*Photo from dailyrecord.co.uk

May 17, 2012 | By Yap Mun Ching

EARLIER this month, Britain’s High Court heard for the first time testimony by Scots Guards soldiers admitting that they had killed and covered up the 1948 massacre of 24 unarmed rubber plantation workers in the village of Batang Kali.

During a judicial review of the British government’s decision not to hold an official inquiry into the incident, lawyers representing the villagers revealed statements obtained during interviews with soldiers in 1970 when the then-British Labour government ordered an investigation into persistent claims of a cover-up.

Among the more shocking admissions, soldiers said that contrary to claims by the colonial office that the villagers were shot while trying to escape, the rubber plantation workers were instead made to run by the same soldiers who later gunned them down. Worse was to follow. The bodies of some of the victims were subsequently mutilated and the village burned to the ground. In reports that emerged after the massacre, no weapons were said to have been found in Batang Kali. Former Malayan Communist Party leader Chin Peng has also gone on record to say that none of the villagers were ever linked with his movement.

The acts perpetrated by the Scots Guards were shameful, but no more shameful than the determination of successive British governments to deny responsibility for the killing of 24 innocent people more than six decades ago.

The first of these denials took place in 1949 when an informal investigation exonerated the solders involved. An attempt 20 years later by the Labour government of the 1970s to get to the bottom of the case was thwarted by the incoming Conservative government which cold storaged the inquiry. As late as January 2009, the British government remained reluctant to delve into this ignominious past by rejecting calls for an inquiry.

However, two factors made it impossible for the case to be buried. The first is the determination of Batang Kali survivors not to let history be whitewashed. The second is the awful reality that crimes such as those perpetrated in Malaya were not isolated. Parallel to the efforts of Batang Kali campaigners to seek justice, other violated groups were doing the same in British courts, including Kenyans who allege torture by British forces during the Mau Mau rebellion in the 1950s.

It was during the Kenyans’ fight for the right to sue the British government that the British Foreign Office released an archive of material detailing some of the worst crimes committed during the final years of the Empire. According to a Cambridge historian overseeing the review and transfer of the archive, the documents should have been made accessible in the 1980s but were kept hidden in breach of legal obligations for them to be transferred into the public domain.

This glimmer of hope for Batang Kali survivors was to be quickly dashed once it was confirmed that crucial papers detailing the events of the fateful day of Dec 11, 1948 had been destroyed, but the archive still shed light on some of the terrible deeds carried out in the name of the anti-Communist struggle.

Within these documents, regular references were made to “terrorist eliminations”, many of which were coldly regarded as being “satisfactory”. Other papers described actions calculated to humiliate and degrade – including one practice of forcing women to remove their clothes and throwing them far away so that they had to recover their clothing under the eye of their tormentors.

One could infer that the destruction of the Batang Kali papers speaks just as loudly for the survivors’ case. It is not for no reason that the Batang Kali case is widely regarded as one of the most controversial in British colonial history.

Back home, while there have been several attempts to bring the case to public attention through Parliament and an attempt to investigate by the Royal Malaysian Police in the 1990s (the case was eventually closed on grounds of insufficient evidence), it has received but lukewarm interest.

*Photo from themalaysianinsider.com

It may be due to the wariness of some quarters to be involved in a compensation claims trial that threatens to dredge up many more potential cases. It may be due to the taint of Communism that is inseparable from this case. As the innocence of the villagers becomes ever more evident, this apathy should be shaken off. For all we know, the villagers may have been guilty of nothing more than being anti-colonialists. As pointed out by a writer in The Guardian newspaper, in the twilight years of the British Empire, the difference between anti-colonialism and Communism was not always clear. Thus, in our memories, the villagers of Batang Kali would be better honoured not as victims of mistaken identity but simply as people who sacrificed to stand on the same side as many other Malayans.

Mun Ching enjoys travelling off the beaten path to discover the grittier but more revealing parts of the region we call home. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

News Link

The cell block on a typical ward in Camp Delta, Naval Station Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Photo taken in April, 2006. (U.S. Army Sgt. Sara Wood) - *Photo from mymodernmet.com

May 16, 2012 | By Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad

UNEQUAL JUSTICE: Failure to uphold international laws has allowed nations like the US to get away with crimes against humanity, writes Mahathir Mohamad

THE Kuala Lumpur Tribunal on War Crimes sat for five days in the courtroom at the Al-Bukhary Foundation to listen to charges against George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez, David Addington, William Haynes II, Jay Byber and John Choon Yoo of the United States for the torture of detainees held in the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo detention camps.

Many would ask of what use is this hearing by a toothless tribunal.

The answer is that the international community has failed in the proper implementation of international laws to which all countries have officially subscribed. Worse still, the laws are applied only against weak countries and their leaders who are judged and punished.

Thus, the International Criminal Court tried the president of Sudan in absentia and issued orders for his arrest. Today, he cannot visit many countries for fear of arrest.

During the sitting of the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal, three prisoners and detainees told of the tortures they suffered in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

An Iraqi woman, Jameela Abbas Alhifli, told how she was dragged by the hair from her brother’s house by a detachment of Americans and Iraqis and taken to a jail. She was beaten with a kind of plastic-covered truncheon, she was banged against the wall; the hands were tied behind the back and then she was pulled up by a rope tied to the manacled hands.

She was stripped naked, hooded and taken to see her daughter. She was told that unless she confessed that she knew the “resistance people”, they would kill her daughter. The hood was slipped on and then she heard shots being fired. However, when the hood was taken off, she saw that her daughter was alive.

In winter, water was thrown on the floor of her six-by-six cell, and she was stripped naked and made to crawl on the floor. Ice water was poured over the back. After six months of continuous torture, she was released. Her gaolers had decided that she really had no knowledge of the resistance.

Another prisoner, Moazzam Begg, a British citizen, was water-boarded in addition to other forms of torture. Water-boarding involves covering the face and head with towels while the victim lies down and water is poured on the towel.

The prisoner feels that he is drowning as he breathes in water when he feels suffocated. It is a harrowing experience. The victim can die following this treatment.

A common way of torture was to undress the prisoner, put a hood over the head, make him stand on a stool and attach electrodes to various parts of the body, including the genitals. Any movement triggers electric shocks to the body. Nails were pulled out with pliers.

Jameela was flown in a helicopter with doors wide open so attackers will know that the prisoner will be killed if the helicopter is shot down. The use of human shields is forbidden by international law.

