INTRODUCTION

Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It is damaging to a country because
decisions are taken not for the public benefit but to serve private interests. Corruption
undermines good governance, fundamentally distorts public policy, leads to misallocation of
resources, and particularly hurts the poor. Controlling it is only possible with the cooperation of
a wide range of stakeholders in the integrity system, including most importantly, the state, civil
society, and the private sectors (Transparency International). Malaysia is in the lowest rating
ever by Transparency International in the latest Corruption Perception Index for 2010.

Malaysia has plunged down to serious corruption with an index score of 4.4, the index has a
range of 0 to 10, 0 being highly corrupt to 10 being very clean. An index score of 4.4 is deem to
be a "serious corruption score" and is rank at 56 out of 178 countries being rated. As compared to
Singapore which is jointly tied at the top spot with Denmark and New Zealand with a high index
score of 9.3 being the cleanest of countries. Dato’ Paul Low, the President of the local branch of
Transparency International noted the plunge was serious not only when compared to the
country’s perceived past performances but more importantly, in relation to other countries
worldwide and especially those within the Asian region.

Besides that, in Malaysia, the prevalence of corruption has been acknowledged by the
Government and various steps have been taken to prevent and eradicate it. Anti-corruption
legislation has been enacted, an Anti-Corruption Agency and later the Malaysian Anti
Corruption Commission established and other administrative mechanisms like the Public
Complaints Bureau set up. Despite these measures however the incidence of corruption has
escalated. The spread of corruption, incompetence, malpractices, abuse of power, fraud and other
unethical behaviour as well as the lack of work motivation, have been attribute to the decline in
integrity among individuals, organizations and society at large(Towards A Free Corruption in
Malaysia, 2009).

There is a widespread concern about corruption in public at large. These days we hear a lot about
acts of nepotism, theft, bribery, etc. from the public purse. Alongside this there is a general

1
concern about maladministration and inefficiency in the public sector. Something seems to be
going diabolically wrong. A clear code of ethics is required which specifies the guiding moral
values or principles that will govern the public service and reduce or prevent the corrupt
practices and unethical behaviour in question. The basic aim of this paper is to prove that ethics
as an area of philosophy attempts to arrive at an understanding of the nature of human values, of
how we ought to live and of what constitutes right conduct.

We are often faced and confronted with the consideration of ‘why we ought to act and live
morally’, for example, that there is a course of conduct which ought to morally choose,
irrespective of one’s likes or dislikes and perception. This action would be the right thing to do
despite one’s own self-interest or preferences. That is why we hold individuals responsible for
the moral judgments they make, or ought to have made. This aspect of judgment making is the
subject matter of moral philosophy and ethics. The fact that corruption and maladministration
existed and must therefore is interpreted as a total absence of moral and ethical culture in the
conduct of public service. What, if anything, needs to be done to lead a moral and ethical life?
What could be a possible remedy to prevent or eradicate the unprofessional practices in
question?

WHAT IS CORRUPTION?

Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone who depends on the
integrity of people in a position of authority or power. Corruption simply means taking
something out of favour or gratification for doing something which is legally wrong. It is
morally, ethically and lawfully wrong to take something which doesn’t belongs to us and
depriving others of taking the profit or benefits from it. Legally speaking corruption is a deed by
any person who by himself, or in conjunction with any other person corruptly solicits or receives
or agrees to receive for himself or any other person or corruptly gives, promises or offers to any
person whether for the benefit of that person or of another person any gratification as an
inducement to or a reward for, or otherwise on account of any person doing or forbearing to do
anything in respect of any mater or transaction, actual or proposed or likely to take place or any
officer of a public body doing it or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or

2
transaction, actual or proposed or likely to take place, in which the public body is concerned
(Law of Malaysia, 2009).

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW

The Law is required to act against corruption just as the need for laws against all crimes.
However sometimes the laws are enacted not to act as a deterrent against crime but rather
promote or encourage people to break the law. “Nature has placed mankind under the
governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them to point out what we
ought to do, as well as determine what we shall do. On the other hand the standard of right and
wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects are fastened to their throne. Corruption is
about both-the right and wrong, the chain of causes it will bring to the public and the ethics and
moral that comes with it (Jeremy Bentham-introduction to the Principles of Moral and
Legislation 1780)

Enactment of laws on anti- corruption in Malaysia was gazetted on the 12th September 1997, Act
575, but the power of this act was limited. People in authority starts abusing their powers in
order to gain personal benefit or benefits for their immediate families, friends, relatives and
those close to them. Law on corruption should be very strict as it intends to punish both the giver
and the taker as without the giver there will be no corruption and without the taker there will also
be no corruption. Those who offer gratification should be equally guilty as the taker or receiver
and deserves the punishment. Since both the giver and the recipient may be charged with
corruption, both would be unwilling to report the incident. This of course makes corruption
difficult if not impossible to prove and prosecute in the court of law.

Evidences have to be painstakingly documented and facts have to be properly recorded so that
the cases can be prosecuted successfully. Without those elements, there will be a prolong court
proceedings as each defendant would employ the best lawyers to defend them in court. The
results can sometimes be unpredictable and unbelievable. (Towards A Free Corruption in
Malaysia, 2009). Malaysia's comprehensive anti-corruption system, a core component of Prime

3
Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's governmental and economic reform programme, addresses
these common failures in a unique way by establishing a permanent agency at the centre.

