Write an article about What’s holding back the Political Funding Bill? .Organize the content with appropriate headings and subheadings (h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6), Retain any existing tags from
From Walter Sandosam
Malaysia is altruistic in its desired and well-articulated motive to fight corruption on all fronts. It is a noble objective.
There is the insatiable desire to be counted among the top end of “least corrupt” countries. It is expressed in the goal to be bracketed among the nations listed in the top one-third on the Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index.
Going by recent events, it appears that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
It is a global phenomenon that corruption in relation to political financing is the mother of all corruption activity. In Malaysia, corruption is further fuelled by the antics of almost all enforcement agencies. This is evidenced by recent swoops and arrests carried out by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.
Recently the following statements have been reported in the media:
- “It will be hard to pass the political financing bill before the next general election.”
- “The government still requires feedback on many of the bill’s aspects, especially from members of civil society.”
In the melting pot are roadshows and townhall sessions. Really?
This sounds nothing short of a :”cop-out”. Has the desire waned or has it been compromised by pandering to self-interests from certain quarters.
This government got its foothold on Putrajaya not to restore a broken economy but based on its much-touted stance on fixing corruption.
The relevant question is, given that was the platform, why are institutional reforms, especially those related to combating corruption, moving at a snail’s pace? Is there an element of political manoeuvring or is it unbridled incompetence?
The nation’s static position on the latest Transparency International anti-corruption index rankings speaks for itself. Politicians forget, to their detriment, that global attention is on Malaysia as an investment destination.
In November 2024, the deputy law and institutional reform minister commented that the proposed bill was “still being studied by a special select committee”.
Another comment reported recently was that it had “reached a roadblock on discussions, adding that the impasse mainly involved experts on the matter”. Who chaired this group?
The MACC chief commissioner, who can be considered an “expert”, lately called for a political funding law to be put in place expeditiously. He further suggested that it would be “best to start small, with a pilot phase”.
As a past member of the independent MACC operations review panel who took office pursuant to the enactment of the MACC Act 2009, I find a lot of sense in what Azam Baki is proposing. That Act did not need roadshows.
To comment that the “rakyat is getting clever” or that their “expectations are very high”, or to say, “I helped you campaign, surely you are not going to avoid my issues,” is both distasteful and concerning.
So, are politicians in their portfolios to get re-elected or to do what is good for the nation as a whole? To my dismay, it appears that the self-serving nature of politicians is resurfacing.
To reiterate, the current government was elected to fix corruption.
Is the Political Funding Act for the good of the nation or not? That is the crux. Everything else is poppycock!
Asking members of the public for their opinion, while sounding extremely democratic, makes absolutely no sense, especially when you are tackling the mother of all corruption – political funding. Have previous Acts been subject to such onerous scrutiny?
It will be embarrassing if the prime minister has to step in yet again to fix things speedily (as he did in the instance of the Peaceful Assembly Act recently when there was a “sandiwara” on the locations where the public can assemble).
It appears there is no KPI set with timeframes to achieve an objective, as practised in the corporate sector. Hence the malady and time-dragging by government ministers.
When amendments were made to Section 17A of the MACC Act 2009, there was a dire need and it was acted upon holistically, notwithstanding the pushback from some quarters.
There has to be perspective here. A political funding bill was first proposed in 2015, and there was pushback.
On Aug 3, 2015, the then DAP secretary-general said, on record, that the party had not been contacted on any proposal to regulate political funding. It was in response to the then prime minister announcing an intention to propose regulations on political funding.
The concern was that the Act could be abused by the then Barisan Nasional government to victimise the opposition.
Coincidentally, the DAP is now in the present unity government.
Let’s stop playing charades. As correctly pointed out, the rakyat is “getting clever and expectations are high”.
The next general election is two and a half years away (perhaps even sooner). Deliver on corruption or get booted out.
It is not an attractive option. In the interim, don’t expect miracles on corruption perception index rankings. It is only wishful thinking!
Walter Sandosam is a former MACC oversight panel member and an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
and integrate them seamlessly into the new content without adding new tags. Include conclusion section and FAQs section at the end. do not include the title. it must return only article i dont want any extra information or introductory text with article e.g: ” Here is rewritten article:” or “Here is the rewritten content:”