Some prisoners were flown from Iraq to Guantanamo, manacled, hooded and shackled, seated on the bare floor. They suffered horribly as the flight took hours. At other times, the prisoners were made to stand for hours with their hands stretched out.

They were deprived of sleep for days; and were held in isolation and cut off from daylight for months.

The sufferings  were unimaginable. In the end, they were found to be innocent of the accusations against them and were released.

A three-hour video clip showed the prisoners undergoing torture and visually recorded the views of American leaders boldly declaring their rights to torture.

Today, a large number of prisoners  are still in Guantanamo Camp, despite the election promise by US President Barack Obama that he would close the camp immediately upon his election as president. They have been incarcerated for more than 10 years without any recourse to legal representations.

The prosecution team of the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal cited the Geneva Convention on torture 1949, the Convention against Torture 1984, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter, the US Constitution itself and the rules of conduct of the US military to prove that the treatment of the prisoners constituted torture as understood and accepted by international laws.

The acts were cruel, inhuman and degrading. The accused  were proven to have authorised, connived in the commission of acts of torture and cruel, degrading and inhuman acts against victims in violation of international laws, treaties and conventions.

The prosecution also gave details of the action by the accused, through their memos, approvals and directives for the torture of the prisoners.

Former president George W. Bush declared that al-Qaeda was not a party to the conventions or agreements and was, therefore, not protected by them. Further, it was argued that should these prisoners capture American personnel, they would treat their captives in the same way.

The defence in mitigation said that the situation after the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers rendered existing conventions, treaties and laws invalid. The accused were entitled to act in contravention of all laws, treaties and conventions.

The prosecution refuted this statement as there is no provision for the suspension of any conventions, laws or agreements simply because of the so-called acts of terror against the United States. Nor may any country unilaterally refute their commitments to these undertakings.

After four days of hearings, the tribunal adjourned to consider the verdict. On the fifth day, that is, 24 hours after the hearings ended, the tribunal gave a 19-page written judgment, finding that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused  had “engaged in a web of instructions, memos, directives, legal advice and action that established a common plan and purpose, joint enterprise and/or conspiracy to commit the crimes of torture and war crimes, including and not limited to a common plan and purpose to commit the following crimes in relation to the “war on terror” that was launched by the US and others in Afghanistan and Iraq:

TORTURE;

CREATING,  authorising and implementing a regime of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatments;

VIOLATING,   customary international law;

VIOLATING,  the Conventions against Torture 1984;

VIOLATING,   the Geneva Convention III and IV 1949;

VIOLATING,   the common article III, the Geneva Convention of 1949; and

VIOLATING,   the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter.“
Yes, we cannot enforce the decisions of the Kuala Lumpur tribunal. But the world must know through the hearings that the leaders of a country that frequently takes the high ground to lecture the world on human rights, the rule of law, etc are no better, but are worse than the many leaders and countries they condemned as not adhering to acceptable behaviour, practice and respect for the norms of modern civilisation.

Malaysia had the Internal Security Act. Malaysia did detain people without trial. But it should be noted that there is a law providing for this. The US government of former president Bush detained people before there was any law providing for such detentions.

Malaysia never sanctions torture. Certainly, the Malaysian government never spelt out the kind of torture that could be inflicted on the prisoners. But the US leaders knowingly sanction torture and describe the kind of torture to be carried out, even as they condemn others of being oppressive against their own people.

It is a pity that not many people attended the hearings. They would be horrified at what the leaders of the foremost democracy in the world have sanctioned and are guilty of.

That in this day and age, there are still leaders of governments who break laws and legalise behaviour incompatible with modern civilisation is mind chilling. That this country is the greatest military power in the world is truly frightening.

These are not leaders of primitive failed states. These are educated, knowledgeable leaders aware of the laws, international and national which govern their rights and limitations of their power.

Yet they are prepared to perpetrate these atrocities believing that the power they wield will protect them from any legal actions to be taken against them for their crimes.

Everyone subscribes to the belief that everyone should be equal before the law. It is sad indeed that in the implementation of international laws, there is no such equality, that inequality of treatment is the essence.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is a court of conscience. It may not have the power to have its findings implemented. But there can be no doubt that without the hearing before the tribunal, the crimes of the leaders of powerful countries will never be exposed to the world.

The findings of the court will be communicated to all governments, will be broadcast to the whole world through the Internet, and via international non-governmental organisations.

The people of the US are well known for their insularity. They know little about the world beyond their borders. They believe that they are always right.

One hopes via NGOs and the Internet, they will learn about the guilt of their leaders through the findings of the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal on War Crimes.

P.S. I have with me the videos of the tortures carried out and the justification claimed by US leaders who approved these tortures. I would be happy, if there is a demand, to show the video takes.

*Click here for more footage of the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
News Link

*David Maxwell for The New York Times

May 14, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, May 14 (Bernama) — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who has been named as the National Reading Icon said the younger generation is now surrounded with advanced tools like the tablet as such had no reason not to read.

He said reading had been made easier now as there were gadgets like the Ipad and Samsung Galaxy Tab, which could download not one or two books but 1,500 books with their software.

He said such gadgets should further facilitate the reading habit.

“With this, we do not need to buy all the books. We can now even read a far wider variety of books. This is the kind of reading assistance we have today,” he said at the National Reading Icon Premier Forum Monday.

Present at the event was Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin who launched the National Reading Icon and the Promotion of the Noble Value Practices event at the National Library here.

News Link

Other news link:

Muhyiddin wants function and role of resource centres upgraded

A pedestrian passes graffiti on a post office facade in Athens' Syntagma Square. Greek leaders are to resume talks Tuesday on forming a government. (Petros Giannakouris / Associated Press / May 14, 2012)

May 14, 2012 | By Henry Chu and Anthee Carassava, Los Angeles Times

The impasse pits Greek politicians opposed to more austerity cuts against officials in other European nations who say the Eurozone can do without Greece.

ATHENS — As Greece lurches along without a government, its deepening political crisis is fast turning into a war of wills in which Europe‘s economy potentially hangs in the balance.

Only one of the antagonists can be right. The outcome of the high-stakes staring contest could determine whether Greece becomes the first European nation to default in decades and possibly pulls neighboring countries down with it, in a cascade whose waves would crash through the global economy.

Which side will prevail, nobody can predict. Even London’s famous bookies have stopped taking bets on whether Greece will remain a member of the Eurozone, the club of 17 nations that use the euro. But as Athens hurtles toward another possible election next month to try to break the impasse created by this month’s inconclusive vote, neither side is showing any sign of backing down.

