Disclosure 0f Assets And Ethical Leadership

By: Natalie Shobana Ambrose

theSun, Malaysia (pg 14)

January 26^th, 2012

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/276390

"Rotten Parliament” was the name given to British parliamentary elects after more than half the MPs were found guilty of over-claiming expenses. Some appealed stating that they did nothing wrong and that what they did was within the legal parameters of the system. In other words, the system allowed it. However not only was the system abused, the system was flawed and these politicians took advantage of it. Voters were disgusted by MPs flipping houses to avoid paying capital gains tax; one even had the audacity to use taxpayers money to pay for a duck house. The outcome – many lost their seats in the following elections. Sound familiar?

There has been a strong call for people in public office to disclose assets, an appeal that has been long heard around the world and is now being echoed on our shores. More and more countries have adopted ethics and anti-corruption laws requiring full disclosure of assets by public officials, some taking it further requiring that spouses and dependent children do the same. Many a time such disclosure is not made public but instead made to a public agency.

Compulsory disclosure of assets is a means to curb corruption and in the past has exposed unjust enrichment by people in public office. In many instances, such practice has curbed corruption levels (perceived and real), attracted foreign direct investment and improved public confidence in the government. In a loosely tied conclusion, not only is this form of transparency lauded and desired by the people, it also counters weakening public trust in the government and improves the economy. Yet there is opposition in our country to full disclosure of assets even after multiple cases of gross misuse of public funds have been exposed in abundance.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Ethical leadership means accountability and when in public office, one is automatically subject to public scrutiny and rightly so. If a substantial chunk of my salary is paid to Caesar, don’t I have a right to know how it is spent? Especially when children and spouses of people in public office seem have inflated bank accounts and outlandish salaries.

All this is abuse – abuse of power, abuse of people’s trust and abuse of public funds – and in the current economic climate it becomes something hard to forgive or justify. One can declare innocence and present counter arguments, but the people are not looking for leaders who work an already flawed system. They look for ethical leaders who will stand clean against a flawed system, expose its weaknesses and say I will not abuse it, even though I can. Yet our politicians hide behind absurd excuses such as disclosure being “dangerous”. What about the danger of running the country bankrupt by corrupt practices and risking becoming a rotten parliament?

We seem to like going against the flow – not in a good way. While two Supreme Court magistrates in the Philippines disclosed their statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SLAN) to the public earlier this month, some of our politicians seem vehemently against the practice. Even royal families in Europe are declaring assets, yet we are still debating whether to be transparent or not. In Japan, public officials are required to declare gifts that excess 5,000 yen (RM205), while in the US post Watergate, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires high-level employees of all three branches of federal government to declare assets. And who can forget India’s anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare’s hunger strike demanding strong anti-corruption legislation?

The rest of the world is heading in a direction that counts. Why aren’t we? Our evasion of such practices strongly alludes to gross negligence and a determination to hide corrupt practices.

This against the grain mentality translates across other serious issues too. While ministers across the border are taking pay cuts, we are increasing the salaries of top public officials. Can a monthly salary of 60-80 thousand be justified when a large chunk of society earns a small fraction of that sum in a year? Imagine what the pension burden will be if salaries are this inflated. Clearly the system is flawed and sadly many are taking advantage of it.

Today’s informed society does not take kindly to injustices, abuse and corruption. Maybe their displeasure won’t be broad-cast on the streets but if politicians fail to change, they risk being changed.

Natalie believes that full disclosure of assets in private equates to non-disclosure.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

Balancing The Scales

By: Natalie Shobana Ambrose

theSun, Malaysia (pg 14)

January 12^th, 2012

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/263908

Flip- flops are the new protest symbol in Indonesia. In response to a guilty verdict handed to a 15-year-old for stealing a pair of $3 sandals from a police officer, over 1,000 used flip-flops have been dropped off at a police station in an initiative by the National Commission on Child Protection.

Having confessed after a said beating the teenager faced a five-year jail sentence but no evidence was provided in court. He was declared guilty and released without punishment but left with a possible criminal record.

The anger is not about the so-called crime but that the case of such triviality with little evidence went to court while more serious cases are treated lightly. In a region where corruption levels are high, the trend of excessive sentencing for smaller crimes is becoming more and more indefensible and such judgments are less and less accepted by people.

In Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, Jean Valjean was imprisoned for stealing bread for his starving sister a story comparable to Gregory Taylor an American, who received a 25-year life sentence for trying to break into a church kitchen because he was hungry.

Similar cases have gone through our courts like that of a 22-year-old hawker who was jailed a month for stealing two packets of coffee worth RM31. By no means should he not be penalised, committing a crime warrants legal retribution, however, the scales seems tipped when juxtaposed against much larger corruption charges like that of a corruption case involving a former chief minister who bought a bungalow worth millions. His sentence? A slap on the wrist with a 12-month jail sentence.

Corruption is just a fancy word for theft. Therefore if we were to use simple maths to come up with a jail sentence, the question would sound something like … "If a hawker spends one month in jail for stealing RM35, how many years will a politician spend in jail for stealing RM5 million?"

It's one thing to steal but the heartache is that the money cannot be recovered. It's as if on a shopping spree, I ended up buying a diamond bracelet for RM24 million and I tried to sell it afterwards. No jeweller worth his salt would pay me the same amount for it.

The same goes when trying to return a luxury condominium bought with borrowed money. Some of the funds might be returned but not all of it. A great deal is lost. Yet in these cases, the law does not seem to be harsh enough.

Year after year, entrusted power is abused by politicians and year after year, the attorney-general scrapes the tip of the iceberg revealing such corrupt practices.

Yet it seems only the small fish are caught or made an example of while the masterminds go free with padded pockets, real estate in different latitudes and thick trust funds that accord luxury living for their children.

The suggestion here is proportionality weighted on responsibility – balancing the scales of sentencing. The analogy of Goldilocks and the Three Bears is often used – is the sentence too heavy, too light or just right (Thomas, T).

Perhaps another question is whether a case should be tried like that which has caused a flip-flop revolution in Indonesia. Not only is time wasted but resources are unnecessarily exhausted, something that is less and less forgivable in today's economic and political climate.

This week we tout the independence of our judiciary. Set against the backdrop of pending verdicts of corruption cases, the judiciary is presented with repeated opportunities to prove itself to be impartial upholding the principle of proportionality.

In 1957, Tunku Abdul Rahman spoke of the ideal Malaysia "founded upon the principles of liberty and justice", perhaps now is the time to give back the blindfold to justice so that the scales might be balanced and power restored accordingly.
 

Natalie hopes that we can move on as a mature democracy, society and people.                             

Comments: letters@thesundaily.com