Lecture at The University of Cambodia: US Foreign Policy and Trends by Former United States Ambassador George Bruno

January 10, 2018

Lecture at The University of Cambodia: US Foreign Policy and Trends by Former United States Ambassador George Bruno

Image result for university of cambodia logo

The University of Cambodia and The Techo Sen School of Government and International Relations in collaboration with The Embassy of The United States of America in Phnom Penh are pleased to announce that there will be a Lecture on “US Foreign Policy and Trends” on January 16th 2018 at 3:00pm – 5:00 pm by Former U.S Ambassador George Bruno in The United States of America Room , 9th Floor, The University of Cambodia.

Image result for university of cambodia logo


The Dean Techo Sen School Prof. Keo Chhea will represent H.E Dr. Kao Kim Hourn, Founder, Chairman of Board of Trustee and President of The University of Cambodia. Prof. Dr. Din Merican, Associate Dean, The Techo Sen School will be a moderator for the Lecture.

All Students, Faculty, Staff and Members of The UC Community are cordially invited.


George Bruno


George Bruno is a lawyer in private practice concentrating on business matters and immigration law. He is also the Managing Director of USA Group International, an international consulting firm serving businesses and governments, with offices in New Hampshire and Washington, DC.

Image result for US Embassy in Phnom Penh

He is under contract with the University of New Hampshire to manage its Partners for Peace Program dealing with civil-military emergency preparedness focusing this past year on Russia and Latvia. Ambassador Bruno is also an adjunct professor of International Affairs in the Graduate School of New England College and serves as an advisor to the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies at the National Defense University, Ft. McNair, Washington, DC.

Image result for US Ambassador George BrunoFormer US Ambassador George Bruno

Ambassador Bruno has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Hartwick College, Oneonta, NY, and a law degree from The George Washington University, Washington, DC. He was awarded a graduate fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

In 1998-1999, as a senior member of the US team, he made monthly visits to Panama to facilitate fulfillment of the 1977 Canal Treaty. In 1999-2000, he represented the US in Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania to promote civil protection and cooperation among the Balkan nations. In the spring of 2002, he traveled to Indonesia and Korea for the State Department to discuss democracy, foreign policy and 9/11 before government, student and business audiences.

He has served on election observation missions in Kosovo, Pakistan and Romania, and participated in world forums on trade, human rights, democracy, military affairs, and the administration of justice. In 2005, he served as an advisor to the Bosnia War Crimes Tribunal.

He was appointed Ambassador to Belize from 1994-1997 by President Bill Clinton where he worked to increase trade, strengthen Belize’s democratic traditions, stem the flow of illegal drugs and aliens and promote friendly relations between our countries.

South China Sea Dispute: No Solution any time soon

October 8, 2017

South China Sea Dispute: No Solution any time soon

by Bunn Nagara


Image result for South China Sea


WHEN a problem clearly becomes hopeless, it may generate one of two opposite reactions – intellectual equivalents of fight or flight. One is to see tremendous hope in the depths of disappointment; the other is to surrender utterly to crushing despondency. Both extreme reactions are equally unrealistic.

The intractable South China Sea disputes with their multiple layers of challenges form one such example.

Bill Hayton of London’s Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs) think tank became an authority on the subject with his 2014 book The South China Sea: The Struggle for Power in Asia.

Image result for Bill Hayton of London’s Chatham House

As his talk at the Institute of China Studies, Universiti Malaya on Thursday showed, China’s current claim to most of the South China Sea is of quite recent origin, beginning after 1909.

China was more concerned about the Paracel Islands closer to home, not objecting to France’s claim to the Spratlys in 1933. For much of the time China even seemed unaware of the Spratly Islands.

Beijing began to claim the Spratlys only in 1946. This island group is now hotly contested by Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

In 2009 China sent a letter to the UN Secretary-General asserting its sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters and islands of the South China Sea. Beijing argues that its rights date back centuries if not millennia.

But disputed claims based on little more than assumptions in a hazy and distant past pose problems abroad. Nothing substantive or meaningful can be anchored in international law recognised by all claimants.