The May 6 election saw Greeks spurn their two traditional powerhouse parties in favor of fringe groups campaigning for an end to austerity. On Monday, talks to try to cobble together a coalition government came up short, with President Karolos Papoulias calling for another attempt Tuesday, perhaps with the aim of forming a nonpartisan administration of technocrats.

The man many either applaud or curse for blocking a deal, Alexis Tsipras of the hard-left Syriza party, is also the brash young leader whose pledge to rip up the bailout agreements has raised the political temperature across Europe.

A handsome, motorcycle-riding 37-year-old who cultivates a rebel image, Tsipras is adamant that Greece can abandon its commitments to international lenders and reverse the brutal austerity policies of recent years yet still remain in the Eurozone and keep on borrowing, despite warnings from European officials that those are irreconcilable goals.

Tsipras’ argument is winning over many of his compatriots, the majority of whom say they want their government to preserve Greece’s place in the euro community yet reject austerity as the price of it. Polls in recent days have shown support for Syriza rising, with voters shrugging off the strong rhetoric out of Germany and other nations. The party is now on track to improve on its surprise second-place finish May 6 and draw the most votes in next month’s balloting, though not enough to control Parliament outright.

Christos Staikos, a senior Syriza official, dismissed European officials’ threat of a euro expulsion as a “pseudo-dilemma intended to terrorize” Greeks into acquiescing to further belt-tightening. His party says that a better solution is for Athens to cancel the bailout packages and renegotiate less onerous ones, including another deal to forgive some of the country’s crippling debt.

“When you go to the bank and ask to remortgage your home loan, does the bank kick you out? No, because it needs you as a customer, and it wants to collect money owed,” Staikos said. “We’re in the exact same situation.”

In any case, the treaty that set up the Eurozone contains no provision for a member nation leaving it. Forcing Greece to go would set off a catastrophic chain reaction, Staikos warned, with investors pulling out of other financially weak nations such as Spain and Portugal, which would then have no choice but to follow Greece out the door.

“Legally they can’t” expel us, Staikos said. “And we don’t believe it will come to that, because the cost of a Greek exit will be catastrophic for the European project as a whole. If Greece goes … Europe will be doomed.”

But the retort from other parts of the continent is: Don’t be so sure, and don’t get too big for your britches.

In an unusual flurry of comments from a normally taciturn bunch, the governors of various central banks in Europe have come out in the last few days with statements that the region would weather the storm of a Greek departure from the euro just fine. Other high-profile European politicians have made the same point.

While unwanted, a Greek exit is “not necessarily fatal,” Patrick Honohan, the head ofIreland’scentral bank, said Saturday.

Had it happened two years ago, it might have triggered a so-called credit event with disastrous results, as happened with the collapse of Lehman Bros. in 2008, but Europe has since put in firebreaks to prevent the damage from spreading, Honohan and other European officials say. For example, a permanent European bailout fund has been created that could help prop up other ailing nations, though many analysts question whether the fund is big enough.

Greece, by contrast, would struggle to keep depositors from fleeing with their euros if it reverted to the drachma, its former currency. Business contracts would be thrown into chaos and Athens could be shut out from borrowing on the open market for years, which would only worsen its troubles.

“The consequences for Greece would be more serious than for the rest of the Eurozone,” said Jens Weidemann, the head of Germany’s central bank.

Still, independent experts warn that other European nations shouldn’t be too sanguine about their ability to contain the fallout of a Greek euro exit and subsequent default. Fears of a bad end to the current crisis sent European stock markets tumbling Monday, while borrowing costs for Spain edged up.

“The best thing Greece can do for its own survival and for the survival of European economic and monetary union … is to form a government as soon as possible and say as soon as possible” that it will honor the bailout agreements, said Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, the Spanish foreign minister.

Tsipras and his party believe that public opinion is on their side, and not just in Greece. Staikos, the Syriza official, said the dynamic in Europe is changing, with the fall of a pro-austerity government in the Netherlands and the election of socialist Francois Hollande as president of France. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her insistence on belt-tightening as the answer to Europe’s debt crisis is becoming increasingly isolated.

If Greece holds a new election, most likely on June 17, a stronger finish for Syriza could actually work in favor of a compromise solution, said Pieter Cleppe, head of the Brussels office of the think tank Open Europe.

“I think in the end they’ll come to an agreement,” he said. “When Syriza will be strengthened enough, they’ll politically be able to do some concessions…. The Eurozone will also do some concessions.”

And it if comes to a full-on showdown, Cleppe thinks it’ll be the rest of Europe that blinks first, though there’s no way to say for sure.

“I don’t think they have the stomach” to kick Greece out of the Eurozone, he said. “I think they’re too afraid. But I might well be dead wrong.”

henry.chu@latimes.com

Times staff writer Chu reported from London and special correspondent Carassava from Athens.

News Link

*Photo from thenutgraph.com

News Link

Perdana Discourse Series #14 :

Enhancing accountability & integrity in the Malaysian Public Sector – Are we doing enough?

Welcome Remark  by Tan Sri Azman Hashim, 

Chairman, Board of Trustees

PERDANA LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Assalamu’alaikum Warahmatullahi wabarakatuh and a very good morning.

I welcome you to Perdana Leadership Foundation and to the 14^th Perdana Discourse Series.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

1. The subjects of Integrity and Accountability have been the recent focus of numerous dialogues, debates and exchanges on the Malaysian public sector.
2. The cost of corruption is huge: the World Bank estimates that corrupt transactions are around US$1 trillion a year worldwide. This figure does not include embezzlement of public funds or misuse of public assets. It’s a massive sum to be sure. And worse, the cost of corruption is not just in monetary terms; corruption is correlated to weak governance, poor quality infrastructure, a slower pace of poverty reduction and slower development.
3. Let me just mention about the Corruption Perceptions Index.  This Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2011 was released on 1 December 2011 and produced by the Transparency International (TI) Secretariat based in Berlin.  The Index ranks countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public sector officials in 183 countries around the world.

- In the CPI 2011, the sources are from Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, Bertelsmann Transformation Index, Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Global Insight, IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, Political Risk Services International Country Risk Guide Survey, Transparency Bribe Payers Survey, World Bank, World Economic Forum and the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index.

- Malaysiaperformance in CPI 2011 was ranked 60^th (2010: 56^th) out of 183 (2010: 178) economies. Malaysia’s ranking has steadily got worse – from position 33 in 2002 to No. 60 last year.  From 2007 to 2011, we deteriorated from 43 to 60.