Using the structure of Hong Kong's anti-corruption agency as a foundation, the independent
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC) is part of the Government Transformation
Programme, meaning that both its achievements and shortcomings are discussed at length in the
annual report issued on the reform progress. Since its inception in 2008, MACC has made
outstanding progress by focusing on a three-pillar approach that institutes reform in government,
civil society and business. All are bound by recognising the powerful appeal of money in
inducing corruption, either when corporate interests deem it acceptable to leverage money
behind the scenes to get what they want, or when the government culture allows politicians to
enrich themselves while abusing the public trust. A truly effective and efficient anti-corruption
system must have stakeholders from all ends of society working in tandem and cohesion.

On the 8th January 2009, The Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission Act 2009, Act 694 was
gazetted to replace the Malaysian Anti Corruption Act 1997(Law of Malaysia, 2009). The power
of this act is unlimited because all the corruption cases should go through and be investigated
whatever or whoever commits it without fear or favour. By upgrading the agency into a
commission, the officers serving the MACC is only answerable to the parliament and not to any
ministers, government officials or influential individuals. Compared to the Act 575, this act
added 2 new sections on the part of offences and penalties, and added 11 new sections on the
part of Investigation, Search, Seizure and Arrest.

PART IV (OFFENCE AND PENALTIES)

Section 17 – defines the offence of giving or accepting gratification by agent. A person

commits an offence if he being an agent corruptly accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or
attempt to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person any gratification as an
inducement or a reward for doing or forbearing to do any act in relation to his principal’s
affairs or business or for showing favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his
principal’s affairs or business or he corruptly gives or agrees to give or offers any

4
gratification to any agent as an inducement or a reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for
having done or forborne to do any act in relation to his principal’s affairs or business or
showing any favour or disfavour.

Section 18 – states the offence of intending to deceive principal by agent. A person commits
an offence if he gives in to an agent, or being an agent he uses with intend to deceive his
principal, any receipt, account or other document in respect of which the principal is
interested, and which he has reason to believe contains any statement which is false or
erroneous or defective in any material particular, and is intended to misled the principal.

Basically Sections 17-18 of the former Anti-Corruption Act and the present Malaysian Anti-
Corruption Commission Act defines the offences of giving or taking gratifications either for
himself or for others a reward or inducement for doing something for the benefit of his
principal. In Dato’ Hj Harun b. Hj Idris & Ors vs PP ( 1977 ) 1 MLJ 180 the defendant, being
the Chief Minister of Selangor was convicted and charged for corruptly taking gratifications
for himself from the parties having vested interests in relation to his principal’s affairs or
business. He was charged and sentenced to jail and in the process relinquished his Chief
Minister’s post. Being a Chief Minister, the defendant has the power and authority to award
any contracts or business to any interested parties in return for gratifications such as land and
financial gains. In this case he misused his authority as a Chief Minister to corruptly accept
gratifications for himself through the awards of contracts to his principal without going to the
normal process of applying for the tender and the normal process of accepting the lowest
tender.

Section 19 – states that the acceptor or giver of gratification to be guilty notwithstanding

that purpose was not carried out or matter not in relation to principal’s affairs or business.
This means that an offence under this section is being committed if the subject corruptly
solicited, accepted, obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain any gratification as
an inducement or reward to show any favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his
principal’s affairs or business.

5
In Basil b. Omar vs PP ( 2009 ) 1 MLJ 192, the defendant was charged in the Seremban court
for attempting to bribe a traffic policeman for a traffic offence. The presiding judge who
passed the judgement stated that an offence of trying or attempting to bribe an officer
is a serious offence as it can undermined the administrative and legal process of enforcing
the law. The defendant offered RM100 to the traffic police on duty so that actions would not
be taken against him for speeding and overtaking on the double lines. Even though the
amount offered was only a paltry sum, it shows that offenders are willing to go at any lengths
to bribe a law enforcement officer and the judge ruled that however small was the amount, it
is still corruption and the defendant was sentenced to 2 years in jail or a fine of RM5,000.

Section 20 – states that an offence is committed if a subject corruptly procure the withdrawal
of a tender. A person commits an offence under this section if he/she with intent to obtain
from any public body a contract for performing any work, providing any service, doing
anything or supplying any article, material or substance, offers any gratification to any
person who has made a tender for the contract receive an inducement or reward for
withdrawing the tender.

Section 21 – states that an offence is committed if there is a bribery of an officer of public

body. An offence is being committed if any person who offers to an officer of public body or
being an officer of any public body solicits or accepts, any gratification as an inducement or
a reward for the officer who show favour or disfavour in anything of interest in his capacity
as a public officer.

Sections 20-21 states that an offence is committed if there is an attempt to bribe an officer of
public body. In Lau Kong Peng & Ors vs PP ( 2004 ) 6 MLJ 501 the defendant is a contractor
who was awarded a contract to build a primary school in Sekinchan, Selangor. The tender for
the contract is RM22.88 million and it was reported that the tender was awarded after the
original bidder and winner of the tender conceded that he withdraw because his licence was
revoked. It is believed his licence was revoked because the defendant influenced the
authorities that the bidder was a bankrupt and a person of doubtful reputation. Once the
project was completed, the certificate of fitness for the building was approved even though

6
the workmanship was shoddy and of poor quality. Later it was found out that the officer who
approved the certificate of fitness deposited RM500, 000 into his wife account and was seen
going overseas for holiday with the defendant on several occasions. The ACA Deputy Public
Prosecutor requested a heavier sentence for the defendant as the project to build the school
building is of public interests and cost the tax payers money. The safety of those who will
occupy the building will be compromised and at risk and for that the judge sentenced the
officer and the defendant to imprisonment, one for giving and another for accepting the
gratifications.

