THE National Anti-Corruption Plan is highly commendable and very welcome by all honest Malaysians. The government and all those who formulated this comprehensive NACP deserve our appreciation.

However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. There is much concern, if not doubt, as to whether we can achieve the goal of a corruption-free Malaysia in just five years by 2013.

The latest Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index(CPI) showed very slight improvement in our corruption for last year. This includes the period of the new Pakatan Harapan government’s rule of about eight months since last May. We moved from a ranking of 62nd to 61st out of 180 countries from 2017 to 2018. At the same time, our score remained at 47 points out of 100 in 2017 and 2018.

This slight progress is not much to shout about, and happened despite all the vigorous efforts taken to charge many of those suspected of huge corruption in the IMDB scandal.

What do these low scores in our CPI mean? It indicates that Malaysia’s CPI will improve only when the results of all our efforts to fight corruption and bring the corrupt leaders to book bear fruit. That is to say, all those guilty of corruption, especially in high places should be made to pay the price of swindling the rakyat – then our CPI will do better.  

What are the challenges to become a corruption-free nation in just five years?

As Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has rightly stated many times, corruption has developed into a kind of culture in Malaysia over the years.

Some reasons for this bad corruption culture I have observed as former president of Transparency International Malaysia are as follows:

1. Developing from a feudal society in the past, we often carried on the tradition of rewarding those who provided us with good services. For instance, the helpful civil servant was given chickens, muruku, or red packets for doing his job well, especially during festivals. Of course, today the chickens have been replaced by big money under the concept that cash is king.
2. There are many who perceive that corruption is acceptable, as it contributes to improving the distribution of income. The view held by many is “you give me and I’ll give you’‘. So “apa salah”, or what is wrong? Some believe that we need to share our wealth, as in “let’s share! You untung (profit) dan saya mesti untung juga (I must profit too)!”
3. However, grand corruption occurs mainly in the arena of money politics. Here is where the NACP has come out boldly with proposals to control money politics and to set limits to political funding . The NACP will set these limits in the next two years. But I am sure it can be done sooner than that. After all, there are precedents on fixing limits for political funding from all over the world. We could set some criteria for essential campaign costs that don’t include bribes for votes. It’s not difficult to take into account the cost of campaign banners, pamphlets, and transport and travelling costs of the candidate, etc.
4. The public and civil services were much more multiracial in the past and corruption before 1970s was far less. But there is a tendency to have less checks and balances when the public service is more mono-racial, as one may feel reluctant to report your own kind, so to speak. This is natural. The NACP should push for a more multiracial public service to encourage competition to be clean of corruption.
5. Most importantly, top leaders in the government and the secretary-generals and heads of department must set the best examples for integrity and for corruption-free conduct. Otherwise, as a constable once told me – why can’t you give me only RM50 ringgit for not writing a traffic summon, when the big shots get away with RM50 million and more. He was logical but not morally right. However, when I insisted on my summon, he let me off with a mild warning!

What more can the NACP do?

1. The NACP has to work closely with the government to raise efficiency and reduce red tape in government. The public offers bribes mostly due to delays in obtaining for approvals for licences, permits, awarding of contracts, and land alienation for property development or cultivation, etc. If government administration efficiency is improved further, I believe opportunities to demand and pay bribes will be reduced considerably.
2. The NACP should also seek to reduce the size of the government. The large public service of about 1.6 million civil servants is due to the wide range of government services managed by the civil service. Why not find ways of downsizing the government and allowing the private sector to undertake some of these government services? Basic needs like education, health, and housing, for example, could be provided with priority to the poor in the B40 group, while the rich could be encouraged to pay more for these services or go to the business sector. This would lessen the burden on the government and reduce its size.
3. All religious leaders could do more to preach more fervently against corruption. If the fear of committing corruption is ingrained in all places of worship more regularly and resolutely, I am sure it will do a lot of good in our fight against corruption as a despicable sin!
4. Why doesn’t the NACP adopt the principle of presumption of guilty until proven innocent of corruption? This principle is practised in some countries to much advantage. Perhaps a study could be undertaken on its merits and practicality. Thus someone in a sensitive official position with a low income who has 10 houses could be presumed to be guilty of corruption and will have to prove his innocence. Perhaps he could show that he inherited his wealth, but if his parents are also poor, then his newfound wealth would need some explanation.
5. To ensure we do not just talk and don’t take much action against corruption, the NACP has to ensure that there are trusted monitoring systems of the progress made in implementing the NACP’s sound 22 strategies and 115 initiatives to combat corruption. It may be useful for the NACP to provide the public with biannual reports to show the progress made to achieve the NACP’s goals and targets by 2023.

The NACP is encouraging and purposeful. Public expectations have been raised substantially by the aims of the NACP to achieve a corruption-free society in just five years. Some of the proposals I’ve made above could serve to attain its worthy goals.

But as our prime minister has firmly stated – we are all to work together to achieve the NACP’s goals, otherwise we ourselves face criticism and guilt in fulfilling our own responsibilities to ensure effective implementation of the National Anti-Corruption Plan 2019-2023.

Let that be our new year’s resolution. Happy New Year – with less corruption!

* Ramon Navaratnam is the chairman of the Asli Centre for Public Policy Studies.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.