4.  All these indicate that a good way to boost development would be to reduce leakages in public funds of which corruption is one. In fact, researchers estimate that there is a “400% governance dividend” of good governance – countries that have greater control of corruption and rule of law can expect in the long-run a four-fold increase in incomes per capita.

Ladies & Gentlemen,

5.   I like to mention an example of Good Governance, Transparency and Accountability inSingapore.

- Information on Review of Singapore’s Ministerial Salaries

- Guiding Principles

Three guiding principles for the political salaries are:

• Salaries must be competitive so that people of the right calibre are not deterred from stepping forward to lead the country;
• Ethos of political service entails making sacrifices and hence there should be discount in the pay formula;
• There should be a “clean wage” with no hidden perks.

Recommendations by Committee

The recommendations accepted by Parliament are:

• A new benchmark, which is based on the median income of the top 1,000 earners who areSingaporecitizens with a 40% discount to reflect the ethos of political service;
• Removal of pension scheme for politicians;
• A new salary framework and National Bonus linked to the socio-economic progress of average and lower incomeSingapore.

Key outcomes of the new framework are:

• The President’s total annual salary is reduced by 51% and the Prime Minister’s total annual salary by 36%.  President’s annual pay will now be 70% that of the Prime Minister;
• The entry level Minister’s total annual salary is reduced by 37%.

Access on Information by Public:

The Prime Minister periodically provides information on the performance bonuses for ministers across the different bands.  This provides the public assurance that the salary framework is being applied in a fair and reasonable way.

Ministers and other political appointment holders, from Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, will get a pro-rated national bonus of 1.618 months in March 2012.

All political appointment holders (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister) will get the same National bonus rate to reflect their joint contributions as part of the Cabinet.  The Prime Minister will get twice the rate as he does not get a performance bonus.

Ladies & Gentlemen,

6. Given the ill effects of corruption, good governance then, particularly in the public sector, is key forMalaysiato become a high-income nation by 2020. As such, the Perdana Leadership Foundation feels it timely to dedicate one whole Discourse to the subject of public sector accountability and integrity.

7. We are very honoured that we have a distinguished civil servant, the Auditor-General of Malaysia himself  to be our keynote speaker for today: Tan Sri Dato’ Setia Haji Ambrin Buang, who through his experience at auditing government Ministries and agencies each year will no doubt shed much light on the topic.

Tan Sri,

The public always look forward to reading your Audit Reports on the Government, the Ministries, and Agencies/Bodies.  We are also often amused by the strident denials from the relevant heads of Government Agencie/Bodies that sometimes appear in the press.  Being a Chartered Accountant and an Auditor before, I know that we can rely 100% on your Audit Reports to have been made after careful inspection and investigation of all relevant facts before you came to your conclusions and opinion which is always “true and fair”.  Please keep up the good work, Tan Sri, we are all behind you!

8. I also welcome eminent panelists, Yang Berhormat Dato’ Seri Azmi Khalid, who can tell us more about the role of the Public Accounts Committee he is heading in enforcing accountability; Yang Berbahagia Dato’ (Insignior) Dr. Ahmad Zaidee Laidin, Chairman of Enrico who is the former Vice Chancellor of UiTM; Yang Berbahagia Dato’ Paul Low, President of Transparency Malaysia and Cik Khairiah Mokhtaruddin, Senior Researcher at the Razak School of Government.

9. I believe we can all look forward to an interesting keynote and dialogue session today that will provide a deeper appreciation of the wider issues this country is facing will mould a cadre of responsible young leaders who will uphold sound ethical values.

10. Apart from programmes such as this Discourse, the Foundation actively digitises documents, speeches, policy papers and audio video materials on our past Prime Ministers. To date, we have digitized more than four hundred thousand documents. Most of our materials are available on-line, as part of our goal to make history accessible to all Malaysians.

11. I would like to thank our partner, Universiti Teknologi MARA, for working together with us throughout the Series to ensure the success of this programme. A big thank you, too, to our Discourse Sponsor, PROTON, without whose support the Discourse would not have been possible.  I trust PROTON will continue their sponsorship after the recent corporate exercise.

12. I hope that we will leave today’s Discourse with a renewed commitment to makingMalaysiaa better country for all.

Thank you.

More on Perdana Discourse Series 14:

Link 1

Link 2

Tan Sri Dato' Setia Haji Ambrin Buang

May 10, 2012 | By Zarina Abu Bakar

Accountability and Integrity are two of the most important qualities in any organisation but especially in the public sector where the stakeholder are millions of taxpayers and at stake is the country’s future. With the rakyat’s voice growing more strident over what they perceive to be negligent and fraudulent acts by public officials that result in billions of public funds being squandered, demands for accountability and integrity have grown to a clamour that cannot be ignored.

Tan Sri Ambrin Buang, the Auditor-General of Malaysia, agrees that there is “increasing public awareness, if not concern, regarding weaknesses in public sector financial management and service delivery by the country’s public servants”. This is why the Auditor-General’s report is “eagerly awaited by the public at large who are increasingly vocal about the perceived inaction by the relevant government agencies to rectify the weaknesses exposed by the AG”.

Tan Sri Ambrin was speaking at the 14^th Perdana Discourse Series jointly organised by the Perdana Leadership Foundation and UiTM. The theme of the Discourse was “Enhancing Accountability and Integrity in the Malaysian Public Sector – Are We Doing Enough?” and the event was attended by around 200 people, mostly students and academics.

In his 45-minute keynote address, Tan Sri Ambrin explained about the role and limitations of the Auditor-General’s Office (Jabatan Audit Negara or JAN). Auditing is conducted on a random sampling basis and it is impossible for JAN to cover every government agency and project. JAN has a staff size of 2,000 nationwide whereas the Malaysian public service is 1.4 million strong and managing billions of Ringgit.

At the federal level, JAN is the external auditor of 25 Ministries, 120 statutory bodies, and 110 departments and agencies, conducting attestation audits on financial statements, compliance audits on financial management and performance audits on government programmes, projects and activities. For financial statements, JAN covers the Federal Government accounts, 13 state accounts and the accounts of Federal and state statutory bodies like the EPF, Bank Negara Malaysia, Felda, Bank Simpanan Nasional, LTAT and Bank Kerjasama Rakyat.

It is thus important for external audits to be complemented by internal audits, and to be effective, Tan Sri Ambrin advised that the head of internal audit be of equal rank to divisional heads of ministries or agencies so that his views are given due respect. Of course, the value of internal audit will depend on the response by departmental and agency heads who, he stressed, need to take stern action against staff identified in internal audits.