Section 22 – states that an offence is committed if there is a bribery of foreign public

officials. Any person who by himself or by or in conjunction with any other person gives,
promises or offers, or agrees to give an offer to any foreign public officials or being a foreign
public officials solicits, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain whether
for the benefit of the foreign public official or another person any gratification as an
inducement or reward commits an offence under this section.

In this case, a Malaysian citizen was arrested in the Republic of Singapore for trying to bribe
officials from the Immigration Ministry of Singapore. In Regina See Kah Loon vs PP( 2006 )
5 SLJ 101 the defendant was charged in the district court of Ang Mo Kio for trying to bribe
officials from the Immigration Ministry of Singapore as an inducement to release 6
Indonesian women arrested for entering the republic without valid passports to work as
domestic maids. She was also charged for trying to bribe the head of the arresting party with
sexual gratifications to release her.

Section 23 – relates to an offence of using office or position for gratification. Any officer of
the public body who uses his office or position for any gratification whether for himself, his
family, relatives or associate commits an offence under this section.

Section 24 – states the penalties for offences under Sections 16,17,18,19,20,21,22 and 23
shall upon conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years, fine not
less than 5 times value of the gratification or RM10,000 whichever is higher.

7
The landmark case for this section is the Anwar Ibrahim & Ors vs PP ( 1999 ) 35 MLJ 220.
In this case, the defendant, a Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia was alleged to have misused
his position and authority as an officer of public body of committing and engaging in corrupt
practices such as sexual misconduct with the wife of his driver, sodomising his speech writer
and personal aide and corruptly giving out tenders to his relatives and cronies. When the
allegations surfaced, he was alleged to have corruptly ordered the police and the Attorney
General to ceased investigations and all legal proceedings against him in addition to
destroying all evidences of his wrongdoings. The judge who heard the case ruled that as an
officer or someone who was the second most powerful executive in the country, the
defendant possessed the authority and power to issue orders to any officer even though the
orders tantamount to corruption not in financial gains but as an inducement or threat not to
proceed with investigations and destroying all vital evidences of corrupt practices. The
defendant and his accomplices were sentenced to imprisonment and stripped of all posts in
the government. An analysis of this case shows that the government is serious in trying to
combat the menace of corruption though it involves powerful and influential figures.

Section 25 – states the duty to report bribery transactions.

Section 26 –dealing with, using, holding, receiving or concealing gratification or advantage

in relation to any offence.

Section 27 – Making of statement which is false or intended to mislead to an officer of the

Commission or the Public Prosecutor.

Section 28 – Concerns attempts, preparations, abetment and criminal conspiracies

punishable as offence.

Sections 25-28 deals with the duty to report bribery attempts, concealing of gratifications,
making false or misleading statement and abetting in criminal conspiracies. In Dato’ Seri Osu
Sukam vs PP ( 2006 ) 8 MLJ 202 the defendant was a former Chief Minister of Sabah who
was charged with abuse of power, failure to reports cases of bribery transactions, misusing

8
his office to take gratifications and issuing or delivering false information to the investigation
party of the then ACA in 2006. The defendant was accused of a series of misdeeds and
corruption, was subsequently charged, fined and later stripped of all party and political posts.
A brief analysis of the above sections shows that offences committed and punishment
received by the defendants corresponds with the offence that they committed. It shows the
government is serious about the menace of corruption. If left unchecked it could lead to
serious repercussions socially, economically, politically and morally. The government
drafted and enacted new and more drastic laws on corruption to indicate the government
seriousness in combating this issue and rid the country of the menace. With the new laws on
corruption and the upgrading of the Anti Corruption Agency to that of the Malaysian Anti
Corruption Commission, its shows the government is transparent in the war against
corruption.

PART V (INVESTIGATION, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND ARREST)

Section 29 – Power to investigate reports and enquire into information.

Section 30 – Power to examine persons.

Section 31 – Power of search and seizure.

Section 32 – Translation.

Section 33 and 34 – Seizure of movable property.

Section 35 – Investigation of share and purchase account.

Section 36 – Powers to obtain information.

Section 37 – Order not to part with, deal in, movable property in bank.

9
Section 38 – Seizure of immovable property.

Section 39 – Prohibition of dealing with property outside Malaysia.

Section 40 – forfeiture of property upon prosecution for an offence.

Section 41 – forfeiture of property where there is no prosecution for an offence.

Section 42 – dealing with property after seizure to be void.

Section 43 – power to intercept communications.

Section 44 – surrender of travel documents.

Section 45 – power to amend or revoke any order or notice under this notice.

Section 46 – advocates or solicitors required to disclose information.

Section 47 – legal obligation to give information.

Section 48 – obstruction of investigation and search.

Section 49 – Offences under Act to be seizable offences and powers of officers of the
Commission relating to investigation.

