The NST, 16 January 2008

BY: Effendi Abdul Rahman, Senior General Human Resources, MAS 

WE refer to the articles “Protect rights of stewardesses” and “Airline’s crew rules embarrassing” (NST, Jan 8).

Our recruitment of female cabin crew emphasises a number of factors: personality traits, excellent general knowledge, appropriate height and weight, as well as the absence of any handicap.

Beauty was not the attribute, as benchmarked by travellers around the world who voted this group of employees as the “World’s Best Cabin Staff” for four consecutive years from 2001 to 2004, and again last year in annual independent surveys conducted by Skytrax of Britain.

Malaysia Airlines management and employee unions regularly hold dialogues on employee matters and based on mutual consent, changes to the collective agreements are made.

In the case of employment conditions for female cabin crew, the management and the Malaysian Airline System Employees’ Union (Maseu) had agreed to revise the terms and conditions of employment effective from May 2005.
These revisions enhanced the benefits of Malaysian female cabin crews and superseded the terms and conditions in the collective agreement between Malaysia Airlines and Maseu for the Sept 1, 2002 to Aug 31, 2005 period.

Under the new provisions, female cabin crews are allowed maternity leave benefits for up to three surviving children. Previously, they were only allowed maternity leave for two surviving children.

The special gratuity scheme on retirement was also increased by 25 per cent for every completed year of service.

Female in-flight supervisors, chief stewardesses and leading stewardesses, on attaining their retirement age at 45, are given the option to continue serving.

Malaysia Airlines will offer them a ground job until the age of 55.

The revised conditions agreed in May 2005 were incorporated in the current collective agreement and had been formalised between Malaysia Airlines and Maseu.

With regard to the assertion that the collective agreement signed between the company and Maseu is discriminatory, we wish to clarify that it had been unanimously decided in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Court in Malaysia that the national carrier’s actions, policies and collective agreements were in line with the Federal Constitution, and not discriminatory against female employees as in the decision of Beatrice Fernandez vs Malaysian Airline System & Anor [2005] 2 CLJ 713.

Nevertheless, as a government-linked company, we will continue to engage with employees, unions and other stakeholders in matters relating to employment terms and conditions.

The Star – Friday November 30, 2007
BY JANE RITIKOS

PETALING JAYA: Organisers of the recent illegal gatherings were offered stadiums and other alternative venues to hold peaceful demonstrations but they rejected them.

“The organisers were adamant to hold them in the city streets,” said Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan who revealed why the police rejected permit applications by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) for their gathering last Sunday and the Bersih coalition (on Nov 10).

He said police investigations into the groups’ activities found that public security and peace could be threatened.

“We cover their meetings and gather information.

“If we find their activities could be critical to public order we won’t approve them,” he said during question time at his talk on Democracy, Law Enforcement and Security: Perspective from the Royal Malaysia Police at the University of Wales Aberystwyth Alumni Club of Malaysia dinner here on Wednesday.

Musa said the demonstrators wanted to be in the streets because “they want onlookers to join them”.

“But not everyone likes demonstrations. When they gather in large numbers, they scare people and shops will close.

“They shout slogans that make people angry. They call the police ‘dogs’ but we keep a deaf ear.”

Musa said the police had no problems allowing peaceful gatherings. “For example, we allow unions gathering to protest about their salaries.”

The Hindraf gathering was to submit a memorandum to the British High Commission in relation to a class-action suit they had filed against the British Government for bringing in Indians to pre-independence Malaya as indentured labourers.

The Bersih gathering called for clean elections and submitted a memorandum to the Yang di Pertuan Agong.

Musa said prior to the Hindraf gathering, the organisers had gone to Penang and other parts of the country where they made fiery speeches.

“If the authorities allowed Hindraf to go out in the streets to voice their dissatisfaction, others will make claims too.

“The Malays will say they had a good life during the Malacca Sultanate and you (the British) destroyed it … and it will go on and on,” the IGP said.

“When the police wanted to speak to the leaders of the Sunday gathering, they were no where to be found. They only came at 1.30pm.