The failure to take action is often the cause of widespread fraud or negligence. “In the past,” he said, “we observe that these heads are rather reluctant to penalise their staff out of sympathy or simply to protect the good image of their department or agency…how much action has been taken by those heads on the findings of their own internal audit? Not many that I know.”

Without swift action and leadership that sets a firm tone against fraud and corruption, the noble calls for accountability, integrity and transparency would remain mere lip service, Tan Sri Ambrin said.

To read the whole speech by Tan Sri Ambrin Buang, after the jump.

~*~

Perdana Discourse Series #14 :

Enhancing accountability & integrity in the Malaysian Public Sector – Are we doing enough?

Keynote speech by Tan Sri Dato’ Setia Haji Ambrin Buang, Auditor-General of Malaysia

I have chosen to speak on this topic basically to invite you, the audience today, to ponder on some of the real issues facing our public sector performance, particularly in the manner public money is handled.  In raising this question, we here refers to public sector auditors, whether they are with Jabatan Audit Negara or with the Internal Audit division/unit in the various ministries and government agencies. Of course one must realise that auditors are not the only player in this game of enhancing accountability and integrity in the public sector. Members of the administration (anggota pentadbiran), the Secretary Generals and the Director-Generals and the CEOs of statutory bodies who are the Controlling Officers, the Parliament and state legislatures and their Public Accounts Committee, the media and the larger civil society too do have and should play their expected role.

2.      The reason why this question is being asked now, and I can assuare you its always on my mind, has to do with increasing public awareness, if not concern, regarding weaknesses in public sector financial management and service delivery by the country’s public servants as revealed by the AG in his annual report to Federal Parliament and State legislatures. Each year, The AG Report, I am told, is eagerly awaited by the public at large who are increasingly vocal about the perceived inaction by the relevant government agencies to rectify the weaknesses exposed by the AG.
3.      Many of you will know that the duty of public-sector auditors is to point out the flaws, excesses and wastefulness of Government agencies and ministries. Not all of these things is due to corruption or fraud of course, but the AG Reports do show glaring examples of careless spending of taxpayers’ money, something one newspaper columnist has even described as spending like its own grandfather’s money.

4.      I think many people would suspect that what is in the audit report represent only a fraction of reality, a tip of the iceberg so to speak and seldom an isolated case. They may be right considering that auditing worldwide is always done through sampling and therefore auditing will not cover every government agencies and projects which are numerous in this country. So it is not difficult for someone to presume that such things have gone viral and ask the question who is really looking after those not covered by the AG Report.

5.      Because of resource constraints, external audit undertaken by JAN is limited in coverage and therefore internal audit should complement JAN efforts, but then again internal audit also face resource constraints. Thus, departmental and agency heads themselves should do their utmost to strengthen inhouse scrutiny and monitoring over how public money entrusted to them is wisely spent!

6.      Another burning question that often arise is what really happen to those responsible for all the wastefulness, extravagance and fraud highlighted by audit be they high profile cases like PKFZ, NFC, Tuna port project and Pampena or not so high profile cases? How many people been taken to court, how many have disciplinary action taken against them? Some may even feel that there is no point for the AG to prepare his report when at the end of the day nothing happens! To them, it is the same story each year because the public service has not really bucked up from indifference and slumber, although it must be pointed out that, yes, the issues raised by audit tend to be similar each year but the auditees are not the same each year.

7.      Because of all these things, public sector auditors must respond to the rising public expectations with regard to greater accountability and transparency in public spending by members of the administration and public servants by enhancing their professionalism. Besides govt departments and agencies they also want greater accountability and transparency of govt owned or govt-linked companies. Using the Sime Darby case as an example, despite having heavyweight personalities on the Board and the Audit Committee as well as an internal audit, yet hundreds of million ringgit has be lost due to suspected fraudulent practices. How come?

8.      Public sector auditors can certainly do more. Under present circumstances they must do more. This is the challenge. I say this because they , as custodian of public trust, and being independent and professional, are in a good position to help the nation spend wisely. More so with the explicit Government encouragement of good governance, accountability and integrity in the public service.

9.      Before I elaborate, perhaps it is useful for me to give you some insight into some of the things that the government and what public sector auditors are currently doing towards the cause of good governance, accountability and transparency.

10.    Firstly we have to acknowledge that the government has undertaken several measures to promote good governance, accountability and transparency. It has established an NKRA against corruption as an important element in the whole Government Transformation Program (GTP) under which several core initiatives have been undertaken in the areas of regulatory and enforcement, government procurement and grand corruption. So we now see SPRM and the police being strengthened, grater efficiency of the judiciary in disposing corruption cases, enforcing stiffer punishment, etc.

11.    What is more relevant to my topic is of course  those initiatives to reduce procurement mal-administration, for which several important measures have already taken place. For instance, there is now greater reliance on open tenders as opposed to direct negotiation as a means to reduce leakages in the  funds allocated for national development and public administration, as well as ensure fairness in the award of contracts. Another example is to disclose details of all government procurement and privatization contracts, such as information on vendors, prices and project titles, which is an important transparency measure under GTP. Also the role of support letters, which before have created some controversy, has now been clearly defined through the Prime Minister’s directive for ministries and agencies not to issue  support letters especially for direct negotiation.

12.    Another important measure is the government’s renewed emphasis on obtaining value for money from government expenditures. We all know that over the years, government expenditures, whether operating or development, have shown a rising trend. But have these expenditures been wisely spent in terms of generating positive outcomes? Not really so if we go by the AG Report. Whenever expenditures are not based on the principles of economy, efficiency or effectiveness, value for money will be highly questionable. On the contrary,  the AG Report  has always exposed cases of extravagance, wastefulness and fraud in government expenditure, something controlling officers are normally not aware of until theyare raised by audit.

13.    In this context, we should welcome the government recent initiative to make it mandatory for all government projects costing RM50 million to undergo  a value management exercise, in which an independent panel will review the scope, location and the construction technology towards minimizing the total project cost. Indeed, within a relatively short time, value management has proven  to be an effective tool for the government to secure value for money and enjoying billions of ringgit in cost savings for projects under the First Rolling Plan of the current 10th Malaysia Plan. Besides these through other initiatives such as eProcurement and eBidding, ministries and agencies can also secure meaningful cost savings. To me, this prove that in the past there has been much fat in government procurement and we should welcome all these new government initiatives to reduce such fat.

