I read with great amazement the conferment of the nation's highest award to former MCA president by the Yang Di Pertuan Agung on the recommendation of the Barisan Nasional government.

I cannot help but wonder what Dr Ling Liong Sik has really done for this country that credibly places him in the same category as such notables as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Tun Abdul Razak, Tun Hussein Onn and Tun Salleh Abas.

Is 17 years as a minister in the Barisan Nasional government a criterion, notwithstanding a lackluster performance that is tainted with alleged corruption and unjustified wealth?

Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang has rightly questioned the recent conferment of the 'Tun' award as 'reports lodged to the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) against the latter still loom.'

Could it be possible that it is precisely because of these reports lodged to the Anti-Corruption Agency that Ling is conferred the nation's highest award, so as to ward off and forestall any possible legal action against him?

For would it not make a mockery of this country when one is dragged to court for corruption and other offences soon after one has just been conferred the nation's highest award?

Would not the King then have to pardon Dr Ling on the grounds of great and significant contributions to this nation, even if he is indeed found guilty? Hasn't there been a precedent for a pardon for corruption before, in the instance of Datuk Harun Idris, the ex-Selangor Menteri Besar?

Honestly, as an ordinary Malaysian with no political affiliations, I am not at all confident of the impartiality of the Barisan Nasional government when it comes to corruption involving high personages in society.

While I do not doubt Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's sincerity in rooting out corruption, I dare not bet my money that he will not balk when it comes to dealing with high personages, as suffice to say, his actions to date have spoken louder than his words.

What has he done so far on the alleged corruption cases involving high personages that were pointed out by Lim Kit Siang and Anwar Ibrahim? Nothing, right? Would not Anwar, with his insider information, be a veritable source of information against corruption?

While I do not doubt that Abdullah's attitude towards corruption is the same as that of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, I am not at all confident that he has the brutal courage and ruthlessness of the latter to see his personal convictions through.

Abdullah's softie image is not merely an image but becomes very real when it comes to the crunch in having to deal with corruption that involves certain personalities. One may point to the arrest of Kasitah Gaddam, but isn't this 'lightweight' minister, the highest personage so far charged?

Does anyone dare to bet his money that Abdullah will dare to bring Mahathir to task, if and when all roads lead to Rome?

When Abdullah was asked about the disappointment drawn from the retention of several ministers in his cabinet some of whom have been accused of corruption, he had claimed that he appointed people whom he knew and whom he believed could do the job. Did he make a stance on corruption in this instance? Is it not clear that being corruption-free was not a criterion for Abdullah's cabinet appointments?

Abdullah has said: "I've always said that you can use the same vehicle although the driver will change."

Does Abdullah not inherit a vehicle that has a track record for tolerating and abetting corruption? Isn't it true that this ruling coalition has acquired a significant track record for sheltering, protecting and immunising personages in high positions from being charged with corruption under the previous leadership?

Is this not the vehicle that fixed a very low penalty for corruption vis-B-vis a mistaken or false report on corruption? Does this not tell us a lot about this vehicle's stance against corruption? Obviously, this vehicle needs a major overhaul and facelift.

I do not foresee that Ling will be proven guilty at any time, what with Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz's admission that in Malaysia, the judiciary is not independent as "the concept of separation of powers is too idealistic to be implemented in this country".

It had been reported that businessman Soh Chee Wen may 'reveal information which can either bring down many big names in the business world, or simply weaken the market's confidence in the government's commitment to corporate reforms." Would this not be sufficient reason to halt any possible legal action against Ling, if by definition, the interests of this country is at stake?

If the judiciary has not been viewed as independent, neither have the Anti-Corruption Agency, the police and the Inland Revenue Department proved themselves to be independent either.

No right-thinking Malaysians will believe that the ACA is so inefficient as to be unable to give a full and satisfactory accounting of its investigations into reports involving Ling and his son Hee Leong's RM1.2 billion Berjaya Industrial acquisition since 1996 when it could so quickly bring Anwar Ibrahim to book for abuse of power.

Has not Hee Leong confessed that he does nothing without his father's knowledge and approval? Malaysians can truly wonder whether Hee Leong was merely acting as a front for his father's 'creative' use of his ministerial position and position as chief of the second largest component party in the ruling coalition to enrich himself.

In Malaysia, as in many other countries, everyone is innocent, until found guilty by a court of law. Given the Barisan Nasional vehicle's high tolerance for corruption, images of the attorney-general and members of the judiciary burning the midnight oil, poring over voluminous and immensely bulky law books in search of fine print and rare precedents to defeat any case brought up against Ling, keep haunting my mind.

Whether or not my skepticism is unfounded, only time can tell.

I therefore strongly believe that, as a former long-serving chief of a key component party within the Barisan Nasional coalition, the executive, even under a new leadership, will provide all necessary immunity and protection to Ling to prevent any case against him from being heard in court; and in the unlikely event of failure to do so, it will go all out to defeat the case in its second line of defence.

This being so, how would it then be possible to prove Ling guilty of alleged corruption and abuse of power during his ministerial tenure? I must therefore conclude that Ling is entitled to the Tun-ship, at least, on technical grounds.

Now that Ling is awarded the nation's highest award, I would not be in the least surprised that the next in line for a Tun-ship is S Samy Vellu, as and when he finally decides to step down as president of the MIC.

In any case, we should now no longer delude ourselves into thinking that the status of a Tun is on par with that of a lordship in Great Britain. If even our Ling can get a Tun for his undistinguished service, is it not obvious that a Tun is not so Tun after all?