For all the above sections, the analysis shows that the sections deals with the power to
investigate, search, seize and arrest. The power to investigate bestow upon the commission
grants the officers of the commission the power to investigate any individual or group or
corporation they suspected of involvement in corruption. In Chong Ming Cheng vs PP ( 2002 ) 3
MLJ 733 the defendant was suspected of abuse of power, corruption and misuse of authority and

10
was subsequently arrested by the ACA and charged in court. The ACA then prevents him from
leaving the country and a warrant of arrest issued against him. His passport was also seized.
In Bek Chek Than & Anor vs PP ( 2007 ) 4 MLJ 334 the defendant was ordered to furnished
information against the managing director of the pharmaceutical company he was working for
by the court.
The court was told the managing director of the company bought medical supplies and medicine
from a foreign company which was near expiration date at a much cheaper price. The items were
later re-packaged and sold off as new and at par with the current market price.
When officers from the health ministry conducted a surprise routine check and stock verification,
the managing director tried to conceal the original buying price of the items. When the officers
found out what he had done he tried to bribe the head of the party but was arrested instead. In
this case the court ordered the defendant to provide information against his managing director
but the defendant refused to co-operate for fear of repercussions and retribution from his boss.
The court ordered the defendant to furnish information regarding the whole issue and by failing
to do so, the court can charged him in court. He was subsequently charged and was sentenced to
18 months in jail or fined RM25, 000. 00. He paid the fine.

Another case is Kamaruddin Mohd Ismail vs PP ( 2006 ) 5 MLJ 318. In this case the defendant
was ordered to furnish information by the court against his CEO. The defendant works in a big
corporation and when the internal auditor discovered irregularities in the company’s account at
the end of the year, the auditor lodged a report against the CEO. The defendant, being the
company accountant was ordered by the court to give information about the accounts which
contain details about income and expenditure. The defendant decline to co-operate for fear of
retribution and actions by his boss. The court ordered the defendant to answer charges of
conspiracy with his boss and was subsequently charged under Section 47 of the MACC Act.
Analysis of the sections herewith empower the MACC to utilise all possible means to
investigate, search, seize and arrest those suspected of wrongdoings under the above sections.

11
THE NATURE OF MORAL AND ETHICS IN CORRUPTION

Most philosophers draw a distinction between ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ while others treat these two
concepts as synonymous. The concepts ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ interchangeably; these terms are
concerned solely with the elucidation and justification of the nature of moral and ethics in
corruption development. It is also a fact that many of the decisions that involve in corruption
these days are much more complex morally and ethically. Some philosophers found that natural
consequence occurred inside the development of corruption influence of morality on society. On
the other side, it was interpret into a new type of social institution as symptomatic of the
transformation of philosophers. Although it is hard to pin down the meaning of ethics because
the views that many people have about ethics are shaky, many philosophers support the
conviction that:

“Ethics is the study of what is good or right for human beings’ and also agrees that by
‘ethical’ or ‘ethics we mean established norms, practices, policies, rules, or codes
intended to guide an individual in terms of good (bad) or right (wrong) behaviours.”

It is obvious that any people was able to decide morally whether or not to accept or reject a
particular ethical rule, or practice, as being a morally right way of behaving. It is also obvious
that ethics is a set of rules which sets out constitutes of right and wrong behaviour. The moral
consciousness of any people will indicate the moral norms which ought to be adopted and
integrated into his or her life, taking personal interests into account, as well as considering and
protecting the interests of others is acting ethically. Ethical issues always involve interests or
feelings and ethics is not just an abstract intellectual discipline; it is about the conflicts that arise
in trying to meet real human needs and values. However, being ethical clearly is not a matter of
following other interests or feelings. Velasquez on business ethics also confirms the nation of the
necessity of morality and he says:

“The moral point of view does not evaluate standards according to whether or not they
advance the interests of a particular individual or not they advance the interests of a
particular individual or group, but goes beyond personal interest to a universal

12
 standpoint in which everyone’s interests are impartially counted as equal” (Velasquez,
2006).

To act morally in the public service environment means ensuring that the consequences of the
public service environment means ensuring that the consequences of the public services are not
detrimental to others, it to put this more positively, ensuring that public service activities
contribute towards the personal well being of others and of societies at large. But this depends on
the gradual creation of a political and public climate favouring impartiality, trustworthiness, a
sense of responsibility and accountability, and the maintenance of a high degree of ethical and
moral standards in the public sector.

Since, we live in a world in which there is a great deal of uncertainty about basic norms and
values, many decisions that confront public officials these days are much more morally and
ethically complex in terms of corruption issue. As a result in the academic field, the subject of
philosophy is now striving for excellence in the teaching of ethics in all disciplines. The
objective is to develop well-qualified people who are impartial and consistent, and who are
practically competent persons ready to serve either in public or private sectors. Today the
demand is to have well qualified personnel with unquestionable integrity who preserve high
ethical standards under all circumstances. In these recent years, there has been a growing interest
worldwide in the ethics of various spheres of life which regulate with corruption development.
We talk of ethics or introducing ethics or philosophy as a subject to be taught not only in
academic institutions, but also throughout social, political, economical, and legal life.

CORRUPTION AND MALADMINISTRATION -MORAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES

Corruption takes place when a public servant, in defiance of prescribed norms, breaks the rules
to advance his or her personal interests. We are concerned here with public office or public
institutions together with public officials, which behave in both unexpected and unacceptable
ways. What constitutes unexpected and unacceptable behaviour may seem to be a rather
personal and individual judgement, but to some extent they are members of groups with rules

13
regulating behaviour. Regardless of how they may be to personal gratification, group members
operate under some constraints if the group is to survive.

What may be publicly considered as a most reprehensible act in one society may not be given
similar treatment in another. Consequently, the preparation of a list which includes all forms of
unethical conduct is difficult and maybe dangerously misleading. However, the following are
examples of those activities are generally considered unethical in many countries which are
consist of bribery, theft, nepotism, conflict of interests (including such activities as financial
transactions to gain personal advantage), misuse of insider knowledge, protecting incompetence,
regulating trade practice or lowering standards in such a manner as to give advantage to one or to
family members, the use and abuse of official and confidential information for private purposes.

