I refer to the letter The argument against yearly asset declarations.

I appreciate the writer’s practical approach in addressing the issue of asset declarations by elected officials. However, it seems to be grounded in an idealised world rather than the practical reality of Malaysian politics.

In most developed democracies, potential politicians take a pay cut when entering politics from their previous high-paying positions in industry (e.g. business) or professions (e.g. doctors, lawyers). When they depart politics they can resume their high-paying positions in industry or professions. Politics is not their main source of bread and butter. Rather, the notion of public office is tied to public service (not self -service).

In developing democracies (like ours), potential politicians usually get an upgrade in their income package when moving into politics including a lifetime pension. Many of our politicians come from lower income positions, making politics their prime source of bread and butter. Hence there is a greater propensity for ‘self-service’ rather than ‘public service’ and this has been borne out by 50 years of BN rule.

Hence the need for more frequent asset declarations. This must unfortunately include their immediate family and any other nominee who holds the assets for the benefit of the politician (incl. trusts, foundations and other legal fiction).

The example of the Istana Mat Deros which (from what I understand from the press) was allegedly held in his wife's name is not the sole example of assets being held by nominees and family members to avoid public scrutiny.

Politicians must be barred from managing their financial, property or business investments during their term in office. This does not mean, however, that their assets are not allowed to grow during their term.

These must be put in a blind trust and managed by a professional manager who is barred from taking any directions from the politician during their term in office except in setting up the investment policy at the start i.e. their assets and investments must be on ‘autopilot’.

The manager can then report the increases or decreases in the value of the assets direct to the asset register allowing the politician to focus on public duty.

Having ‘a set of well-prepared declarations at the beginning of the term and again at the end of term (incl. resignations, reelections, or reappointments)’ as the writer suggests will not work when there are no term limits on our politicians (e.g. our former PM was in office for over 20 years).

It doesn't take much imagination to figure out how to manipulate the system over long office terms and then cleaning out the books on the retirement year to make it look like nothing much happened in between (not that I'm alleging any impropriety on the former PM's part - I’m just using his long office term as an example).

It is implicit in any functioning democratic government that politicians give up their privacy when taking public office. They must be subject to public scrutiny as they are pledging to be trustworthy fiduciaries of taxpayers money, not to mention political power.

If privacy is more important, then they should not enter public life. Entering politics is a public service not ‘self-service’.