In an exclusive interview, Transparency International Malaysia head Param Cumaraswamy gauges the impact of moves to eliminate corruption. He covers the role of the government, Parliament and the press.

Malaysiakini: Datuk, what is your view on the current anti-corruption movement in this country?

Param: As a global advocate for transparency and accountability, we are working towards 'zero' tolerance of corruption. We are part of that global organisation. But as a national chapter, we look at the national level.

What happened over last few years, especially the last two years, is that there is greater awareness among the people on the deleterious effects of corruption on society.

The new administration under the PM (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) made the combating of corruption a priority item when it held elections last year. That was all in the papers and since then, we have been hearing a lot of similar statements about the (election) manifesto.

I think, to some extent, certain actions he took were in the right direction. Setting up the Royal Commission on the police is one example, because the police force has always being viewed as very corrupt (although) of course, they are still some good people there.

There were two high-profile prosecutions that give people the feeling that is some element of political will to fight corruption. There were some good appointments recently as chief of police, president of the Court of Appeal and Chief Judge of Malaya. Last April, there was the launch of National Integrity Plan, which is very academic, and also the setting up of the Institute of Integrity Malaysia to monitor and implement the action plan....These are all good steps that give people some hope that the government is quite serious. We applaud the PM for that.

However, history has shown not only in this country but also in others that corruption is not something that can be fought by one person. The PM alone by his words and statements, cannot fight this. It requires the support of his entire cabinet. He requires the support of the entire Parliament. He needs support of all other public institutions and also the private sector.

Unfortunately, we haven't seen many cabinet ministers come out in support of some of the things that he has said. We don't read many statements from ministers calling (on people to) fight corruption. Most of the statements are from the PM....unless for some reasons they don't want to talk about it. But again this is all rhetoric at the moment. We find there is so much rhetoric in the newspapers. We need more actions.

We have got to ascertain the weaknesses in institutions like the judiciary, police force, civil service and Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) that encourage corruption. But before we do all of this, we need access to information. This is the other issue we need to address.

We cannot fight corruption if we don't have a free press. It's the press that should disseminate information to the people. For the free press to function effectively, it also requires free flow of information from public administration and also from private corporations. Only then will the public will be kept informed and any corrupt practices can be brought attention to the people.

Without the right to information, fighting corruption (will not become a routine matter). We need freedom of information legislation very urgently. That would necessarily mean that the government will have to review the Official Secrets Act and remove the amendments they made back in 1986. If a senior government servant commits an offence, that's kept as a secret. Unfortunately, this used to cover up (malpractice) in the government.

This is why Parliament has a very important role. MPs must always be alert and bring up matters, and question government leaders to seek information. But I don't think Parliament is playing the kind of effective role it should be playing. The judiciary too must be seen as independent and impartial; those appointed must be people of good quality and integrity. Similarly the ACA must be seen to be independent.

The public would also like to know what has happened to several scandals of the past. You cannot just say 'let's forget about the past and look at the future'. This is just like what happened during the regime of Pol-Pot in Cambodia. Although Pol-Pot is dead, there are those who still want him to be prosecuted. The same thing has happened with (Gen. Augustus) Pinochet in Chile. He's ill, but they said 'look, he must be prosecuted for all what he had been doing in the past'. They can't forget the past.

Two high-profile cases were taken to court in Malaysia before the elections (a year ago). It was also mentioned that there would be 16 more prosecutions but we have not heard anything about this. People don't want to talk about it, so everyone is a suspect. Every leader is a suspect. That's very wrong and unfair. So this is why you cannot just prosecute two people and say 'I am taking stern action against corruption'. That's not sufficient. (It's what) we call superficial.

I put a lot of premium on a free press. Sometimes I say it's even more important than an independent judiciary. A free press is vital for an effective democracy. Unfortunately, the latest index shows that (press freedom in) Malaysia has gone down further, even below Singapore.

Up to 1987, we had a freer press. After that, we slowly but surely went down. (In those days), you could criticise the prime minister and you would be on the front page, but now you can't. Everyone of you will be scared. I don't think there are any journalists, we only have reporters in this country. We don't have journalists any more.

The government is very good at preaching to other groups to establish codes of conduct. It should also have a code for all leaders. This has been done in one or two countries. The code sets out the responsibilities of leaders and there is an enforcement mechanism to examine breaches of the code.

These leaders have special responsibility. They are expected to show and set an example to others. If other professions have codes of conduct, why can't the leaders?

How effective a role can TI play in Malaysia?