14.    Another welcome initiative is to encourage Integrity Pacts between government and vendors/suppliers which emulate the practice in countries like Korea and well received by monitoring institutions like Transparency International Malaysia. The latest to adopt this practice is the MRT project, which is the biggest infrastructure project underataken so far. In this connection, I think all government agencies, including statutory bodies and government-linked companies, at all levels, federal, state and local should adopt this good practice as a matter of policy.

15.    Interestingly, another core initiative under the NKRA against corruption is the strengthening and independence of key institutions such as the judiciary, MACC and the Auditor-general which I will comment later on.

16.    Now, what is happening in the public-sector auditing sphere?  I will discuss this in two parts, ie the JAN as the external auditor of the government and secondly the internal auditors we find in the various ministries and agencies.

17.    The Malaysian public service is now about 1.4 million strong with many of them routinely managing billions of Ringgit in operating and development expenditure annually. At the federal level, JAN is the external  auditor of 25 ministries, 120 Statutory bodies,  110 Departments and agencies.

18.    With about 2000 auditing and supporting staff nationwide, JAN’s core business is to conduct  attestation audit on financial statements, compliance audit on financial management and performance audit on government programmes, projects and activities which run into tens of thousands and obviously impossible to audit all of them in any one year.

19.    With regard to financial statements, JAN covers the Federal Government accounts, 13 state accounts and the accounts of Federal and state statutory bodies, including big statutory bodies like the EPF, Bank Negara Malaysia, Felda, Bank Simpanan Nasional, KWAP, LTAT and Bank Kerjasama Rakyat. However, some statutory bodies like the service commissions, SPR do not come under the purview of JAN since it is not provided for in their respective legislations. Also government companies, both federal and state, including those under Khazanah Nasional, Minister of Finance Inc. (MKD) and MBI are excluded and their accounts are audited by the big 4 private auditing firms. JAN also does not perform compliance auditing on these entities. To what extent they have complied with their own financial rules and procedures as well the effectiveness of their internal control is entirely the responsibility of their internal audit and audit commitee.

20.    Compliance as we know is a vital aspect of accountability. Through its compliance auditing of the entities under its purview, JAN is able to provide a good feedback to the Government as to the state of good governance ie whether there has been a high level of compliance with the numerous financial regulations and procedures by these entities. Towards this end, since 2007, JAN has implemented the Accountability Index star-rating system which is an objective tool to measure compliance in various aspects of financial management such as expenditure control, asset and inventory management, revenue management, investment management etc. Ideally, we expect to see the compliance level to be excellent for every agency but most are normally good, with some showing only satisfactory level.

21.    Through the AI agencies will know which aspect of financial management requires improvement and they are expected to show improvement the next time the AI is conducted. Thus the AI serves as a useful KPI for the government to assess accountability in the public sector, for which departments and agencies can benchmark annual performance as well as the performance of their peers. The point I always make about AI is that it is not impossible to obtain an excellent AI rating provided there is a strong commitment by department and agency heads to make the necessary improvements through training, regular work supervision etc. After 4 years of AI implementation, I am happy to see a rising trend in the number of excellent rating, maybe because the AI is made transparent to the public as well as the fact that it has been adopted by the government as one of the indicators to measure all round performance of top management in the public sector.

22.    However I must point out that because AI auditing involves a rigorous process, it is normally confined to the headquarters of ministries and agencies and do not cover the performance at the divisional level or the Pusat Tanggungjawab which can run into the thousands in big ministries like the MOE!   It is simply beyond the present capacity of JAN. Thus through surprise audit conducted by JAN or by the internal audit on a random basis would reveal not as good compliance at the divisional or PTJ level compared to the HQ. Here again the role that can be played by internal audit is limited by the strength of its internal audit.  Therefore, execellent performances at the headquarters level do not necessarily permeate to the rest of the organization.  So the risk of careless spending or even fraud therefore can be higher at the division or branch level.

23.    Perhaps what is really exciting about the AG report for most of you is the performance audit reports which provide feedback to the Government and other stakeholders on how well public money has been wisely spent through the numerous government programmes, projects and activities, for instance whether they have been properly planned, efficiently executed or effectively monitored in order to secure the desired outcomes. More often than not, the AG Report will reveal many cases of poor programme or project management leading sometimes to serious losses to government due to extravagance, wastefulness as well as fraud, which means value of money is lacking and sometimes involving unnecessary expenditure on the part of government. These cases reflect negatively on the public service entrusted with spending public money while the government of course – has to face the brunt of public criticism. These cases also highlighted the lack of accountability and integrity in the government structure for which many will demand swift action against those responsible for mismanagement.

24.    The coverage of performance auditing by JAN is wide because it transcends ministries and agencies, both at the federal, state and local government level. For instance, in 2010, a total of 245  Performace audit were carried out by JAN covering programmes and projects in the social, security, ICT, environmental, financial, economic and other sectors under the purview of ministries and statutory bodies but excluding those of Glcs under Khazanah, MBIs as I mentioned earlier.

25.    Now, one of the critical aspects of performance auditing monitored by audit is the procurement process and normally they never fail to discover weaknesses arising from failure to adhere to established regulations and procedures, including not protecting the interest of government in dealing with those doing business with government, namely the contractors, vendors and consultants. So it is common to find not only programme or project completion are seriously delayed, but also accompanied by low quality work in violation of contractual specifications and serious cost escalation. These weaknesses stem from the lack of competence or carelessness by the relevant project managers, lack of communication and coordination with relevant authorities, and poor site supervision etc, etc. The causes are many but the outcome is generally detrimental to the government and the intended beneficiary of those programmes and projects. Again, they reflect poorly on the accountability and integrity of the public service.

26.    It must be mentioned that performance auditing carried out by JAN does not extend to entities for which JAN is not mandated to carry out attestation or compliance audit as mentioned earlier unless specially asked by PAC or the Treasury. Some quarters feel that as guardian of the public trust, and being an independent and professional body, JAN should not operate as a government department under the Prime Minister Department.  JAN should be free to conduct performance auditing on all programmes and projects involving public funds, without restriction. Thus JAN should be free to audit projects where the Government stand as guarantor or projects which have received financial assistance from the Government on its own initiative and not by special request.  In this respect, perhaps Pemandu can review all the relevant legislations pertaining to the mandate given to the Auditor General, in line with their study on how to strengthen some key institutions.

As well as in response to the recent adoption by the UNGA of a resolution about ensuring the independence of the Auditor General in his task in order to be more effective in promoting accountability in the public sector.