For any country to display old maps of questionable origin to support the claims as ancient and therefore legitimate is not enough. That only enlarges the disputes, which is what has happened.

But what have Chinese geographers and legal experts made of Hayton’s revelations? Apparently they have yet to respond, since a Chinese translation of his work is on the way.

Such findings can better inform the disputes, raise the level of debates and encourage more reasonable claims. But that is as far as they go.

New information does not enable anyone – not even Hayton, as he claims – to resolve the South China Sea disputes in a week. That is sheer delusion in full flight mode. Greater familiarity with such disputes would make the many challenges clear enough. But some false hopes still need to be exposed.

The issue of joint development is among them. China has offered to conduct joint exploration and development with other claimant countries, but that has been rejected.

Image result for bill hayton of london’s chatham house

Apart from the problems of who should pay how much of the costs and receive how much of the profits, any partnership in the spoils of a dispute is no answer. In law, it would already be an admission of another country’s rights over one’s national territory.

Another problem area is the nature of talks itself. Given the multiple claims, should negotiations be multilateral involving all the claimant countries or just bilateral?

Image result for South China Sea--China show of Force


China insists on bilateral negotiations only, probably in series as it deals with one country at a time. The general perception however is that only inclusive multilateral talks can be worthwhile.

However, bilateral talks have also been seen as more realistic since the overlapping nature of the claims would get nowhere multilaterally. Too many conflicting disputes with far too many starting points may not see any progress.

But bilateral talks themselves may still go nowhere – each set of talks between two countries cannot proceed without recognising the prior arrangement made in the preceding set of talks involving other countries.

The fundamentally flawed nature of both bilateral and multilateral talks testifies to the surreal nature of ever resolving such disputes. The only realistic assessment of the prospect of successful talks may just be that success is unrealistic.

If all six parties claimed all of the Spratlys, then perhaps a settlement may be reached based on an equitable partitioning of the territory. Alternatively, if each of the claimant states staked a claim on only a part of the area, a settlement may also be reached through an agreed distribution of those parts.

But none of those situations applies. Brunei, Malaysia and the Philippines each claims only part of the Spratlys, while China, Taiwan and Vietnam each claims all of the island group.

Complicating things further, there are overlapping claims by two or more countries. Worse, there are several areas of overlap by different sets of countries.

Besides the claims, claimant countries have also occupied various islands, outcrops and underwater features. Vietnam has some 30 military outposts on them, far outnumbering all the others which have 10 or fewer outposts each.

Backed by enormous resources, China has lately been the most ambitious in its scale of construction and land reclamation on the features it occupies. It has also rejected international legal hearings.

International law does not accept historical claims based on assertions, however vocal. Critics say that China avoids international hearings because it may lose by basing its claims on history alone. However, China says that such disputes centre on national sovereignty, and tribunals such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration that rejected its claims last year have no authority to decide on issues of national sovereignty.

To add still more colour and complexity, Taiwan’s claims have been subsumed by China. Since China already claims Taiwan as a province, Taiwan’s claims are also China’s.

This leaves Taiwan in an uneasy position. Even as it wants to assert its own individuality, it is comforted by China’s embrace in its claims to outlying territory.

The other player that is not actually in the game is the US. When the Philippines once relied on it for backing if not outright protection in staking its claims, there are now serious second thoughts.

Unlike claimant countries including China, the US has no claim to any territory in this region. In one sense that makes it neutral in overseeing order on the high seas.

However, in another sense it means an asymmetrical relationship where the US may not go very far in protecting a country’s disputed claims over another’s. At the same time, the US has a very large economic stake of its own in maintaining healthy relations with China.

That explains US actions being limited to “freedom of navigation operations” (Fonops), which see its vessels plying through waters that China has declared as its own.

These are only symbolic and temporary gestures challenging China’s own rhetorical assertions and presumptions. And that is just how they have been treated. Hayton argues that countries in South-East Asia should be more assertive in making their own historical claims as China does, since they have been using the South China Sea for millennia.

