For those looking for a breath of fresh air, the recent cabinet reshuffle was no doubt a letdown. Few changes were made to a line-up already heavily criticised for its lack of probity and transparency. Many had hoped that as the government moves into its third year in office, it would strike a little courage to remove those who had been accused - not without reason - of having their hands in the till.

But the old chestnut was brought up again: that these very ministers, on which reams and reams of paper from the Attorney-General s chambers had been spent to recommend their prosecution for corruption and misuse of public office, were too competent and necessary to be dropped.

In other words, they were irreplaceable.

Competence is therefore seen as separate from integrity. The explanation for the retention of such ministers as Rafidah Aziz and the re-admission of Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, were grounded in the excuse that their administrative abilities were the most important criteria.

But that is not completely true. Their administrative talents should not have become an excuse for them to escape punitive action, which should have been taken long ago. In fact the two (competence and integrity) should not be seen as two separate qualities. A person who lacked the ability to be honest in office cannot be seen as an able administrator, regardless how many foreign trade agreements they could obtain.

The very fact that in performing their public function, they have deliberately enriched themselves and the circle around them means that they are not competent, but corrupt. That very aspect makes a lie out of the phrase competency because the faults go against the very foundation on which public administrative abilities should be judged.

Honesty expected

We expect honesty in our public servants. If a policeman was corrupt, or if a judge was on the take, or if a district officer was misusing his position in order to make himself rich at the expense of the people he was supposed to look after, we would be quick to say that they should not be allowed to stay in office. In fact, some of these public servants had been removed for wrongs much lesser than corruption, such as the refusal to sign the Akujanji or insubordination.

So why should ministers be different?

As politicians, the threshold for tolerance of their behaviour should be the same, if not lower. After all, they are the heads of their departments and where the buck stops, greater responsibilities lie.

The retention of Rafidah is a clear miscarriage of justice. Long ago, Rafidah had been officially recommended for prosecution based on countless meticulously researched information from witnesses to the misdeeds for misuse of her office as minister for international trade and industry. The reasons for going after her were not based on her popularity (or lack thereof) with the public but because official prosecutors had found evidence of her alleged wrongdoings and said so in their official reports.

But due process of law was not applied. In fact, she escaped any action by the fiat of the then prime minister deciding to protect her. In other words, due process was stifled and the officers of the law were prevented from performing their job.

Rafidah took this as a sign of invincibility. She became more brazen and did not heed hints or the open calls for her to desist from further wrongdoing. As soon as the breath was extinguished from the last administration - and even a few months before that - she began piling up APs for her cronies. In the end, with her corruption cases mounting, even the former prime minister who defended her against all criticism became her biggest critic.

But she escapes yet again, as the powers that be choose political expediency over the cleaning process they themselves had promised voters less than two years ago.

Wrong signals

The move gives out all the wrong signals: it says that it is fine for a politician to be corrupt, as long as he/she is loud, brash and defensive. It creates an image where wrongdoers can protect themselves with immunity afforded by their political positions.

Most disturbingly, it portrays a godfather mentality where the goons are seen to be untouchable because whatever they do, however blatant their misdeeds, they would be under the protection of the big boss.

Maybe its is unfair to say that the cabinet lacks integrity. The corruption of a few should not be blamed on all. But if the few rule supreme, brag about their invincibility and give little care to the basic requirements of honesty in public office, then sooner or later, the public will see the whole administration as unable to keep its own house in order.

Integrity, like charity, begins at home. It is simply unfair for any leader to shield his favourites. It reeks of injustice, unfairness and lacks a backbone.

Charles de Gaulle said, the graves are full of indispensable men . That saying probably applies to most women too. If we do not pay heed to the warning, then the protectors will morph in the public eye into the very ugliness of dishonesty that is the hallmark of those they had chosen to protect.

Ezam Mohd Nor 39, is the former political secretary of ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim. He is currently Parti Keadilan Rakyat Youth chief and the chairperson of Gerak, the non-political Movement For Democracy and Anti Corruption.