face meeting with the newly elected Mentri Besar of an opposition party that had just regained power in the state, I tried to persuade him and his Executive Council to make a public declaration of their assets and liabilities. I did not succeed. In the brief period that I was in party politics, I made another attempt to put this principle of accountability into practice in the 1999 General Election but my colleagues could not be convinced.

Now that the 13^th General Election is around the corner voters in every state and parliamentary constituency in the country should demand that candidates seeking their support declare their assets and liabilities and those of their immediate family to the public. Candidates should also pledge that if elected they would continue to inform the people of their financial situation through annual updates. A mechanism should be developed for this purpose through the coordinated effort of the Election Commission, the legislature (State Assembly or Parliament) and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

Of course, there is no guarantee that the public declaration of assets and liabilities of elected legislators will guarantee zero corruption.  The causes of this scourge are multi-dimensional. Nonetheless, a public declaration will compel those who seek and occupy elected office to be more conscious of the ethical standards expected of them especially in relation to money and wealth. At the same time, it will make the person on the street more aware of the right he has over the leader who exercises power on his behalf.

Indeed, a public declaration of assets and liabilities— because it is founded upon honesty and transparency— will pave the way for greater trust between leaders and citizens. And trust is that moral force which will drive the transformation that 1Malaysia aims for.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,

Chairman,

Board of Trustees,

Yayasan 1Malaysia.

17 January 2012.