27.    Since were are still on performance auditing, I must inform you about the feedback the JAN gives to the Government about the performance of the government-owned companies. In terms of profit performance, i would say although some of them have been operating for a long time, their contribution is generally lack-luster, and therefore the government hardly obtained meaningful dividends. Apart from this, there is a lot of room for improvement in their corporate governance and internal control. Internal audit or audit committee are largely absent.  Almost all are not aware of the Treasury guidelines on how these companies should be managed, issued since 1993, and therefore it is not surprising to find them mediocre in terms of their accountability and integrity. I think that for some of them, it is worth to have an independent review to justify their continued existence.

28.    Looking at corporate governance, those GLCs under the purview of the Securities Commission code of corporate governance are adequately monitored but those which are not covered should be encouraged to adopt some elements of this code, for eg regarding board composition, internal audit and audit committee. In addition, I also feel that all government companies must implement IP or integrity pact in their procurement process and must also make their corporate integrity pledge that would commit them to strict compliance with government guidelines issued long time ago.

29.    By now I believe you would have a good understanding of what the JAN can or cannot do in the cause of promoting greater accountability in the public sector. Our mandate is quite wide but it can be wider, so it can also be said about our independence. Anyway, there is another aspect of our work which many quarters are not aware of. This relates to follow up actions on the AG Report. In the past, this is monitored by a division in the Treasury but now we are helping them by following up directly with the relevant departments and agencies to record what actions have actually been taken on audit findings. We are confident that SPRM will investigate on corruption-suspected cases, so also with the police on fraud-suspected cases, if report is made. But we are also keen to know whether department or agency heads will take appropriate disciplinary action against their officers whose negligence or carelessness have led to losses to the government or to project failures.  The government now expect these heads to immediately set up an investigation committee to look into these cases and penalise those who deserved to be penalised. In the past, we observe that these heads are rather reluctant to penalise their staff out of sympathy or simply to protect the good image of their department or agency. So we see that over these years not many action were taken and the public are doubting the purpose of the AG reporting on the weaknesses in the first place. For that matter, how much action have been taken by those heads on the findings of their own internal audit? Not many that I know.

30.    The public now expect swift action against those responsible for the losses faced by the government. Otherwise, all those noble call for accountability, integrity and transparency are just lip service. From the audit perspective, what is equally important is how much lessons have really been learned from past mistakes, not only one’s own mistakes, but also from the mistakes of  other peer government agencies so that these mistakes are seen not to be repeated again and again as the baton changes from  one department or agency head to another. I believe that this can only happen if these heads can find the time to glean the relevant audit report from our website. It has to be mentioned here that most heads are not aware of their agency shortcomings if not pointed out by audit. Such shortcomings surely reflect the incompetency and the lack of diligence and integrity existing in their organization which should be urgently addressed once they have been exposed by audit.

31.    I would also like to mention a little bit more about the role of internal audit in the public sector. They do play a critical role in complementing JAN’s external auditor role considering they are part of the organizational set-up and having direct access to top management. Until recently, anybody in that agency can be an internal auditor and the  internal audit unit can be very small in terms of staff strength. How can they play an effective role when the auditor is not trained as one, and possibly been put there out of convenience? Worst still, if the post is left vacant for some time. There is no continuity. This has changed about 4 years ago when the Government agreed to strengthening the staff of internal audit and that internal audit staff are seconded by trained auditors from JAN, including heading the internal audit division. To be effective, it is important for the head of internal audit is of equal rank with divisional heads of ministries or agencies so that his views are given due respect. Internal audit should never be cosmetic in nature because its findings and suggestions can really improve organizational compliance because they are much closer to the organization compared to the external auditor.

32.    Thus the seconding of JAN auditors to fill internal audit posts can be seen as an important step to enhancing accountability and integrity in the public sector. The value of internal audit will of course depend on the response by department or agency heads towards internal audit reports ie in terms of what action is taken against their staff found to be engaged in fraudulent activities or being terribly negligent in their work. In the past, most department or agency heads, if any, prefer to issue verbal warnings which really do not carry much impact. We can understand that this preference arises out of sympathy towards that particular staff member or simply to protect the good image of their organization. Compared to the AG Report, the internal audit report is not accessible to the public, so it is very much left to the controlling officer how to use the report.

33.    To sum up, may  I say that the public is increasingly demanding for enhanced accountability, integrity and transparency in the public sector and it must respond fast in order to maintain public trust. Auditors, whether internal or external must do more. More importantly, I think departmental and agency heads must do more to ensure accountability, integrity and transparency within their own organization considering that public-sector auditors can only do so much. Their leadership is crucial and the right tone they set with regard to combating fraud and corruption, enhancing staff competency and fostering an excellent work culture within their organization will go a long way towards improving public sector image in the eyes of their major stakeholder – the public.

-Copyright of the National Audit of Malaysia-

Tan Sri Azman Hashim did not miss the opportunity to posed a question to the Auditor-General

Tan Sri Ambrin during the Q&A

another question from the audience

More news regarding the Perdana Discourse Series 14:

Link 1

Link 2

A SOURCE OF PRIDE: Looking back on decades of bilateral ties between Malaysia and South Korea

THE first time I met former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was during the late 1970s, when Hyundai was building the Kenyir Dam in Malaysia. One of my jobs when travelling overseas was to meet with  leaders of various countries.

Whenever I was in Malaysia, I would drop by Dr Mahathir’s office. Dr Mahathir was interested in our experience in ending poverty.

He was a learned man and knew about our history of being colonised by Japan and how painful this was. He knew about our history of war and division, our military dictatorships and years of oppression, our strategic decision to invest in industrialisation and develop our heavy industries, and much more.

He was particularly interested in our Sae-ma-eul (or “New Village”) Movement, which played a pivotal role in eradicating poverty in our countryside. He understood that the most important factor enabling any country to escape poverty was reforming the minds of its people.

Dr Mahathir wanted to wean the Malaysian people from the complacency they had come to accept following decades of British colonial rule. He wanted Malaysians to embrace their destiny, to instil within them a sense of purpose and mission.

This was one reason he was fascinated with South Korea’s experience, one that was in many ways quite similar to Malaysia’s.

Dr Mahathir would later play a decisive role in helping Hyundai win the Penang Bridge contract. I first heard about Malaysia’s plan to build the Penang Bridge when I was working in Thailand during the late 1960s.

The Penang Bridge, once completed, would span 14.5km, linking the island of Penang to mainland Malaysia. The total cost of the project was estimated at US$300 million (RM900 million), and it quickly became Malaysia’s most important national priority.

