Why some issues blow up? Please go back to the drawing board again....

NOTE: This is a blogpost that did not take me a lot of time writing. Do not expect it to be perfect, as I have no time to polish it, and I have no intention to do so. It's only an expression of my thoughts. The third point is longer as there is currently a storm in the tea cup stirred up by some detractors. 

-----------------------------------------------------

To be frank, there a number of wrong perceptions that were actually created by PH. 

Here are some examples:

(a) Council election will solve the problem of local government's lack of performance.

My answer: No, you will only attract those people with deep pockets who will get elected to become mayors so that they can dig into the public coffers. Dirty politics will come in. 

What we need are good people, not yet another system of choosing the right people. The Chinese dynasties were known for its many human resource policies for selecting officials, yet the most comprehensive assessment system adopted by the Ching Dynasty could not ensure that the officials were corruption free. 

(b) Interference vs Intervention: 

My answer: Interfering with the staff's work process is wrong. An established work process is in place for staff to perform efficiently. Meaning 3x + 2x = 5x. If they follow this mantra, they won't be wrong; the senior manager, therefore, has no reason to interfere.

However, there are cases where INTERVENTION is necessary. For example, 3x - 2x =5x but someone writes the answer as five X. Staff who are familair with the answer as 5x may argue that he can only accept the answer as 5x, and 'five X' is wrong. 

This is where the senior manager has to INTERVENE to solve the embarrassment to a client who has to argue that `five X' and `5x' are essentially the same.

Intervention is a correct thing to do. It is different from interference.

Same with the senior people in politics. The sad thing I observe especially in Selangor was the inability of the state exco in charge of local government to differentiate between interference and intervention.

When there was an issue brewing over the way how Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) enforcement staff acted against a senior citizen, who was merely trying to protect some stray dogs from being dragged into their vans, the state exco should have gone to the ground. Everyone could see from the video the injury done to a senior citizen. 

The state exco then, Ng Sze Han did nothing to intervene until the case went to the police. Of course, it went to court as well. It was a sheer waste of court's time, in my sincere opinion, as the matter could have been settled between MBPJ and the senior citizen.

This was just what Ronnie Liu did when some officers tried to kick up a ruckus with some Octoberfest thingy. He immediately went to MBPJ and put a stop to it. 

What a big contrast between Liu and Ng's responses to two different scenarios. One a veteran, the other a newbie. You know that there are some officers who have worked against you since 2008, yet you are doing nothing about it. This has led to a senior citizen having to go through the tedious court process with one case management after another.

The same with the humps in my area. The resident association built a few humps that gave problems to our cars (with lower decks). The only explanation I get from the local MP, Gobind Singh and his colleauges is: "We won't interfere with the work of the Resident Association." This is what makes me fume as this picture clearly shows cars with lower decks are experiencing problems with the humps.

In fact, I noticed that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has been using the word 'Intervensi' a lot. I believe he sees the same problem I see. 

(c) Nepotism and Cronyism:

My answer: Mr X is a minister or a state exco. His ex-girlfriend and his wife are partners of a company that provides transportation to the moon. 

Because Mr. X is the husband of one lady and the ex-boyfriend of the other lady, does it mean that his colleague, Mr ABC cannot grant the project to Mr X's ex-girlfriend and his own wife?

Is that really nepotism and cronyism? 

Well, by definition, it may sound like it by the American standard. This was the basis for Shahrizat's resignation, but was it really necessary? Because I hope to work on my doctoral dissertation on corruption with a local seminary, this has forced me to think more about nepotism and cronyism, especially based on contextual theology. 

We are in Asia and we cannot anyhow transplant Western theology into our cultures. In Asia, everyone is related to each other. In Sarawak, for example, it is amazing to hear friends telling us how the man sitting on the next table is related to him either as blood brothers or through marriage. Therefore, it is not always 100% the American standard is applicable in our context. 

For that reason, the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission Act clearly defines the Offence of using office or position for gratification as:

23. (1) Any officer of a public body who uses his office or position for any gratification, whether for himself, his relative or associate, commits an offence. 

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an officer of a public body shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to use his office or position for any gratification, whether for himself, his relative or associate, when he makes any decision, or takes any action, in relation to any matter in which such officer, or any relative or associate of his, has an interest, whether directly or indirectly.

This is the reason why I said there is a contrast between Hannah Yeoh and her husband's case on one end of the pendulum swing, and Shahrizat Jalil and her husband's case on the other end.

In both cases, the ministers' spouses were offered some government grant/contracts. But, read clause 23 (1) again. It is only wrong when Shahrizat or Yeoh awarded the contracts. But, were they the awarding parties? No! 

In both cases, the awarding party involved a third party. Unless there was lobbying on the part of Shahrizat or Yeoh, there is nothing wrong for their husbands to be awarded any government contracts. 

In the case of the award to Asia Mobiliti, if a wrong is committed, it is committed by the awarding party, knowing well that the CEO of Asia Mobiliti is the spouse of a sitting cabinet minister. But the state government also has its own reasons for awarding both companies for the 9-month period. You have to read both press statements from Asia Mobiliti and Selangor State Government, which unfortunately came one day later. 

Here is the link to the first press release I received from Asia Mobiliti Sdn Bhd. Download Here. An update by the Selangor State Government. Download Here.

The difference as I said in my earlier blogpost is: one has the expertise to run the project while the other did not. In the case of Shahrizat's husband, the money went into purchasing of condominiums in Singapore. 

I may be wrong, but I think the only line of defence the father-and-son team has is to say that they intended to hedge the grant money of RM230 million against inflation while waiting for opportunities to invest the money into the National Feedlot Corporation (NFCorp). 

NFCorp chairman Datuk Mohamad Salleh Ismail was subsequently acquitted by the Kuala Lumpur sessions court. 

Shahrizat had to pay the price due to all the brouhaha when people did not fully understand the meaning of nepotism and cronyism. But, I see no reason why another minister's position should be laid on the altar just because of public pressure, when the public do not even know what is happening or get the facts right.

It would help for you to read this article to get the background of what I am saying: https://come-to-senses.blogspot.com/2024/05/exercise-some-critical-thinking-before.html Download the press statements issued by Asia Mobiliti and the Selangor State Government.

(d) Finally, "MPs are not longkang ministers." 

I dispute this concept perpetuated by Tony Pua. Former MP, Chew Mei Fun was called the 'longkang minister.' 

Pua's concept is flawed. While it is true that the cabinet minister, local state assemblyman and MP should focus on policy matters, they will not be able to come out with good policies until they solve the problems on the ground. 

Dr Tan Seng Giaw was one MP who came down to the ground every week. Having known him since the 80s, I have voted for him, because whenever I complained about clogged public drains, he would still come down to see the drains. Although he would tell me that this is not his job, he would still write to the Kuala Lumpur City Hall about it and at one point, even mentioned it in parliament. 

Put yourself in his shoes. How many local councillors did Dr Tan have? ZERO! How much budget did he have to pay the salaries of his assistants? Almost nothing. That is why I say the problem now with our MPs these days is that they think their job is only on policy matters. Yet, so many issues on the ground is also because they are INCAPABLE of putting good policies in place. 

I wish to end with this: Pakatan Harapan in Selangor now has almost everyone on the hierarchy yet why are they not able to deliver a good job in terms of cleanliness, public amenities, potholes, flashfloods, clogged drains, no streetlights, gosh, and a whole long list of things. Is it because they have become lackadaisical in their attitude after being in power for over three terms? 

End.