However, use of waterways by a country’s nationals in their passage (unlike occupation) may not equate to that country’s sovereignty over the waterways in international law.

Besides, sovereignty may be claimed only by nation states, and those of today’s South-East Asia did not exist centuries or even decades ago. Meanwhile state entities like Champa, Majapahit and Sri Vijaya are no longer with us .Such challenges make any resolution of the South China Sea disputes most unlikely even in a month of blue moons.

Bunn Nagara is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia.


Twenty years on: The Asian Financial risis and Asian Monetary Fund (AMF)

September 28, 2017

Twenty years on: The Asian Financial risis and Asian Monetary Fund (AMF) 

David Nellor



Image result for 1997 asian financial crisis

Proposals for an Asian Monetary Fund (AMF) dominated corridor conversations at the 1997 IMF–World Bank annual meetings in Hong Kong. The Asian financial crisis had erupted a few months earlier and was engulfing the region.

The United States vetoed the idea, framing the proposal as the ‘IMF versus AMF’ where any type of AMF would undermine the IMF’s central role in the global financial system. Twenty years on, the circle has been closed, with the IMF launching a framework for collaborative action with regional arrangements.


Arguably, at that early stage of the crisis, the US position was not unreasonable. The mood of Asian finance officials was one of denial. Set against the backdrop of the Asian miracle, it was inconceivable, they thought, that self-inflicted policy distortions — quasi-fixed exchange rates combined with independent monetary policy — as well as compromised financial sector supervision helped drive the crisis. The idea of unconditional financing — not tied to reform — that would avoid reform was, they thought, a defendable proposition.

Still, the push for an AMF did suggest gaps in the global and regional financial architecture. What followed was a struggling ASEAN seeking to catch up, stop gap consultative groups like the Manila Framework Group, and a sequence of ad hoc parallel financing arrangements from the ‘Friends of Thailand’ to Indonesia’s so-called ‘second line of defence’.

The crisis broke on 2 July 1997. By late July, plans led by Japan and in cooperation with the IMF were underway for a regionally based meeting on Thailand. This informal grouping hosted by Japan in Tokyo on 11 August, became the ‘Friends of Thailand’. The concrete outcome of the meeting was a series of financial commitments by seven countries and the multilaterals, with the United States notably absent. The absence of the United States was perhaps shaped by congressional dissatisfaction with the Clinton Administration’s financial support of Mexico, which had been provided directly by the US Treasury without congressional approval during Mexico’s 1994 crisis.

Almost remarkably, this rushed US$17.2 billion collaborative financing arrangement was the regional success story from a sequence of ad hoc efforts to provide funding to mitigate the consequences of the crisis. The support was structured as a series of bilateral arrangements between Thailand and each country. Each drawing under these agreements was triggered in parallel with Thailand’s drawings under the IMF supported program. Commitments were credible as they were both conditional and fulfilled step by step.

By contrast, Indonesia’s more than US$40 billion package — including an US$18 billion ‘second line of defence’ through bilateral support — failed. The enormous scale of the funding, especially at that time, was intended to be a ‘shock and awe’ approach signalling to financial markets that stability was assured.

Some thought the second line would never need to be drawn and perhaps commitments were made with that expectation. But markets saw through this and in short order sufficient questions arose about the willingness of countries to follow through on commitments. This triggered uncertainty at best and arguably made the situation worse.

Image result for 1997 asian financial crisis

The South Korean experience of international support was different. The concentration of external debt through the South Korean banking system enabled the coordination of a relatively effective capital control mechanism, creating a window to develop a market-based debt restructuring in the first half of 1998. Here the US Federal Reserve played a leading role, along with other central banks, supported by the technical contributions of IMF and South Korean officials.

Asia’s leaders were unanimous in supportive statements about the need for a regional crisis response mechanism including funding. Yet there were issues that continue to pose a challenge for the credibility of arrangements, such as the ASEAN+3 Chiang Mai Initiative, today. Lee Kuan Yew, while not opposed to an AMF, cautioned that such an arrangement would need to do more than provide funding that might enable crisis countries to avoid essential reform. He went on, ‘I do not see any Asian group of governments in the AMF strong enough to tell … President Suharto, “You will do this or we will not support you”. If you don’t say that and you support him, that’s money down the drain’.

The Manila Framework Group was established in a November 1997 meeting as the direct result of the failed AMF discussions in Hong Kong. It would serve as a surveillance forum of 14 APEC economies meeting regularly and on an ad hoc basis through to the end of 2004. It played an important role by, for example, triggering a June 1998 Tokyo meeting with the G7 to respond to destabilising global currency moves. The G20 would also start in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis.

ASEAN was a participant but not a driver when the crisis broke. Its most concrete response came a few years later when, along with the ASEAN+3 countries, the Chiang Mai Initiative was launched in 2000. It was a modest first step especially as operational modalities remained to be defined for at least a decade and only in 2016 was there a ‘dry run’ to test the Chiang Mai Initiative’s capacity to respond to crisis.

Indonesia’s hastily developed Deferred Drawdown Option, with multilateral and bilateral support during the Global Financial Crisis, was another ad hoc instrument showing that gaps in the regional financial architecture persisted well into the 2000s.

Twenty years on, the IMF has spelled out plans for how to make the global financial safety net more effective through collaboration with regional financial arrangements — an outcome that seemed remarkably distant in the midst of the Asian financial crisis.

David Nellor is a Jakarta-based consultant. He was based in Asia for the IMF throughout the Asian financial crisis and participated in discussions on regional arrangements.


“Inspiration lurks around every corner”

November 17, 2016

“Inspiration lurks around every corner”

By Ooi Kee Beng

Image result for michelangelo paintings--inspiration

One of the first things that any undergraduate learns is that when writing a scientific text, he or she must provide references. In fact, without such references, a text is not considered scientific.

This referencing behaviour is meant to show that the student has been reading the correct material; and that he has been digesting the words so thoroughly that he can now include the thoughts in his own writing. Now, what a Malaysian student will end up doing is provide references to books and articles written by professors based in faraway universities and colleges.

Image result for Dr Ooi Kee Beng

Dr. Ooi Kee Beng, ISEAS (Yusuf Ishak Institute, Singapore

My argument is not with this jarring asymmetry in global knowledge. It has always been the case in human history that in every period of time, knowledge is concentrated and generated at certain centres much more than at others. At the moment, much first appears in the English language and in countries using that language. What’s more, the spread of new knowledge is also strongly overseen by a global network based on that language.

Sanskrit, Latin and Chinese, among others, have played that role before. But none has the global reach and the amazing speed and width of dissemination that English today commands. The soft power that America enjoys today – and no other culture comes close to the reach of its soft power – is not merely of its own doing; it rides on the back of hundreds of years of English imperial strength and colonial mastery, during which the English language and its cultural preconditions penetrated the farthest reaches of the world.

My concern is with a serious side effect of the sharp imbalance in knowledge generation in our times. What happens is that people outside the English-speaking world are left nursing a lack of confidence, not only in themselves but also in those in close proximity to them. Their behaviour where the transfer and generation of knowledge are concerned becomes rather warped.

In writing a scientific text, for example, it is much more probable than not that a Third World person will refer an idea or train of thought to a known person from a distant land even when that idea may have come to him through some other more immediate and personal channel. This is because he had learned to assume that he gains more points among his peers by referring to the politically and academically correct person; and that his own ideas are merely approximations of that bigger idea expressed better by others.

But if we contemplate the matter and observe what actually happens in our daily life, we should realise that inspiration comes most of the time from proximate impulses and from individuals in our surrounding.

Given the habit of referring distantly, the chances of us giving credit to those around us are also diminished, and complimenting things and people in our immediate surrounding – for referencing someone is indeed a high form of compliment – is rendered suspect.

The competition among students and scholars of showing that they know something that their peers have as yet not gotten around to knowing cultivates in them the tendency to be stingy with praise and to be secretive about their immediate sources of inspiration.