Such activities may produce many disadvantages for a society. For example, inefficiency,
mistrust of government and its employees, distortion or programme achievements, waste of
public resources, encouragement of racial discrimination and eventual national instability. Under
what circumstances are these actions called corrupt? It seems best to start by citing an example.
By ‘corruption’, we intend to describe it as “the violation of the intent of explicit official laws,
rules, and purposes for personal gain or the advancement of the private agenda”. If, for example,
one violates an explicit and public rule in order to further the interests of a private company or
corporation, so that its interests come to replace those of the public, this person is guilty of
corruption.

Malaysia must overcome corruption and carry out more market-oriented reforms if it is to move
up from being a middle-income economy, CIMB Group chief Datuk Seri Nazir Razak, younger
brother to the prime minister told Financial Times (FT) on 2 nd July 2012 in Kuala Lumpur. The
youngest son of the country's second prime minister, Tun Razak Hussein, also told the FT that
his eldest brother had “a hell of a task” because “worldwide, no one has really been able to
reform from incumbency”.

Nazir's elder brother and the country's sixth Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, has been
spear heading a slew of governmental, economic and social reforms to transform the country but

14
Malaysia's top banker seemed to suggest that it was not enough, in an interview published in the
international business paper today.

“(Corruption) remains a problem and it is something that needs to be combated,” he told

FT. Nazir told the paper that Malaysia could consider granting an amnesty for those involved in
minor corruption, as has been done in Hong Kong and other countries, an idea that the Najib
administration has resisted.

The moralist, for example, has his or her own idea of what the rule should be. The actors in the
situation concerned create their own rules. It may be the same as the moralist (they may regard
themselves as corrupt; or quite different or behaving honourably according to their standards,
and regard their critics’ standards as irrelevant); or they may be “men of two worlds”, partly
adhering to two standards which are incompatible, and ending exasperates and indifferent (they
may recognize no particular moral implications of the acts in question at all – which obviously is
quite common). Corruption naturally tends to weaken or to perpetuate the weakness of the
government bureaucracy. In this respect, it is incompatible with political, social and economic
development. “The corruption of one government is the generation of another”. It was reported
that a total of 5,983 public officers were investigated for corruption between 2005 and 2011.
Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Liew Vui Keong told Parliament that
816 of the officers were charged in court, of whom 324 were convicted, while 69 were given a
discharged not amounting to acquittal and 298 found not guilty.

Twenty cases were withdrawn, while 105 other cases were still going through trial or appeal
process, he said in reply to Gobind Singh Deo (DAP-Puchong) in Parliament, Kuala Lumpur
July 9th, 2011. On October 24th 2012, there was an uproar in the Dewan Rakyat over the Sabah
Umno political donation controversy. The alternative camp, of course, keeps attacking and
demanding an explanation to make it clear whether the money was “black money” or received
through legitimate channels. Meanwhile, the BN looks calm while defending the legitimacy of
the donations and categorically denying any immoral practices.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz said in response
that Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) had investigated and

15
closed the case as there was no evidence showing corruption practices. The controversy will
certainly not end just like that. It is foreseeable that the alternative coalition will continue to
attack and try to dig more details. It is still too early to say whether it would be intensified like
the National Feedlot Centre scandal or left unsettled.

To be frank, politics can never be separated from money. As long as money serves as the “milk”
for politics, no political party in the world will say no to political donations. The question is, do
we have a legal provision to regulate political donations through strictly supervising the ins and
outs of political donations while limiting the amount of it? More importantly, do we have a law
allowing the authorities to investigate donors who make huge amount of donations? Have the
donations eventually gone into the pockets of vested interest groups? The Presidential elections
have just ended in the United States and the incumbent Barrack Obama won re-election for a
second term in the White House but not without controversies over the reported costs of USD6
billion which some political analysts considered as raised through unethical means, which
loosely translated means corruption money or donations. The US Supreme Court ruled that there
is no limit on how much a political donation one can make to political parties so this means that
the democratic process may favour those who are willing to buy influence. ( Andrew Sheng,
Fung Global Institute )

Corruption and maladministration are among the most important unethical (wrong) conduct in
the Public sector. Current reports about corruption has attempted to challenge the earlier
speculation that corruption is a phenomenon with no negative consequences. Huntington has
argued that corruption takes place when a civil servant is in defiance of prescribed or accepted
norms, breaking the rules to advance his or her personal interests. Thus, it is the behaviour which
deviates from the duties of one’s public role because of private pecuniary or status gains or
violates rules against the exercise of certain types of private influence.

On the other hand, maladministration describes as an action based on, or influenced by, improper
considerations or improper conduct of the public affairs. The matters handled by public officials,
no matter how small and unimportant they seem to them, usually are very important to the
individual claimant or client. In any community without a general consensus on moral norms and
values, authentic and sound society is actually impossible. Some philosopher describes that

16
maladministration as ‘a wrong action’ because maladministration frequently transgresses the
ethical norm of “respect of other person”. In brief, this means that showing respect to others is
how everyone wants to be treated.
This presupposes a number of practical conditions. For example, if a public official considers an
act to be personally morally right, he or she must consider any relevant similar act to be right for
the same reasons. This is one version of the principle of impartiality, that is, ‘I should want to be
treated with respect by others because this is how I would want to be treated myself. Among
many underlying philosophical questions we need to consider this ethical norm are when one
says that the public official is morally obliged to show respect for other person, that is what
exactly he or she is supposed to do; why should they show such respect: how exactly are they to
show this respect?

