By: Natalie Shobana Ambrose
theSun, Malaysia
January 26th, 2012
"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 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 India
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
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
