Cash for honours - A Malaysian Dilemma
WE ARE ALL familiar with a certain joke, much in vogue, about a dead certainty of a pebble thrown randomly high above a Malaysian gathering landing squarely on a Datuk.
Political jokes or cartoons, whether hilarious or not, apparently carry a message of sorts, and this particular one is stingingly pointed in its contemptuous condemnation of a widespread practice that has become a national embarrassment. State, federal governments and royal palaces, some more brazen, and others less so, have been responsible for debasing our honours system instituted, and rightly so, to honour citizens for bravery, for distinguished service to science, soccer, cricket, industry, community and whatever else considered worthy of public recognition.
Cash for honours in modern times was David Lloyd George’s answer to the eternal difficulty of raising money for party funds. Lloyd George, as some will recall, was the Liberal Party Prime Minister of Britain who in 1916 replaced Herbert Asquith. History tells us that while this practice was nothing new, it was the sheer scale of Lloyd George’s marketing of honours operations that alarmed the nation.
More recently, Tony Blair found himself mired in a similar scandal. It is worth noting that both Lloyd George and Tony Blair sold honours to augment party funds, and there has never been any suggestion that the practice was for self-enrichment. That does not mean that it was kosher. Cash for honours is no more acceptable than vote buying or seducing opposition politicians to cross over for cash.
Our state honours must represent our highest ideals and aspirations, sanctified by exceptional merit, nothing less will ever do, and dignified by an investiture in the presence of the king or a ruler. The honours system must be open and transparent. Persons who are honoured must be prepared to subject himself to public scrutiny, and the public must be told why he is being made a Datuk or a Tan Sri.
When we see a fully equipped and ceremonially uniformed recipient in his early thirties, standing self-consciously before a ruler of a state, we may be forgiven for thinking the worst. What has a scrap iron merchant, for example, contributed to that state in social, economic and social terms to deserve a title? Or worse still, we would be less than human if we did not associate the award with some form of a cash deal. This imputation of improper motive or motives is inevitable as long as the awards are shrouded in mystery.
In the case of one state which shall for now remain nameless to spare unnecessary blushes, there is not a week that goes by that does not see some business man or other being “ennobled” who is not even a subject of the ruler. What possible contribution could the Datuk have made to the state to deserve such a high award? I do not discount the royal prerogative to honour those from outside the state who have rendered personal services to the ruler, and if that is the case, please say so. It does seem odd that so many people are involved in the royal services industry. One or two palaces are giving the others a bad name.
The whole thing, if you ask the public at large, is an organised royal racket, and we know it. However, we are afraid to raise our voice in condemnation of a practice that not only debases the awards, but also the palace. At a time when we are all anxious to uphold the honour and dignity of our rulers so that they can more easily exercise their constitutional duties to the advantage of the citizens of this country, they ought to take a lead in promoting ethical standards of behaviour, always remembering that what is apparently legal or constitutional is not always necessarily ethical.
One way of stopping the spread of corruption of the honours system in individual states is to do way with the title Datuk. A person who has rendered exceptional service to a state should be awarded a pingat or medal carrying no title. They do this in Singapore and Australia and elsewhere, and they are no worse for not having Datuks tripping over one another. Honours carrying titles should only be properly conferred by His Majesty’s Government.
Our rulers, many of whom are truly excellent role models, must come down to earth in order to find out for themselves how they are viewed by the people, and they must accept constructive criticisms in good faith. We want the system of monarchy to be strong and relevant.
Our rulers should remind themselves of their solemn oath of office that places them under a sacred duty or obligation to do all in their power to protect their people by putting the interests of their subjects before their own. To me, this is what being a ruler is about. Forget all that nonsense about the “divine right of kings.” That was a belief, an article of faith, no less, that the kings and queens of Europe of old actively encouraged - to discourage dissent among the great unwashed who made up their subjects.
Happily, the world has moved on.
(By TUNKU ABDUL AZIZ)
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/24227
博文
没有评论:
发表评论