“We offered to escort them to the high commission but they said they did not want. They said they wanted to send the memorandum to the Queen, instead,” he said.

On Bersih, Musa said: “We gave them an alternative venue but they insisted on gathering in the heart of Kuala Lumpur.

“They are stubborn and that is the problem. We said they need not gather 20,000 or 40,000 people to submit a memorandum to the King and offered to escort them,” he said.

Musa added that the police were still waiting for the Attorney-General’s Chambers to decide whether those arrested in the Bersih-organised gathering would be charged in court.

The Star
Wednesday December 5, 2007

KUALA LUMPUR: The 10 people who were told by the police to appear at the magistrate’s court yesterday to be charged with taking part in the Nov 10 Bersih gathering did not turn up.

They did not have letters instructing them to do so, said one of their lawyers.

Zulqarnain Lukman, who is one of the coordinating lawyers, said that the 10 only received phone calls from an ASP Yahya from the Dang Wangi police station telling them to show up.

“But it was just phone calls and nothing in black and white,” he said.

Zulqarnain said that their police bail, however, expires only on Dec 10.

“The police called to speed up the date and asked the 10 to come to court (yesterday). But this was only verbal so it depends on what their lawyers’ advise them to do,” he added.

There are two to three other lawyers acting for the 10 men, he said.

“I was on standby today by the phone. If one of them had shown up at the court, I would have gone there but none did,” he added.

Zulqarnain said he had been in touch with the chairman of the PAS legal bureau, Haniffa Mydin, who told him that from past experience with illegal gatherings, if the accused did not show up in court, the police would then issue a warrant of arrest.

Most of the 10 were said to be PAS members from the unit amal and were responsible for managing the crowd during the Nov 10 gathering that did not have a police permit.

4 December 2007

By SHAHANAAZ HABIB
newsdesk@thestar.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR: Ten people who took part in the Nov 10 Bersih gathering in the capital have been told to appear in the magistrate’s court today as they are going to be charged.

Bersih steering committee member R. Sivarasa, who is also a lawyer, said the exact details of the charge were not known but it has to do with the Nov 10 gathering.

He said they could be charged under the Police Act or for illegal assembly.

“Malaysia should respect the right of freedom of peaceful assembly.

“This (the charge) poses a threat to that right and will not go down well internationally or nationally,” he added.

Sivarasa, who is also a Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president, stressed that charging the 10 would have no impact on Bersih’s campaign.

“We will continue our activities until free and fair elections are held,” he said.

Lawyer Latheefa Koya, who is also from PKR, said the investigating officer had called up the 10 individuals on Sunday and told them they were going to be charged.

She said most of the 10 were PAS members and from the “unit amal” group, and responsible for managing the crowd during the gathering.

Latheefa said 14 individuals who were arrested during the gathering on Nov 10 had been released on police bail.

“So we are not sure if all 14 will be charged or it’s only 10. We only know that that 10 have been called up,” she said.

Bersih is a coalition of non-governmental organisations and opposition parties who are pushing for free and fair elections.

The police did not grant Bersih a permit for the Nov 10 gathering in the city on grounds that it would cause chaos and disruption.

Despite this, the illegal gathering was attended by tens of thousands.

Police broke up the crowd at Masjid Jamek with tear gas and water cannons but allowed the demonstrators to march to Istana Negara where they handed a memorandum to a representative from the palace.

The memorandum, addressed to the King, asked for his intervention for free and fair elections to be held in the country.

On Wednesday, the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan said he had offered Bersih alternative venues such as the stadium to hold its gathering peacefully but this was rejected.

The Star – Friday November 30, 2007
BY JANE RITIKOS

PETALING JAYA: Organisers of the recent illegal gatherings were offered stadiums and other alternative venues to hold peaceful demonstrations but they rejected them.

“The organisers were adamant to hold them in the city streets,” said Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan who revealed why the police rejected permit applications by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) for their gathering last Sunday and the Bersih coalition (on Nov 10).

He said police investigations into the groups’ activities found that public security and peace could be threatened.

“We cover their meetings and gather information.

