(Car images by Two Hundred Percent, source: Wikipedia; background image source: Dreamstime.com)
I PERSONALLY find declaring one’s assets, as the Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) did at the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall on 11 Mar 2009, a little embarrassing. Personal income and wealth are normally considered one’s private domain. Most people would consider it intrusive or even downright rude if an acquaintance were to inquire into one’s income and savings.
But there we were, the five PSM members holding public office, declaring our assets (or rather our relative lack thereof) for all to see. In a society that tends to evaluate individuals on the basis of their material possessions, our public declaration of the meagreness of our material possessions was in effect a public admission of our “failure” in conventional terms.
But we did not have much choice, as PSM had promised that this is what we would do yearly, as long as we held public office. And promises to the rakyat must be kept.
PSM, of course, has good reasons to insist on asset declaration. For far too long, Malaysian politicians have used public office as a shortcut to amassing wealth. So much so that it has almost become “acceptable”. It is seen as something politicians do. It is also rampant in many other developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
PSM feels that we need to take a firm stand on this, and play a leading role in developing an alternative political culture. Elected positions should be used for the good of the people whose votes we begged and cajoled for. Those who want to amass wealth should go into business, not politics. Politicians should take a “vow of poverty” like Catholic priests do — at least for the period in which they hold public office. Only then will there be no conflict of personal interest with the promises we make to the electorate.
So we at PSM steeled ourselves, and told the world how little we possessed. The PSM press event appears to have forced several Pakatan Rakyat (PR) politicians to confront the issue of asset declaration. The first steps towards developing an alternative political culture, perhaps?
Keeping the spirit alive
Coming clean on income and assets also has another useful function within the party — it keeps alive the spirit of sacrifice and volunteerism among ordinary members who do not hold public office.
PSM has a core of active volunteers who have been sacrificing their time selflessly for the past 10 years. What would be the impact on the spirit of volunteerism and sacrifice among the ordinary members if I were to act as if the RM15,000 that I receive monthly was mine exclusively? RM15,000 is more than seven times the income of most of the other members in PSM’s Sungai Siput branch. And I cannot deny that I won this particular seat through the sustained activism of PSM members and supporters both within and outside Sungai Siput.
I treat my RM15,000 monthly income not as my personal right that no one else has a right to question; I treat it as a source of funding for the work PSM is doing, from which I take a modest monthly stipend. I believe this approach contributes to the maintenance of the spirit of volunteerism that is so essential to the further growth of PSM.
(Crossroads image by LostMyHeadache / Flickr)
Malaysia is at the crossroads. The old political order has grown corrupt and self-serving. It probably is past repair and is in the process of being replaced by a new coalition of parties. The slate for this new coalition is still clean.
As the first generation of this new order, I and the rest of my cohorts in PSM and PR are in a unique position. We can actually determine the standards that those coming after us will have to live up to. This, I think, encapsulates the significance of the asset declaration press conference on 11 Mar 2009.
Salam perjuangan! We can build a better world. 
Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj is a physician by training and a founding member of PSM. He is currently Member of Parliament for Sungai Siput.
Tshiung Han See says
After I read the title of the piece, I thought you were going to talk about the police breaking up the ceramah in Bukit Selambau two nights ago.
Han
PM says
Dr Jeyakumar, you have earned my respect for your humility and commitment to serve the rakyat. Hopefully what you and your other PR colleagues have done will serve as the benchmark for all politicians, especially those in BN/Umno to follow. So let’s see if the Umno guys will follow your example after all the rhetoric in their AGM about cleaning-up corruption, which is rampant in the party.
Gopal Raj Kumar says
The PSM idea you speak of which is now policy is a somewhat distorted or misunderstood variant to the requirement adopted now in many developed democracies for disclosure, where elected Members of Parliament (MPs) are required to declare their holdings and directorships in companies, businesses and other entities (including religious and voluntary bodies) where these interests may potentially conflict with a member’s duty to Parliament and to their constituents as elected representatives.
There is nothing to stop a talented member from amassing wealth whilst in government provided the wealth is not amassed out of an abuse of the office he [or she] holds, through unalwful conduct or the use of privileged information gained by virtue of being an MP.
As an example it was claimed a long time ago that former Malaysian Finance Minister Tan Siew Sin had amassed quite a fortune apart from his inheritance through frantic trading and speculation on the price of commodities prior to the reading of a budget.
It was certainly possible though never proven. But the point remains to exemplify what types of abuse or temptations a person in an MP’s position is confronted with whilst in office.
Naturally such claims are easier made than proved. But again the point is made as to why the need for disclosure is required. Not to the extent PSM requires of you.
There are many who amass fortunes in government which by their domestic policies and laws are not rendered either immoral or illegal. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are but a few examples of this practice.
In other decmoracies we follow and ape closely as in the US and in Singapore, the apparent ability of leaders of government to balance their legal and vocational obligations to parliament, and to the state appear to sit comfortably with their personal business and commercial undertakings. In Singapore, there are several millionaire parliamentarians all of whom have significant private interests over which the government legislates daily.
The point of the exercise of this sort of disclosure (not the PSM type) is to enable parliament to continue to attract the best talent to its function without penalising people simply because the are wealthy or have a capacity to become wealthy.
As is the case of management and good corporate governance of companies, it is a requirement under the Corporations Act in most common law jurisdictions that directors declare their involvement and therefore excuse themselves from taking a vote on a topic where a potential conflict of interest arises.
Perhaps PSM needs to study in greater depth the purpose off its acitons rather than to ape something it is not sure of.
It is not about a process but an outcome.