To maintain a high level of integrity in the public sector is an absolute necessity. The purpose of
ethics in the public sector is to eliminate the uncertainly between what seems to be right and
what is in effect wrong. As the practical problems of maladministration and corruption are
ethical issues, solving it is a moral science, an exposition of what is good or bad, right or wrong.
Ethics is concerned with the development of human behaviour according to certain moral norms.
If judged morally wrong will be always wrong, especially if it has deleterious effects, and of
course, if it destructive and incompatible with a system of public order. Corruption is among the
most important manifestations of unethical conduct in the public sector. Let consider some
measures to prevent or eradicate unprofessional actions or the practices in issue.

CORRUPTION IN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE

Corruption is also said to be highly related to materialistic tendencies, whichcan be due to real
needs caused by income or greed and desire to live well beyondone's means. When this happens,
it can easily lead to gross inefficiencies bothfinancially and productivity wise. Those involved
will find ways and means ofapplying pressure on others whom they can prey upon, instead of
providing genuineservice to such victims. It is quite common for those intending to receive
bribes todelay approval or payment process so that they can expedite the service in return

17
forsome bribes.Apart from the obvious damages that we cause to society through bribery
andcorruption, Islam provides another view on this menace.

The Holy Prophet of Islam used to appoint a number of his companions asthe collectors of zakat,
during the Medina period. They were to make proper assessments on the items where zakat
become payable, collect the proper amount and distribute to the recipients in the same locality.
One of these collectors of zakat came back and told the Holy Prophet, "This amount is what I
have collected less what I have distributed to the rightful recipients, but this is mine". The Holy
Prophet was very upset and rebuked him saying, "What right have you to put aside something
that does not belong to you. If you were to remain in your father's house,would you get what you
are taking?"

The Holy Prophet had also been reported to have said, "If what you get from the people because
of your position is bribery, would you get it if you are not holding that position, or if you stay in
your father's house?" These hadith provide us with the strict definition of bribery and corruption
in Islam. Gifts given to us could be considered as bribery if it is meant to oblige us to abuse our
position or power. However, if it is customary for those in power to receive gifts because of the
respect, love and services that they have rendered to the people,then of course it cannot be
regarded as bribery but gratitude.

We know that the Holy Prophet himself used to accept gifts of various forms from heads of
states in his time. He also used to give similar gifts to others. This is not bribery because it is
customary to do it. Moreover, it is often given out of love and respect for the person.In essence,
Islam too frowns upon bribery and corruption. It is definitely a sinful act. All benefits derived
from sinful activities are definitely unlawful. To this applies the famous hadith that states that
the flesh that grows out of unlawful income has no place in the hereafter but hell.

The problem that we have to sincerely question is whether the bribe that we have paid for will
bring about future streams of income to us or not. If the stream of income that we receive is
clearly the result of the bribe that we have paid for, then naturally, the stream of income that we
derive is unlawful in the eyes of Islam. For instance if we bribe to get to a certain position, the

18
stream of income that we enjoy from such a position is also questionable Islamically. This is the
real danger of all our sinful actions. Whether we pay zakat or donate our wealth for a very noble
cause from such wealth, there is no benefit to us. This is because, neither zakat nor good
charitable deeds are counted from unlawful income. After all, we are all accountable to Allah in
every action that we do on this earth.A famous hadith has it that Allah will call us to account
how we spend our life, our youth, our wealth and our knowledge.

Abdul Rahman ibn Auf, the richest companions among the famous ten whom the Holy Prophet
had predicted will enter paradise will have to account for all his wealth, the way he got and spent
them, before being allowed to approach the gate ofheaven. The other nine would have little
wealth to account for and hence will speedily reach heaven.

CASE STUDY: PKFZ SCANDAL

Port Klang in Selangor is positioned to take advantage of the Kuala Lumpur International Airport
Advance Cargo Centre as an ocean going port and cargo hub of the country, challenging both
Tanjung Pelepas Port in Johore and the Singapore port. The KLIA Advance Cargo Center can
handle one million cubic tons of cargo annually with the capability to expand to 3 million cubic
tons per year. The center provides integrated logistics services.The Port is also closely linked
toNorthport and West Ports in Port Klang, the 16th busiest port in the world.

Controversy began when the Malaysian Parliament's Public Accounts Committee met with the
Port Klang Authority (PKA), because of dissatisfaction with huge cost overruns amounting to
RM 3.5 billion (USD 1.0748 billion) associated with the Port Klang Free Zone. The original cost
of setting up the integrated free zone was supposed be RM1.845 billion but increased to RM4.6
billion when the project was completed four years later.

PKA purchased 1,000 acres (4.0 km2) of Pulau Indah land from Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd at RM
25 per square foot for a total consideration of RM 1.088 billion (inclusive of interest). Kuala
Dimensi made a capital gain of RM 993 million because it had purchased the land from Pulau
Lumut Development Cooperative Berhad for only RM 95 million (at RM 3 per square foot).

19
Moreover, the Minister of Transport at that time Dato’ Seri ( now Tun ) Dr Ling Liong Sik saw it
fit to reject the Attorney-General's view that the land could be acquired for "public purpose"
under the Land Acquisition Act at RM 10 per square foot. It was also reported that a former
Cabinet Minister Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir said that the price of the land itself is not
yet final as it should have been added with an interest rate of 7.5% per annum which will make
the land much more pricier than the current price.

