KJ, Amirudin, and Onn: Three politicians, few practical answers on corruption

 

A Universiti Malaya student, Ummi Umairah Bakhit, asked three experienced politicians - Khairy Jamaluddin, Selangor Menteri Besar Amirudin Shari, and Johor Menteri Besar Onn Hafiz Ghazi - how future leaders should fight corruption, challenge feudalism, and speak based on facts.

Citing the Tabung Haji scandal and the fundraiser for former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak’s RM50 million fine, she posed a question that demanded practical answers.

Instead, their reported responses offered familiar declarations about corruption but little practical guidance on how future leaders should tackle it. Pathetic!

First, there is hope for Malaysia. Ummi (below) had the courage to challenge three politicians on corruption, feudalism, and the need to think critically.

Second, the three politicians failed to answer her question adequately. They gave another patronising lecture on why corruption is wrong, when what we need to know is how our leaders will tackle it.

Third, the participation of three relatively young politicians in a Higher Education Ministry-backed dialogue was encouraging, whether by accident or design. Yet their reported responses offered little inspiration: Khairy declared a principle without confronting his earlier position, Amirudin failed to offer concrete advice, and Onn appealed to divine punishment rather than present-day deterrence.

Fourth, we must ask whether this is the calibre of leadership Malaysians should accept. If these are the answers offered to a student asking how future leaders should fight corruption, perhaps it is time to return to the drawing board and look for politicians of a different calibre - one with the courage, consistency, and practical vision to lead.

Khairy declared that corruption should never be defended, even when it involves one’s own leaders. “What’s wrong is wrong,” he said.

Fine words, but during the 1MDB controversy, Khairy defended the explanation that US$681 million (RM2.6 billion) transferred into Najib’s personal accounts was a political donation from Saudi royalty.

On the eve of the May 2018 general election, Khairy appeared alongside Najib in that now-memorable mamak-stall video. After BN lost power, Khairy became increasingly critical of Najib and 1MDB.

Politicians are entitled to change their minds, but accountability requires them to explain why.

What changed Khairy’s assessment? New evidence? A reassessment of the facts? Or the political fallout from the election?

If he now believes that what is wrong must never be defended, what does he make of his own earlier defence?

It is easy to declare principles in hindsight. The real test is whether politicians uphold them when doing so is politically inconvenient.

Amirudin's lack of practical advice

Meanwhile, Amirudin said he was glad young people remained concerned about corruption.

But Ummi did not ask whether politicians welcomed young people’s concern. She asked how future leaders should challenge corruption and think critically.

Where was Amirudin’s (below) practical advice? He could have spoken about demanding transparency, protecting independent investigations, applying the same standards to political allies and opponents, and refusing to confuse party loyalty with public duty.

The MB had an opportunity to explain what leadership looks like when accountability becomes uncomfortable. The reported response offered little beyond approving of the student’s concern.

Welcoming a question is not the same as answering it.

Onn's record on accountability

Onn warned that Muslim leaders who abused their responsibilities would answer to God, even if they escaped punishment during their lifetime.

He described corruption as a cancer that impedes progress. Yet his earlier public support for Najib raises questions about how consistently he applies that principle.

Condemning the disease while defending a political ally does little to reassure a public demanding accountability. Does accountability apply equally to everyone, or does political loyalty get in the way?

In July 2024, Onn (below) declared that Umno would continue fighting for “justice for Najib”, whom he called one of Malaysia’s best prime ministers. Really?

There is also the question of consistency. Last month, Onn welcomed the decision allowing Najib to serve the remainder of his SRC International sentence under house arrest, while stressing that the sentence remained in force.

This is precisely the concern many Malaysians have. They are tired of lofty declarations about integrity when the real test comes close to home. A politician cannot expect the public to accept his words at face value while leaving questions about consistency unanswered.

Onn’s response fell short of the leadership this question demanded. He had ample opportunity to explain how accountability should work in practice, but instead fell back on claims of political persecution, selective prosecution, and punishment after death.

Invoking divine punishment is a weak response. The student was asking how future leaders should challenge corruption now, not what might happen to wrongdoers in the afterlife.

A missed opportunity

Khairy acknowledged that talk is cheap and doing the right thing becomes harder once a politician is in power. Exactly!

He spoke of integrity without addressing his earlier position, Amirudin welcomed concern without offering practical guidance, and Onn invoked selective prosecution and divine punishment.

We need not speculate about their motives. We need only compare Ummi’s question with the responses reported by Malaysiakini.

Ummi demonstrated the critical thinking Malaysia needs by challenging the politicians on corruption and feudalism.

Yet the panellists failed to address her concerns adequately, offering little that was new or practical. They could have explained why the authorities must not merely catch the ikan bilis while the sharks escape accountability.

Nevertheless, Ummi and her peers have given us reason to hope. The politicians, meanwhile, gave her a lukewarm lesson in the difference between talking about accountability and demonstrating it. - Mkini

---

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a defender of the truth, the admiral-general of the Green Bean Army, and the president of the Perak Liberation Organisation (PLO). Find her on her website and on X.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT