Commentary by Dr Lim Teck Ghee

On the MACC prescription to curb corruption headlined in the NST yesterday (Nov 10, 2009) firstly, the case for a pay rise of legislators must be considered on its own merit.

Perhaps this is necessitated by the increase in responsibilities and the cost of running and maintaining political office. Such a case must be set out in full and made transparent so that the public has the data on all the payments and other entitlements that the different categories of elected representatives currently obtain.

The pros and cons of any salary increase should be discussed and analyzed but increasing the salaries of our elected representatives at this time of financial crisis will send the wrong signal to the nation.

Secondly it is necessary to note that there are no authoritative studies which show a correlation between the salaries of legislators and the extent of corruption. To suggest that a pay rise for legislators will help curb graft is quite ludicrous. The example of Singapore’s highly paid Ministers and the relative absence of corruption in the city state may have prompted some senior officials of the MACC to come out with the proposal.

If this is the case, the MACC should also come out into the open with more data. A comparison of the Singapore and Malaysian corruption perception ranking is certainly worth undertaking in view of the many similarities in the population and socio-economic structures of the two countries. See the table below (compiled from Transparency International’s annual index) which is quite revealing on the progress or lack of progress made on combating corruption in Malaysia over the last five years.

 

Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index

Year	Denmark	New Zealand	Sweden	Finland	Iceland	Singapore	Malaysia
	Rank	Rank	Rank	Rank	Rank	Rank	Rank
2008	1	1	1			4	47
2007	1	1	1			4	43
2006	1	1			1	5	44
2005		2		2	1	5	39
2004	3	2		1	3	5	39

*(The table above shows Malaysia's ranking against selected countries; three countries were tied at No.1 spot in 2006-2008).

 

To suggest that the better performance of Singapore on this key indicator is due to the higher salaries their legislators enjoy is simplistic to say the least. However, a reasonable inference can be drawn from the data in the table that the battle against corruption in Malaysia has certainly not improved since the MACC came into existence – in fact, the situation has worsened.

But let us for argument’s sake accept the point that our legislators are underpaid and therefore more susceptible to corruption. It is not only legislators who may feel they are underpaid and overworked. Ask everyone who is working – not only ministers or assemblypersons. Ask the police officer, local council gardener, the teacher or the private sector employee whether they are adequately compensated for their work, and I am sure they will mostly answer in the negative.

Is the MACC also suggesting that we increase the salaries of everyone in the country to reduce graft? Using the same logic, perhaps a large increase in the salaries of the MACC staff could also enhance its effectiveness in curbing abuse of power and corruption. Or perhaps that increase may be not enough for some members of the MACC going by the allegations in a mystery letter on the “Bribery, misconduct and corruption of a superior officer of MACC selangor??? that has been doing the rounds of the Internet since August this year. (See blogger Hussein Hamid’s post yesterday in his blog).

Finally most Malaysians are well aware that the reason why graft is so rampant is because the laws pertaining to it are only selectively enforced and a culture of corruption is especially found at the high levels of authority and power.

Put simply, the senior officials in the agencies charged with combating graft, especially in the MACC, are not doing their job properly. They should not throw a red herring to mislead the public on why they cannot execute the functions they are paid to do.