This is an impoverishment of the soul and of our culture; where we withhold praise and admiration from those close to us and give generously of the same to distant and often dead persons.

Note that I am merely using academic referencing to initiate a debate on a more general matter. In my experience, inspiration can come from anywhere at any time, but if I were to inform people around me of personal epiphanies, I would not get as good a hearing as I would if I referred whatever idea I just had to some distant knowledge authority.

Perhaps this explains why prophets always come from distant lands speaking exotic languages; and sometimes bearing superior arms. Those who dare to be prophets in their homeland are forced to flee into exile or are crucified in one way or another.

Catholic hymns are sung in Latin, Japanese Buddhists chant in Chinese, and Muslim thoughts are preferred in Arabic. In the secular sphere, Coolness wears an American accent. Indeed, we seem tobe talking here about something generically human.

We tend not to join clubs that will accept us as members. Since you know me, you cannot possibly be a significant person. But I am being far too categorical here; I am not being generous. Come to think of it, there are two ideal types of people. There are those who cannot imagine that people they come into contact with can be important; and then there are those who treat all coming into their orbit as meaningful and significant. Most of us are sometimes the one, and sometimes the other.

My basic point is that, epiphanies are always waiting to happen and inspiration can come to us at any time and place. We just have to let this take place by not imagining that profundity dwells far away, and are foreign to us.

We just have to realise instead that inspiration lurks around every corner, and is present at every meeting.

This article is republished in Merdeka for the Mind: Essays  on Malaysian Struggles in the 21st Century by Dr Ooi Kee Beng (Petaling Jaya: Strategic Information and Research Centre, 2015). pp 9-11.



Can there ever be Justice without Ethics and Conscience?

December 10, 2015

Can there ever be Justice without Ethics and Conscience

by Syed Ahmad Idid

(edited for the purpose of the blog)

MAC Foundation

syed ahmad idid

Former Judge of the Malaysian High Court, Dato’ Syed Ahmad  Idid delivered this speech at the International Conference on “Putting Ethics to Work in Business and Government” at the Pullman Hotel,  Kuala Lumpur organised by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Foundation on December  1o, 2015.

I want to take this opportunity to bring back the good old corruption-free days and when crimes were few. During those times greed and riches played small parts in the lives of society. Ethics ruled human relationships. Families were concerned with their reputation (“mereka berasa malu nak buat salah”) and so took care to avoid committing crimes.

Today the very rich hold power and power seems to save them from criminal prosecutions. They have security guards to protect them and their chosen ones. It does not matter how their wealth was accumulated.

Those without much (and these comprise about 95% of the population) pay respect or “kow-tow” to them (“the filthy rich”) anyway.

Derrick A Bell : “We live in a system that espouses merit, equality and a level playing field but exalts those with wealth, power and celebrity, however gained”.

I am mindful of the theme of this conference: “To put Ethics to work in Business and Government”. The bigger picture is to support our nation by nurturing our young into becoming decent human beings and steadfast crime-fighters.

Against that background I hope to illustrate some colourful truths which should answer the question: Can there be justice without ethics and conscience?

I shall offer statements. I shall leave the discussion of their impact and worth to each of you. I am given to understand that you are well versed in Anti-Corruption, its implications and importance. Furthermore you are here to yet again make a resolution to get rid of corruption, bring in people of integrity and try to integrate justice in the administration by way of infusing ethics and conscience.


Malaysian Anti-Corruption Foundation

Since I confine my presentation to Ethics and Conscience, I like what Aristotle said: “Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all”. You will also accept that “education is not only what the teachers teach you but what you learn”. (from my old Ibrahim School Sg. Petani.)

I realise that I need about four to five hours to put across to you the substance of our topic. But in view of the shortage of time, there being several other foreign guest speakers, I shall touch principally on the salient points. I have a paper (for distribution) which provides the authority for my statements, guidance to the articles and books and contact details. There are references in support of our discussion. I hope there will be sufficient copies for most of you.

Let us start with:


Everyone here understands what ethics mean. That is a reasonable assumption.

You may have read JM Pollock’s “Ethical Dilemmas And Decisions in Criminal Justice”. Ethics can change colours from time to time. In the old days, the hosts would receive guests at the entrance. Today guests attend dinners or other functions but are then told to stand up when the hosts arrive.

Was it not Larry Niven who said: “Ethics change with technology”? Can this be true?

I merely mention here the two main theories of ethics: the Utilitarianism or teleological vs the Rules and Duty or Deontology. “Ethical Challenges within Westminster Parliamentary Systems – including focus on Funding of Political Parties” was discussed this morning.

I am pleased to receive four copies of the booklet “Reforms for transparent and accountable political funding in Malaysia” from Datin Azimah Rahim (Chairman of PAGE). I shall pass these to the MACF Organisers for MACC and the library. We, in G25, had prepared it for general release.

“Ethical Challenges within Westminster Parliamentary Systems – including focus on Funding of Political Parties” was discussed this morning. I am pleased to receive four copies of the booklet “Reforms for transparent and accountable political funding in Malaysia” from Datin Azimah Rahim (Chairman of PAGE). I shall pass these to the MACF Organisers for MACC and the library. We, in G25, had prepared it for general release.

There will be “food for thought Dinner” address on “Ethical Corrosion: Our Collective Culpability” . All of us will have to accept our punishment!

Then the conference has two sessions on Integrity (Party Political Reform: Strengthening Integrity Systems and Pinstripe Mafia ). I mention this because integrity, encompassing moral uprightness, is the other dress for ethical people.

Did Warren Buffet say, when choosing persons to work under him, “Look for three things in a person: intelligence, energy and integrity. If they don’t have the last one, don’t even bother with the first two”. For the Banking/Finance sector, we must have people who are educated, industrious and of probity. It goes without saying that in both sets of qualities, ethics are present and none of these people commit crimes.

Jeffrey M Shaman, Director of the Centre for Judicial Conduct, wrote “Judicial Ethics” to publicise the powers of judges in society. You have attended “The Role of the Judiciary in a Democracy” this morning.

Josephson’s Institute of Ethics describe six distinct Core Values as forming Ethics. I believe you know each of those values. That is why you are here today. I do not need to remind you of the absence or lack of ethics on the part of such companies as Shell, Nike, British American Tobacco and other big corporations. In the case of the HSBC, Stuart Gulliver revealed that “several senior people had been removed for “values breaches”. Here, once more, you see Ethics coming in to aid the nurturing of justice for the customers and share-holders.

HSBC’s cases concerning (a) an ex-staff Faciani who revealed tax evading account holders including those thousands in India, and (b) Everett Stern who revealed about Middle Eastern account holders appear to go awry. In (a) Faciani was sentenced to five years while in (b) HSBC had to pay a fine of US$1.92 billion. In both cases the business appeared to have disregarded ethics or some form of remorse.

Another glaring case would be the deadly ignition switch defect in GM. The National Legal and Policy Centre asked: “Will criminal charges bring Justice for GM Victims?” The Centre promotes Ethics in Public Life. It helps us to answer the question “Can there ever be justice without ethics?”


Merriam Webster: “Conscience – that part of the mind that makes you aware of your actions as being either morally right or wrong” or “a feeling that something you have done is morally wrong”. Henry Fielding: “Conscience is the only incorruptible thing about us”.

Mahatma Gandhi: “There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the Court of Conscience. It supersedes all other courts.” Stokely Carmichael: “There is a higher law than the law of Government. This is the law of conscience”.

“As sober as a judge”.. Justice Howard T Markey said:” Whether pre-schooling in judicial ethics is instituted or some other means is adopted to facilitate the efforts of judges to earn respect, I look forward to the day when the popular expression will be a new and widely recognized truism “As ethical as a Judge”.

Is conscience innate? Or genetically determined or something parents instil in us? The American Philosophical Quarterly decided conscience assists in distinguishing right from wrong.

Muhammad ibn Zakariya Al-Razi argued that there is close relationship between conscience and spiritual integrity.

You will agree that nowadays only very few people have “clear conscience”. You wonder: how can groups of ordinary mortals, say in the Armed Forces or Security, kill innocent people? Where is their conscience? My Lai in Vietnam (March 16, 1968 whole village gunned down), Srebrenica in Kosovo: the Mostly Orthodox Serbs killed more than 7000 unarmed Muslims? The Nazis: Hitler’s activities in 2nd WW. The Communists in China (1949-1987 – 40 million killed); 1975-1999 the Khmer Rouge killed two million in Cambodia. The Tamil Tigers/LTTE evicted and killed Muslims and Christians in the Sri Lanka’s Northern Province in 1990. There was Rwanda 1994 (Hutus killed Tutsis) and DR (Democratic Republic of) Congo where Government and their agencies eliminated those who opposed them.

The only reason I have included this is that conscience and ethics are not confined to the businesses and within money circles. We must extend our “corruption” (this, I am informed, is the main push of our discussions) to include corruption of the spirit, the souls and the minds.

And to end this quickly, you will want to visit the Santa Clara University at their Markula Center for Applied Ethics where they published an article discussing the Milgram Experiment. This experiment found that:” most people will obey external authority over the dictates of conscience”.

I like to think that more people should be taught morality, Godliness and the Life hereafter. They ought to be exposed to discussions that uprightness and ethics are more important than obeying bad orders. Such classes will prick their conscience and will buttress them against the evil intentions that create injustice.

Justice: ( cf: Maqasid Al Shariah)

Many here also understand what justice is and more of you expect what justice should be. Walt Whitman observed that “Great is justice. Justice is not settled by legislation and laws; it is in the soul.”

“For me, justice is the first condition of humanity” so stated Wole Siyingka in his Book “The Man died – Prison Notes (1972)”.

Taking from what Lord Hewart had said, I am inviting you to open your minds far beyond criminal justice. While “justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done” is acceptable, I urge all – both custodians of the holy courts and officials administering justice and others including the ordinary folks – to ensure every criminal is appropriately dealt with.

Those who have not committed any offence and suspects against whom the investigators cannot get sufficient evidence should never be charged in the courts . They will ultimately go free, thanks to brave, impartial and independent judges. But that is not the justice our religion and nation want. These innocent souls suffer. In the meantime they have to spend money which they can ill afford on legal defence, their families placed under stress. They are ostracised by people whom they thought were friends and neighbours. Their reputation is sullied and they can never recover. We must never reduce the dignity of any human being.

Why do I add this? Simply because I need you to re-think on the dangers that persons with no conscience and are unethical can suppress justice. They misuse their powers for self or politics. They have no compassion for people: foreigners and citizens. They do not do justice for the country. They bring disgrace to the country.

And there you are … you have answered one part of the question!

Criminal Systems:

I think the topic was meant to be on “Criminal Justice Systems ”. But I like to go on a bit with criminal systems as this gives us an overview of both sides of the divide : the criminals vs the G -men.

We are in this international conference and so we can go back briefly to the bad days when criminals ruled several countries. Let your minds wander to the actions of the Mafia (who controlled everything from street corner drug trade to the highest levels of Government.), the Tongs (principally in North Americas, but not so organised as the Hong Kong triads or the Yakuza in Japan), the Triad Societies . All were into illicit activities for monetary gain. Those carrying on such crimes are also for the cash. To them violence and killings were collateral.

Those keen to do research on the Triad societies (Kongsi Gelap or Dark Partnerships) in Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak can get police papers on these. Most of the gangs have numbers like 04, 08, double 7, 18, 21, 24, 30, 36 and 38 plus Gee Ah Eng, Loh Kuan, Wah Kee, Sio Sam Ong. Sabah has ATAP, Otai and Borneo Red EMP while Sarawak has Ah Ngau, Batu 10, Sibu T, Pintu Merah and Krokop. There are a dozen others.

Among the audience must be Astro viewers who keep track of the activities of “kongsi gelap” (gangsters) whose leaders were invited to work as police inspectors. I refer to the On-Demand movie: Lord of Shanghai.

Secret societies too have a system quite akin to Government bureaucracy and hierarchy. They have their Commanders or Chiefs, their lieutenants, their running-dogs, macai and “Special Branch” to snoop out those who may try to cause trouble to them.

On this scale, it is quite apparent that such a system cannot produce ethical members or anyone with a conscience. With a stroke of the pen, we can assert that their activities cannot deserve mercy. But even here we must maintain our integrity and do what God decrees in our conscience. When these bad hats are produced in courts, we must still ensure they get the justice they deserve.

Why? Simply because we are people who treasure ethics and we have conscience. So we must not go low to their level to strike at them as if we are no longer humans.

I was glad to meet Dr Anis Yusal Yusoff (President & Chief Executive Officer of the Malaysian Institute of Integrity) at the G25-IDEAS Lecture by Dr Razeen Sally and Tan Sri Rebecca Sta Maria (Secretary- General of MITI) on December 3. Dr Anis is knowledgeable on the threat against good governance and injustices.

Detection and Enforcement are essential.

In every criminal justice system, detection of the criminals is first priority. This can come via information or monitoring/enforcement. Criminals kill those who inform on them. Numerous large crimes have been uncovered and the criminals brought to justice. Here we can safely say that the criminals are not ethical and they have no conscience. How could they cheat the people or organisations they were salaried to protect?

But when they are charged, our community or country metes out justice by way of their convictions and punishments. This must be according to the law. Hence enforcement is key to the justice system.

Whistle-blowing is the latest trend in cleaning up corporate crimes and corruption in Government. We can call it “the flavour of the century”. In late 2014, the US Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it paid out an award of between US$30 million and $35 million dollars to an ex-whistle-blower residing overseas. In October 2013 the SEC paid US$14.7 million to one whistle-blower and paid others in millions too.

On  November 4, this year (a month ago!) the SEC reduced the amount of whistle-blower award to US$354,000. The policy to pay high awards has not changed. The reduction was due to the whistle-blower’s delay in providing the information. He supplied the information after he had left the firm.

From these instances, we can understand and accept that information against crimes/criminals is top priority and crucial to bring justice in our nation. There must be true political will. The leaders must be ethical, have conscience and believe in Allah(God). We therefore cannot publicise, as occurred in a country of the Evil , where their Police “cracks down on whistle-blowers”. If that occurs, then that country is going down the drain. The True Ulama (Religious) Leaders can add that “the ways to hell include injuring both justice and those who are ethical. Others who are involved in corruption and judges who fail to give sound judgments will go down too”.

Those in positions of power actually hold heavy responsibilities. They are expected to perform their duties in the best traditions of (Integrity) Ethics and in accordance with the urgings of their true conscience.

A thought or view. (Using the mind or the eyes?)

We are filled with “anti-this” and “anti-that”. You know of anti-body and anti-pods or something that is exact opposite. We hear of anti-War and yet war rages on. We now have anti-terrorism. Terrorism continues. We have anti-piracy and piracy (at sea and on land) go on almost daily. So I think we should institute a body which can be effective .The body must be told what exactly we want it to achieve . We can call it the National Commission (to) Eradicate /Eliminate Corruption (in short: NCEC or MCEC if you insist on Malaysia!).

What is the loud and true answer?

There can be justice for victims of fraud and those who suffer by the hands of criminals if those who enforce the law and are entrusted to keep the citizens safe and secure are genuinely persons of integrity, are clearly ethical and possess conscience beyond doubts. They bring the criminals and the corrupt to justice.

Management gurus teach us Vision, Mission and (my own addition) Incision . And our Mission must not just be “anti-“. We must achieve something concrete and discernible to the public – not just “neutralise” but must eliminate or eradicate corruption. That, I put it to you, will surely place our nation on a higher moral or ethical plane.


Can there ever be justice without ethics and conscience? Many will say “No.” A few , meekly, will say “yes, maybe.” Can you live in a country devoid of ethics and conscience?