In the spring of 1981, we were competing against France and Japan to win the contract. When I arrived in Kuala Lumpur, I saw a newspaper headline in English that read: “Prime Minister Hussein Onn Dead.”

I immediately dialled Dr Mahathir’s number. He readily agreed to see me. However, he told me he had to fly out to Singapore urgently, so he had no time to see me in his office. He told me to go to his residence, since he was on his way home to pack his bags and change clothes.

While I was chatting with his wife over tea, Dr Mahathir arrived, and we greeted each other warmly. I asked him, “Is it true? Are you going to be prime minister?”

Dr Mahathir answered, “Let’s wait and see. Everything will be decided after I return from Singapore.”

I could see that he was being cautious, but I also detected confidence in his eyes. I was also dying to ask him about the Penang Bridge bid.

Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn had not made any final decision about the project before he died, so the Penang Bridge bid would now be decided by Dr Mahathir. But I couldn’t bring myself to ask him about the bid right then.

That afternoon, Dr Mahathir was designated as the party chairman and simultaneously became the new prime minister. As soon as he became prime minister, Dr Mahathir was able to carry forth the vision that he had honed during his time in the political wilderness, and he called for reform.

His “Look East Policy” and “Clean Government” were the two main pillars of his new administration. The “East” clearly indicated South Korea.

Dr Mahathir was now putting into practice what he had formulated. He was confident that he could learn from South Korea and even overtake its progress.

As a Korean businessman, I was proud. At the same time, I felt a sense of urgency, because I knew a man like Dr Mahathir could very well deliver on that promise.

As for the bidding for the Penang Bridge, everything went back to square one. Now my job was to convince Dr Mahathir’s new cabinet. We compared ourselves with the French and the Japanese and explained that we were better in terms of lowering costs and delivering reliable quality. We emphasised our commitment to becoming a trustworthy partner of Malaysia.

In the end, Hyundai was awarded the Penang Bridge project. To this day, I consider the Penang Bridge one of my proudest accomplishments as a businessman.

I felt fortunate that I was able to develop a lasting friendship with Dr Mahathir. I was also pleased that the Penang Bridge had become a landmark and a source of pride for the Malay people.

 

Even today, many Malaysians remember Hyundai, and many of them think of me as the architect, which is a great honour.

The above excerpt is from The Uncharted Path:  An Autobiography published by Advantage Quest Publications

News Link

TRAVELING in the post-Awakening Arab world, I have been most struck by how few new leaders have emerged from the huge volcanic political eruption here. By new leaders, I don’t just mean people who win elections, I mean leaders — men and women with the legitimacy and the will to tell their people the truth and build the coalitions required to get their societies moving forward again.

Discussing this problem with Arab friends, I am always quick to note that my own country — not to mention Europe — has a similar problem. There is a global leadership vacuum. But in the Arab world today it is particularly problematic, because this is a critical juncture. Every one of these awakening countries needs to make the transition from Saddam to Jefferson without getting stuck in Khomeini.

Why has the Arab awakening produced so few new leaders? Partly because the electoral process is still playing out in places like Egypt and Yemen, and partly because it hasn’t even begun in places like Libya and Syria. But these are technical explanations. There are deeper factors at work.

One is just how deep the hole is that these societies have to confront. Who will tell the people how much time has been wasted? Who will tell the people that, for the last 50 years, most of the Arab regimes squandered their dictatorship moments. Dictatorship is not desirable, but at least East Asian dictatorships, such as South Korea and Taiwan, used their top-down authority to build dynamic export-led economies and to educate all their people — men and women. In the process, they created huge middle classes whose new leaders midwifed their transitions from authoritarian rule to democracy. Arab dictatorships did no such thing. They used their authority to enrich a small class and to distract the masses with “shiny objects” — called Israel, Iran and Nasserism to name but a few.

Now that the dictators are being swept away, Islamist parties are trying to fill the void. Who will tell the people that while Islam is a great and glorious faith it is not “the answer” for Arab development today? Math is the answer. Iran could afford to get stalled in Khomeini Land, because it had oil to buy off all the contradictions. Ditto Saudi Arabia. Egypt and Tunisia have very little oil, and both need loans from the International Monetary Fund. In order to secure those loans, their rising Islamist politicians are going to have to cut subsidies and raise taxes. But they are used to giving things away, not taking things away. Are they up to this?

Who will tell the people that, yes, the way capitalism came to the Arab world in the last 20 years was in its most crony and corrupt mutation, but that the right answer now is not to go back to Arab socialism, but better capitalism: better market-based economics, emphasizing expanded exports, but properly governed by the real rule of law and targeted safety nets.

Who will tell young Arabs that they have as much talent as young people anywhere? Look at the worldwide trend their uprisings sparked. But many of them still lack the educational tools to compete for jobs in the private sector and, therefore, need to study even harder — because the days of easy government jobs are over.

And then there is the Sunni-Shiite divide in Syria, Bahrain and Iraq, or the Palestinian-Bedouin divide in Jordan, or the Muslim-Coptic Christian divide in Egypt. These sectarian divisions have prevented national leaders from emerging — and no Arab Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King Jr. has been able to rise above them to heal the rifts. Without such leaders there is too little trust in the room to do big, hard things together, and everything that these Arab societies need to do today is big and hard and can only be done together. Who will tell the people that Arab societies have no time anymore to be consumed by these sectarian divisions, which just drive everyone into their own ghettos or out of the region altogether?

The Arab world has steadily been losing its diversity, “and without diversity there is no tolerance,” says Hassan Fattah, the editor of The National, Abu Dhabi’s best newspaper. And without diversity, new ideas are harder to spark.

The new-generation royals in Morocco, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, who dohave the legitimacy to pull people together and drive change, are probably the most effective leaders in the region today. Burson-Marsteller just published its annual Arab Youth Survey, which found that more young Arabs said they would like to live in the United Arab Emirates than any other Arab state, because of how it has built Dubai and Abu Dhabi into global hubs and job engines.

Leadership matters. Education reformers will tell you that three consecutive years of a bad teacher can hobble students for years, while just one year of a highly effective teacher can catch them up or vault them ahead. The same is true of leaders. Pushing out the autocrats in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Libya and, maybe soon, Syria is necessary. But it is not sufficient. This region doesn’t only need to get rid of the old, it needs to give birth to the new — new leaders able to tell hard truths and build broad domestic coalitions to implement them. It is not happening yet. Who will tell the people?

News Link