We are a NGO, we are not a statutory body. We don't have statutory powers. We can only be an advocacy body for the principles and values of transparency in public administration and private corporations. We don't have the power of investigation and we won't investigate individual cases. That's not our province. We don't have powers of enforcement. But we can work with the government if it shows the political will to bring about 'zero' corruption.

In the next couple of years, do you expect to see any improvement in wiping out corruption?

There is greater awareness and we need to (maintain the) momentum. We look forward to working with other groups who share our values. Also we work with the region as well. There are chapters all over now - in the Philippine, Indonesia, Thailand, South Korea and Japan. We can network and learn from their experiences and tell the government how to deal with the situation.

Do you think the government is willing to listen to suggestions?

The government has been co-operative. I don't see any reason why they would not co-operate, particularly when they have the National Integrity Plan. They also promised the people in their election manifesto (that they would tackle corruption). So, we will go along with that.

The previous TI president was seen as taking a softer approach. Will you be different from him?

All of us have a different approach. (People) always think that NGOs are confrontational. If we are critical, it is seen as confrontational by certain people to paint a bad picture of us...we can criticise constructively and not criticise for the sake of criticism. At the same time, if the government has done something good, we will praise them. If the government done something which is not consistent with the values that we propagate, then it's our duty to express it.

You are quite optimistic that there will be improvement in wiping out corruption?

That's in the sense of the current trend and mood...everyone is talking about fighting corruption. We feel that, if we come up with ideas and suggestions, they will respond and appreciate that we are there to help them.

Then the government is on the right track?

No. At the moment, I think there's not enough constructive actions to address the weaknesses. We must find out the weaknesses that encourage corruption in various sectors. And then we have to look at the weaknesses and suggest changes.

The government should seriously consider ratifying the Convention against Corruption. Two years ago, Malaysia signed but did not ratify it (although the) PM made a public statement that it would be ratified. But credit must be given to the government for ratifying another convention against transnational crime last October.

The Convention against Corruption is a comprehensive international treaty. It took about 10 years to produce. It deals with corruption in both public and private institutions.

In a report recently, former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim made a public statement that Malaysia has become more corrupt since Abdullah has taken over power. How convinced you are of what he has said?

I don't have the information that Anwar has. But if you go by the TI index, corruption has gone up a little. Again, unless we bring to book the previous scandals, this kind of allegation will continue to be made.

That's why I feel anyone who has information should come forward to the authorities concerned. Investigating corruption is not easy, it (involves the) receiver and the giver. You need to get one of them to come forward unless a third party has seen this, and very often this has been done in secret. This is why we need to make a great deal of changes when it comes to tracking the movement of corrupt money. Sometimes you need international co-operation, you may require bi-lateral agreements to have access to bank accounts in other country.

If the government wants to avoid people making all these allegations, it really must start looking at these weaknesses and reform institutions and policies. They have to start with political will to bring about changes.

Talking about perception, an article on Umno Online quoted Berlin-based TI as saying that the political will of the Malaysian government is very good and perhaps one of the best one in Asia...

I checked it out. It was never said that way. What really happened was in light of some of the statements made by the PM since he came into office, TI in Berlin said that Malaysia appears to be renewing political will to fight corruption (as seen in ) high-profile prosecutions and the setting up of the police commission. We never said that it's the best in Asia. From what I understand, they can't recall having any contact with them (Umno Online).

Would you respond and take action?

No. We shouldn't be bothered. There are more important things to do. You must remember this is also party propaganda... party workers working for the party. TI is an international organisation, we don't want to go into little things.

How will TI work with the National Integrity Institute?

We have agreed to co-operate. We are more into research on various components of international plans. We will work with them when they need assistance or we need assistance from them. Then there will be a lot of seminars, training programmes...we also want to have co-operation in good governance programmes.

TI claims to be an independent NGO, but you work very closely with the government...

What's so wrong (about this)? We can be independent and have a common cause. I would be surprised if people see us as not being independent just because we are working and co-operating with an agency set up to address issues similar to what we are addressing.

We are very clear. If we share an office with them and use the same officers, maybe....but no, we have our office here and we will work independently with them. Co-operation doesn't mean we sacrifice our independence.

Is TI following up on pledges made by election candidates before the general election last year?

No, what we really want is to get the government to see all political leaders periodically. People can make pledges... but what we want to see is whether there is anything unusual in their income even before they retire. That's the kind of practice that we need to promote.

Do you think the pledges were mere rhetoric?

No...(this was done) to see whether they would respond. We were disappointed. Only a few responded. Even the PM and DPM did not respond.


Param: Free the press to wipe out corruption