“If we find their activities could be critical to public order we won’t approve them,” he said during question time at his talk on Democracy, Law Enforcement and Security: Perspective from the Royal Malaysia Police at the University of Wales Aberystwyth Alumni Club of Malaysia dinner here on Wednesday.

Musa said the demonstrators wanted to be in the streets because “they want onlookers to join them”.

“But not everyone likes demonstrations. When they gather in large numbers, they scare people and shops will close.

“They shout slogans that make people angry. They call the police ‘dogs’ but we keep a deaf ear.”

Musa said the police had no problems allowing peaceful gatherings. “For example, we allow unions gathering to protest about their salaries.”

The Hindraf gathering was to submit a memorandum to the British High Commission in relation to a class-action suit they had filed against the British Government for bringing in Indians to pre-independence Malaya as indentured labourers.

The Bersih gathering called for clean elections and submitted a memorandum to the Yang di Pertuan Agong.

Musa said prior to the Hindraf gathering, the organisers had gone to Penang and other parts of the country where they made fiery speeches.

“If the authorities allowed Hindraf to go out in the streets to voice their dissatisfaction, others will make claims too.

“The Malays will say they had a good life during the Malacca Sultanate and you (the British) destroyed it … and it will go on and on,” the IGP said.

“When the police wanted to speak to the leaders of the Sunday gathering, they were no where to be found. They only came at 1.30pm.

“We offered to escort them to the high commission but they said they did not want. They said they wanted to send the memorandum to the Queen, instead,” he said.

On Bersih, Musa said: “We gave them an alternative venue but they insisted on gathering in the heart of Kuala Lumpur.

“They are stubborn and that is the problem. We said they need not gather 20,000 or 40,000 people to submit a memorandum to the King and offered to escort them,” he said.

Musa added that the police were still waiting for the Attorney-General’s Chambers to decide whether those arrested in the Bersih-organised gathering would be charged in court.

KUALA LUMPUR: Their ordeal is finally over.

The two dance teachers from India, who were abused by their employers, are relieved that they are going home.

S. Rajendra and M. Sangeetha, both 27, will be going back to India tomorrow.

“Since our arrival here, we have only known fear, humiliation and tears,” said Sangeetha.

MIC helped to arrange a meeting between the women and their employers on Sunday night to resolve the issue.
MIC Youth’s welfare bureau chief T. Mohan, who organised and chaired the meeting, said during the emotional meeting, the employers, who ran a music and dance school in Klang, admitted that they had been cruel to the two Indian nationals.

The couple admitted they had slammed the two women’s heads against a wall, resulting in permanent scars.

“After apologising to the women, he said, the couple had offered RM5,700 to each of them.

“After some deliberation and consultation with Mohan, we were told to take it for all the troubles and pain we endured,” said Rajendra.

She said they would not take any further action against their employers.

“All we want to do is go back to India. We don’t want revenge. We just hope this thing won’t happen to others,” she said.

Both Mohan and the women declined to reveal the identity of the allegedly abusive couple.

However, Mohan was disappointed that the women did not want to pursue the matter.

“I wish to see their employers punished for what they did. But if the women want to go back to India, I can’t force them to stay and take legal action against their employers.”

He said it was up to the police to proceed with the case.

“We will send a letter to the Immigration Department to ban the couple from hiring foreign workers,” he added.

In a New Sunday Times report dated Jan 6, the women claimed they were abused from the first day they joined the school three years ago.

Last week, they escaped and sought help from the MIC.

Immigration enforcement chief Datuk Ishak Mohamed said his office had no jurisdiction over cases of abuse by employers, but it could blacklist such employers from hiring foreign workers.

However, he added that there had to be a formal complaint before the department could investigate.

“If there are no complaints, we can’t proceed.”

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia Airlines’ work policies for its women flight attendants are “embarrassing”, says the MAS Employees Union’s executive secretary since 2003, Mustafar Maarof.

“I was asked often about MAS’s employment policies at the Civil Aviation Union international conferences in Vienna and Toronto,” he said, adding that the international community viewed discrimination at work “very seriously”.

