Think before you speak

 

From Walter Sandosam

“Think before you speak” is a piece of advice which should not be taken lightly. Words uttered cannot be retracted and can have a devastating effect resulting, among others, in feelings of anger, disgust, and apathy as well as the demotivation that could be stirred up.

Unfortunately, some politicians are deficient in this aspect of thinking as reflected in what they say, motives aside. Ramifications of such ill-advised comments can come back to haunt them as shown in many instances, most recently in the apologies by two leaders from the same party to the Sarawak government.

A new deputy minister is the latest proponent of such malaise. Not only has he raised eyebrows with his casual dressing at the workplace, he has also not endeared himself to stakeholders who engage with the ministry with his risqué comments on corruption. It was a case of putting the wrong foot forward with the first step.

The irony is that the comment was passed without first engaging with the stakeholders. This is a failure of basic leadership not to mention good governance.

Surely one does not want to create an atmosphere of disappointment and disengagement marked with questions on competence to do the job.

If there is context or ample evidence to buttress said accusations then such statements are valid and are meant to highlight and correct wrongdoing. However, most often, this may not be the case.

This corresponds loosely with a politician claiming that what was perceived as a threat made by him on a senior civil servant, now claiming it to be a “political soundbite”. What a cop out. How does one rightly interpret such words?

If one was subject to a “visit” by MACC, is the outcome now different given the election results? Should that be true, then the prime minister’s exhortations not to tolerate corruption at all levels are perplexing.

In a similar vein, an Umno Supreme Council member has called for developments on Justice Nazlan Ghazali’s case to be advised soonest to clear the air given speculation, credible or not, on social media.

The issue of a head of an enforcement agency in the thick of things involving his private dealings and not availing himself to a parliamentary committee is also still unresolved.

Where are we on these? There should not be inordinate delays in such matters of public interest. They need to be expedited before we speak of institutional reform with so much passion and fervour.

It appears that these cases are victims of the judicial process which is time consuming.

Instances such as these create a negative impression which ultimately affects the corruption perception index negatively.

The recent statement on a perceived “clear travesty of justice” in relation to a royal pardon is bewildering with reference to “witnesses being coerced” and “investigations being commenced before a police report had been lodged”.

The inference is that the system has been compromised and action had been taken which can be deemed corrupt specifically against political adversaries. How low have we descended on integrity?

Following on, one can’t be blamed for opining that in some instances, there may be a political dimension of “witnesses being coerced”. If it can be deemed to have occurred before, can it not be so again?

This deduction is most unhealthy and clarification needs to be forthcoming from other stakeholders in the process to manage this observation.

Such aspersions paint a bleak picture, especially with certain quarters advising the public to read judgments in full before coming to conclusions on high-profile cases involving politicians.

The memoirs of a former attorney-general on certain aspects of the judicial system also do not help to neutralise misapprehensions on this front.

This is not the time to maintain a dignified silence. Perceptions have to be addressed as it has an impact on trust in the system. Sadly, there has been none.

Politicians should focus on basic duties, choose their words with care and not bend over backwards as they address the gallery.

It reflects insensitivity and possibly a degree of naivety which has detrimental ramifications on society at large - FMT

Walter Sandosam is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.