So many questions, so few answers

Malaysia has so many scandals of late, it’s hard to keep track of. Each scandal seems to have taken a life of its own, and spawned mini scandals!

The most discussed today, is, of course, the 2.6 billion ringgit "donation" which led to a series of dismissals from the deputy prime minister to ministers, to key civil servants. This was despite the constant reminder by the prime minister that he is ready to accept criticism. Judging by his reluctance to sue the Wall Street Journal, however, coupled with the speed in which he responds to "local" critics, one could assume, foreign critics are more welcome than local ones.

It’s not an easy to task to write off RM2.6 billion as a simple, "normal" donation. Not after a campaign blitz implying that we were running out of money and that we all needed to make sacrifices, such as the removal of subsidies and the introduction of new taxes. Not after we started austerity measures in government departments and scrapped the National Service programme and raised electricity tariffs because we had "no choice".

In perspective, RM2.6 billion is even more than the entire Selangor 2015 State budget, which was the highest Selangor state budget tabled in history, at RM2.42 billion.

It was an account transfer involving a couple of Middle Eastern accounts, and a personal account of an individual, who happens to be our prime minister. However, since the Government and ruling party both stepped in to reply, what was originally a question to one person, has now become a national issue.

As quickly as the matter was raised, corruption was ruled out. This is strange, given that in a case involving awarding of contracts worth less than 0.0001% of that, a political aide was questioned overnight and eventually died in the same premise, triggering nationwide protests, an inquest and political backlash.

The argument is that it is a private donation, meant for a political party. Even if it was, given the public interest in the case, don’t the public have a right to know some facts on it? After all, are the ruling party and government not both accountable to the same electorate?

Given the deluge of news surrounding it, coupled by injections of political propaganda, there seems very little information that is clear. We are only repeatedly told that the matter is solved.

How was it solved? Were people even questioned? Was a file opened and closed in less than a week?

There is a serious conflict of interest where the investigated party is a sitting prime minister, and the investigating party comes under the Prime Minister’s Department.

The often employed argument would be that the donation was meant for the party, and not involving 1MDB or any government funds.

While that is true, and it would make it a private fund, the public still has the right to know, especially if the funds were obtained during the holding of a public office.

Also, if everyone belonging to a party or organization is allowed to accept large donations without much questions asked, doesn’t it open a whole new, dangerous, paradoxical precedent? For example, crime, terrorism financing, fraud, tax evasion, charity abuse.

Recently, a Youth leader from the ruling party suggested that the money may be to combat the influence of Isis. A plausible and acceptable reason, but why to a personal account?

If the money was to be channeled to a party under a trust, won’t it usually go through the party treasurer?

And if the money was to be channeled to the Government, won’t it usually go through the Treasury?

If accepting foreign donations was one of the accusations its detractors leveled against Bersih and Hindraf to suggest that they were "foreign tools", shouldn’t the same logic be applied here?

These are questions ordinary Malaysians ask, and if left unanswered, will only lead to endless speculation and conspiracy theories. Instead of clamping down on the questions, the government should start thinking of an answer. A solid, believable answer.

To question one person leading just one of the three branches of government, the executive, should not be seen as an attack against the whole government, or a conspired attempt to overthrow it.

That’s the reason we have such a system – for check and balance of power. Questions and disagreements are the hallmark of a democracy; a person or party elected into power by the public would be constantly subject to scrutiny by that same public.

Thus, the various enforcement agencies should be allowed to carry out their jobs without interference, or even the appearance of interference. Whatever credibility they have left, serves to help preserve the integrity of the government they serve. To further discredit them, would only serve to undermine the legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the public, inviting only more criticism and scorn.

Something the present administration could use a little less of, more so lately. – August 11, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.