We often accuse the West of moral relativism, but today it is obviously also very much embedded in our culture and way of life. There is currently a profound confusion in our culture regarding ethics and morals. Historically, ethics has been defined and upheld by all cultures and civilisations. Ethics is a normative science concerned with discovering the norms that must govern our lives. Ethics tells as what we \’ought to do\’.

Morals, on the other hand, are traditionally a descriptive science. It surveys a given culture and tells us what the majority of its citizens practice. Morals describe what \’is\’, not necessarily what should be, says Tabletalk , a monthly journal produced by Ligonier Ministries in the US.

\"\"

We have been witnessing how a member of our Parliament was at the core and heart of promoting moral relativism in our country. First, there was an outburst by this person against the director-general of the Customs and Excise Department for being too \’publicity conscious\’. Then the New Straits Times breaks the news about an MP asking the department\’s Malacca branch to \’close on eye\’ regarding the import of \’illegal sized logs\’. But, customs department is only an enforcement agency and the definition of the size of logs falls under another government agency, the Malaysian Timber Industry Board.

Therefore, whether we like it or not the customs officer is not allowed by authority and jurisdiction to \’close one eye\’. This means his request was really related to closing both eyes, and the NST adequately captured this nuance in their headlines. Then the Attorney-General finds out that this is not the first offence, but and this company owned by the MP was compounded many times previously on related matters.

Finally the MP concerned owned up but declared that he had done nothing wrong and was only seeking help on behalf of a constituent who was acting on behalf of a bumiputera company. He still upheld his integrity and innocence and said he was \”believed by the PM and the deputy PM\’. So, at the last Umno exco meeting, it was declared that there was no reason to review this case of the MP. A subsequent NST expose discovered another interesting finding to which the MP could not obviously close one eye to. The so-called bumiputera forwarding company had a name that appeared to coincide with his own name.

Then, the same MP declared that it was his company and that he had still \’done nothing wrong\’. What is wrong in helping himself? Are not MPs allowed to do business, he challenged. Yesterday, the argument was about helping another bumiputera constituent. Today, the story has changed to helping himself and tomorrow it will become to helping the industry … and the soap opera continues. But still there is no admission of guilt. Is he not simply guilty of poor morality and bad ethics?

Corruption redefined

Malaysia is a constitutional democracy. The constitution is the supreme law of this country. Therefore, we administer this nation under what is called the rule of law principle, which is already enshrined in our Rukunegara as one of our five core and cardinal principles. Under the rule of law principle, we are a nation run or governed by rules and regulations. No public official, whether prime minister or junior official can break the law. That is the meaning of the rule of law. It is the job of the Attorney-General to take action the moment there is an obvious violation. The AG has promised action for the above case once the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) files its case. I await the AG\’s action, for non-action is also an action.

It is truly shocking to me that such blatant disregard for the law and regulations are becoming our street-level morality. Nobody fears giving a bribe. Almost no one fears driving through a red light anymore. Check this out. Observe today as you drive around and notice how many people break the law at whim and fancy. But, this rot starts from the head. The people believed the prime minister and gave him 90 percent of the votes because he declared a war on corruption and argued for a nation with integrity. But where is that commitment, when right there in our centre of democratic practice, a member of parliament defiantly argues that he has done no wrong on this specific matter of smuggling illegal logs?

\"\"

Whither ethics in Malaysia if corruption and decadence become a way of life and morality? None other than the PM himself personally asked the nation to give him authority to govern this nation with integrity. Ninety percent of the people believed and trusted him. Today, one of his personally selected and approved MPs from his own party has redefined corruption (vide \’closing one eye\’) as legitimate. Except that the customs department calls this smuggling! And instead of sacking the man, the unfortunate and out-spoken messenger of bad news, Backbenchers Club president Shahrir Abdul Samad has instead become the political victim. Whither the politics within Umno if the bad guys win and the good guy lose all in the name of \’political discipline\’?

Can I run my family based on this value system; teach my children to blindly obey even when the untruth and misdeeds are obvious? Is this then morality ala Malaysian style; morality of our beloved nation which is striving to become a progressive, civilised role model for the Islamic world? Or is this all only an Umno-style of \’wayang kulit\’ (shadow play) to hide an even greater threat being played out in a sideshow?

Back to the core issue of the difference between ethics and morality. My sincere prayer is that the twain may never be confused for the sake of our future. Pak Lah\’s espoused theory about the new role of Parliament and the war against corruption were a serious attempt against bad morality and to establish good ethics. Poor morality has already become a norm and a standard operating procedure within the police force. Everyone one knows that, even schoolchildren. In fact, after attending my Jusa course at Intan, I went to see the then deputy Inspector-General of Police together with an AG\’s chambers classmate from the course.

Turning a blind eye

We presented a proposal to set up a citizen-led action movement against corruption or Clam as we called it then. The deputy IGP listened well and then commented, \’You sound like an NGO\’. I agreed and said, \’That is why I took leave from my office for this meeting\’. There ended our conversation and the rest is the fully recorded as history in the report by the royal commission on enhancing the police force. That is all the more reason that the IPCMC is needed and should not be part and parcel of internal investigations by the police themselves.

If our very honorable member of parliament\’s theology is to be followed, this nation is doomed to corruption, decadence and destruction. According to him, the simple logic of \’everyday morality which is nothing wrong\’ is right because it is was for a bumiputera company. \’So what if I use my office to help myself a little bit?\’ Was that not the argument of the late Harun Idris, the most powerful MB ever, but who still landed him in jail for corruption under the ethical leadership of Hussein Onn?

My question to our PM and deputy PM therefore is this: Is such a blatant violation at the above really acceptable under the standards of ethics you have preached to the people during the last election? Acceptable for excellence, distinction, glory? Are you turning a blind eye to the problem of moral relativism? Was not Shahrir right in what he did? Why not have the moral courage to change this culture of nepotism and decadence that has become endemic within Umno? Can we really not uphold the right of an MP to speak on a matter of conscience, when there is no major government policy being voted upon?

To me, the lack of a systemic leadership\’s integrity is more troubling than the case of one misled and obviously wrong MP. That we turn a blind eye when he has twisted and turned his entire story upside down is troubling. But that may be our party political culture and that is why I am not a member of any political party. But for the BN leadership to all speak in silence is both a tragic loss and does not bode well for the party in power. Decadence has set into the government and the party in power. As a citizen, I cannot support such obviously wrong actions.