Abdul Kadir also said that however it would definitely be the final price if the Cabinet had
decided on this and it was normal practice to bring this back to the cabinet if there was any
change. ( report by R. Mageswari, STAR 6 October 2012 ).In 2007, the Malaysian Government
gave a soft loan of $1 billion to Port Klang Free Zone. In the press release, The Ministry of
Transport, Malaysia put the blame on the previous regional industrial park management
company of Port Klang Free Zone, Jebel Ali Free Zone Authority (JAFZA) for mismanagement.
The PKFZ initial plan was to develop in two phases, covering 500 acres (2.0 km2) at the cost of
RM 400 million. However, the JAFZA advised PKFZ to develop the entire project in a single
phase, costing RM1.845 billion.

In 2008, Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) was asked to conduct an audit in response to financial
irregularities.As of July 2010 five people have been arrested and facing criminal charges due to
misconduct in administering and financing the PKFZ. OC Phang, the former General Manager of
the Port Klang Authority, has been charged with criminal breach of trust under Section 420 of
the Penal Code in connection to RM254 million in expenses. Stephen Abok, the chief operating
officer of PKFZ developer Kuala Dimensi and Bernard Tan, the architect who approved PKFZ
construction, has been charged with criminal breach of trust related to RM122.3 million in
expenses. Law Jenn Dong has been charged with 24 counts of cheating related to the
development of the PKFZ. Law formerly worked as an engineer at the developer of the PKFZ.
All four protest their innocence and their cases are moving to trial.

The Malaysian government has pledged to arrest and prosecute anyone guilty of wrongdoing in
the PKFZ affair. Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said, "We will not hesitate to
act against anyone and we will not protect anyone." Social Care Foundation chairman Tan Sri

20
Robert Phang says that the legal action taken demonstrates the government's will to root out
corruption and improve transparency. “In the end, it is about recovering as much taxpayers’
money as possible and the successful prosecution of all who exploited the PKFZ project for
monetary gains,” Phang said. Phang, who is also a member Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency
advisory board, also expressed his confidence that the government would handle this matter
fairly due to Prime Minister Najib's pledge that no one would receive special protection.

Najib has called for sterner measures to combat official corruption that has stoked public anger
not only against the PKFZ scandal but also a host of other corruption scandals while urging the
government to maintain firm political control. He cited the many challenges Malaysia faced now
such as the rich-poor gap, environmentally ruinous growth and the imbalanced development
between the prosperous states and the struggling states. The prime minister addressed the
problems of graft and called on government servants to practice the ethical code of duty by
telling that nobody is above the law. Citing the case of PKFZ he said that the central figures in
the scandal were all people of reputable standings in society but he added that the law does not
give preferences to high ranking or very important people instead the same treatment will be
accorded fair and square to everyone. The prime minister added that he would not interfered in
the court proceedings and let the natural law of justice takes it’s course and prevails.

The prime minister further reiterated that if they fail to handle the issue well, it could prove fatal
to the ruling partyand government and can even cause the collapse of the party and government.
The government has to contend with the public’s continued expectation of higher living
standards and for less or no corruption and greater accountability and transparency.

After a joint investigation by police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, former
Transport Minister Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik was charged with cheating in connection to
irregularities in land valuations inside the PKFZ in late July 2010. Tun Dr Ling 69, is alleged to
have misused his position to deceived the government by not revealing to the Cabinet an
additional interest rate of 7.5% annually in the purchase of the land for the PKFZ project at the
Prime Minister’s office in Putrajaya between September 25, 2002 and November 6, 2002.

21
DrLing led the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), a member of the ruling coalition, Barisan
Nasional, for 18 years and was conferred the gallantry award Seri Maharaja Mangku Negara
( SMN ) which carries the title "Tun", the highest title awarded by the federal government and is
only limited to 10 recipients per year.

He is the most senior official accused so far in the PKFZ affair. Ling pleaded "not guilty"
immediately after being charged. Ling was released on RM1 million bail. If convicted he could
be sentenced to up seven years in prison.The PKFZ scandal also create history of all sorts when
the Deputy Public Prosecutor ( DPP ) Tun Abdul Majid he would subpoena 2 former Prime
Ministers, TunDr Mahathir Mohamed and Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and also the current
Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak to testify. Aside from that a former Cabinet
Minister Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir and other VVIPs have also been subpoenaed to give
statements and evidences. This is something that has never happen in the judicial history of the
nation.

Since the trial is still ongoing, we will not be able to come to the conclusion of the case but the
overall scenario shows that corruption happens at all levels of society regardless of the culprit’s
social standings. In this case it involves a senior member of the ruling party Barisan National and
a senior former cabinet minister. This also shows that the present government viewed corruption
as a very serious disease and threat that needs to be eradicated although it may take time and
effort. The government reiterated that the MACC can bring crooked public officials to book even
in cases when corruption is difficult to prove. In the PKFZ scandal, it is difficult to prove
because of the complexities of the case, being too technical and involves a lot of minute and
detailed evidences and facts.

MACC said that these officials in cases where it is difficult to prove in court could still be
charged for public misconduct and abuse of power either for personal or any other gain.
Sometimes some elements of corruption can be proven in court which may not amount to a
successful conviction but which may be sufficient to prove that the public official is guilty of
misconduct. For example in Hong Kong and Australia public misconduct has been used

22
successfully to prosecute a number of public officials with the courts meting out sentences
ranging from 2 to 7 years in jail.

In the PKFZ scandal, Tun Dr Ling was alleged to have said that he knew nothing about the
purported sale of the land and the price that was agreed. However it was not generally accepted
because as a cabinet minister and a central figure in the sale, he should have known better than
most people. He was quoted as saying that he only knew about the price and not about the
interest rate. He protested his innocence by quoting that it is perfectly alright for the interest rate
to be included later in the price of the land as was the normal practice. Since this case is still in
the hearing process, the court has issued an injunction to refrain the officials, suspects and court
officials to discuss the case openly. The press has also been issued with the gag order. This is
necessary so as not to jeopardize the case.

A similar case happened in Australia whereby the court issued an order not to discuss the
corruption case involving eight formers managers and employees at the Central bank’s Note
Printing Australia Ltd unit to charges of bribing bank officials in Malaysia, Indonesia and
Vietnam from 1999 to 2004 to win bank note printing contracts. The courts decide that the
proceedings should not be discussed in the public forum as anything said or commented could
improperly impinge the legal process. Certain documents are also not table for fear that it may
jeopardize proceedings.

In the case of PKFZ there are some documents that are not tendered as exhibits and this raised
questions about the government’s role in the case and also the court’s neutrality in deciding the
outcome of the case later on. The opposition parties are crying blood that the trial is not fair and
the real culprits are still very much enjoying their freedom. They were pointing that former
Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir should be charged on account of accountability as he was the
prime minister then. However the courts decide that Tun Dr Mahathir will only be called as a
witness and not as an accused person. Does this show that corruption cases involving VVIPs or
influential figures in this country are still untouchables and immune from corruption cases no
matter how big the case is? It is worth pondering.

23
CONCLUSION

The public service needs public servants who are loyal to their organization, leaders, work ethics,
government and the tax payers. The main reason there of is that the concept of trust that their
income are paid through the taxpayer’s money. Therefore, they should use public funds, inter
alia, effectively and efficiently for the benefit of all the members of the society. Positive work
ethic and attitudes, such as loyalty to public service goals and value, do not develop
automatically. It needs the concerted efforts of all interested members of the society to develop a
positive work ethics and moral values. There is an effective promotion on positive work ethics
and moral values is very essential to be campaigned by the federal and state governments,
educational institutions, caretakers of religions, the society in general and the parents in specific.

The corruption patterns have changed tremendously in the last 30 years. Corruption used to be
very domestic, very local and the form of corruption payment was very simple. Today, it has
gone beyond borders with the progress of Information Technology and so on. With the country’s
continued positive growth, fighting and scourge has become more complicated, especially when
some of it involved big contracts, procurements and well as very powerful and influential
figures. It needs officers with integrity and courage to investigate such cases that involve
corruption at this level.

With that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has propose a module on integrity and
corruption prevention to be included as subjects in primary and secondary schools starting from
next year. The suggestion listed religious, civic and moral education that will teach students
values such as honesty, trustworthiness, sincerity and integrity. The suggestion will come with
the module to mould students to become excellent human capital. The emphasis on integrity is an
attempt to nip corruption in the bud, especially in preventing students from engaging in corrupt
practices when they start working.

As a matter of fact, Malaysia scored 4.3 on the survey which gauges the perceived level of public
sector corruption among 183 countries and ranked third among ASEAN countries behind
Singapore at 9.3 and Brunei at 6.3. The fight against corruption should not be based on public

24
perception alone but needs the concerted effort of all parties in the society. Dealing with
corruption is today the highest priority in almost all government and economies and more in
emerging markets like Malaysia. The biggest issue now is how to tackle corruption in large and
complex bureaucracies.
Corruption is often tackled using the method of the policemen as corruption is legally a crime
which required an extreme level of breakdown maintenance and it involves the participation of
all levels of society which includes the giver and the taker. Corruption was initially thought of as
a problem of income transfer by which when public servants are poorly paid, they simple extract
a “rent” from those who want public services and this income equalises the income between the
under paid public servants and the more highly paid private sectors. Such transfers are
unfortunately highly regressive meaning the poor pay more than the rich. However how do we
define corruption in this manner if you look at the PKFZ scandal whereby the actors are all
highly paid public servants including the former Transport Minister? These actors are
scandalously paid very big paychecks and also considered to be among the most highly paid
executives in this region.
Lets examine the treatment of corruption from the perspective of politics, bureaucracy, judiciary,
media, corporate sector, citizens and the NGOs. The best antidote is plain transparency. The
ethical approach is to deal with the weaknessess of the people and how to select strong, ethical
officials in power and authority to uphold the values of protecting the public interests.

25
REFERENCES

1. Laws of Malaysia. (2009). Retrieved November 1, 2012, from Malaysia Anti-Corruption

Act:
http://www.lawnet.com.my/lawnetpublic/Members/tabid/53/ctl/SubDocumentDetails/mid/

369/Default.aspx?DocumentID=70456

2. Towards A Free Corruption in Malaysia. (2009). National Intergrity Plan , 1.

3. Transparency International. (n.d.). Retrieved September 1 , 2012, from

www.transparency.org: www.transparency.org

4. Transparency International. (n.d.). Retrieved October 25, 2012, from

www.transparency.org:

http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo?gclid=COfq65azsrMCFYl66wodpmEAiA

5. 1Velasquez, M. G. (2006). Business ethics. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall

6th edition.

6. Malayan law Journal

7. Jeremy Bentham ( Introduction to the Principles of Moral and Legislation 1870 )
8. Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission Act 2009
9. Andrew Sheng, Fung Global Institute

26