“I don’t like to put my country down but, when people ask me, I have to tell the truth. It’s disappointing and embarrassing that our national airline’s employment policies aren’t on par with those of other national carriers,” Mustafar told the New Straits Times yesterday.

Commenting on a New Sunday Times report on a paper written by a Universiti Malaysia Terengganu lecturer, he said the debate over the retirement age for women cabin crew had been going on for a long time.

“At MAS, most female flight attendants retire at 40. Lead cabin crew can work till they are 45. Men retire at 55 no matter what (their) grade.

“This is highly discriminatory. There are national carriers in Asia where women cabin crew retire much later.”

Japan Airlines, Mustafar said, has fixed the retirement age for female cabin crew at 60. Stewardesses at Air India and Indonesia’s Garuda International Airlines can work until they are 55.

“At 40, a woman may still have a mortgage and other expenses, so she needs a regular income,” he said.

The paper said MAS had discriminatory employment policies that were contrary to the Constitution and the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which Malaysia ratified in 1995.

“Together with women’s non-governmental organisations, the union has written countless memoranda urging MAS and the government to review the retirement age,” said Mustafar.

“Unfortunately, nothing has changed. As a national airline, MAS should stop discriminating against its female cabin crew.”

At budget airline AirAsia, women flight attendants can work till they are 55.

“The retirement age for AirAsia cabin crew, who are all permanent staff, is 55,” said a media relations spokes-man.

What standards of conduct do we expect of our leaders? What rights do we have over them? And what are their obligations to us? If anything, events of the past week, where Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek was publicly exposed as having an extra-marital affair, admitted it, apologised and then resigned, have highlighted the fact that modern Malaysian society expects its leaders to have high moral values and be accountable. ANIZA DAMIS speaks to Integrity Institute of Malaysia president Datuk Dr Mohd Tap Salleh about the characteristics of an exemplary leader

Q: What is morality?
A: Aristotle said: two things make an excellent human being: the intellect’s ability to listen and learn, and the ethical values within a person. When these two things are combined, then you have human excellence.

This means that you are able to listen to your inner-self, which tells you what is right, and you are able to use your intellect to analyse whether it is correct. When you are able to do this, you are a good human being.

When we talk about morality, we are guided also by what is seen to be the right thing by the general public. If it is that you shouldn’t be seen with a woman who is not your wife, and society has prescribed that as an immoral act, then that is immoral.

But at the end of the day, it has got to stem from inside you. The goodness must always come from you — it’s not because the policeman is there that you do the right thing.

An excellent human being doesn’t have to wait for somebody to tell him what should or should not be done. You do it because it is the right thing to do. If you are occupying a position of leadership, you have to have certain ethical and moral standards which you cannot compromise.

Tun Musa Hitam has said “a leadership must be something that is totally intolerant of all things that represent corruption”.

Q: What gives people the right to expect so much from their leaders?

A: According to law professor Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi, because citizens have already surrendered their rights to the government and leadership to manage and regulate what citizens should and shouldn’t do, the leaders must lead.

Therefore, people who are in leadership must be exemplary in their code of conduct and their moral standards.

They must be seen to be not only white, but whiter than white. The people themselves might not be very clean, but the leader has to be cleaner than the people. When you occupy that position, you have to satisfy the people’s trust in you.

Good leadership is important. Because we, the followers, just follow. So, a leader must do things on our behalf. So, if you do the wrong thing as a leader, we, the people, will follow.

For a leadership to be exemplary in morality, ethics and integrity — you have to be accountable. To me, if we relate to the recent events that have happened this week, then I think Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek is exemplary in what he has done.

He had done something that is not morally right, and he says he is accountable for it, and he doesn’t hang on to his position.

Previously, we have been suffering because some people not only compromised their integrity but also seemed to be discarding their moral duty by denying what they did.

What is most critical in Dr Chua’s actions is the fact that he is showing to the leaders, not only in the context of the political leadership, but also government, private sector, and society as a whole, that if you have compromised your position, if you have broken the trust people have in you, then you must willingly go and admit that mistake.

I respect him as an individual. I was slightly disappointed because he didn’t resign on the first day. But the fact that he resigned when he knew that his apology was not accepted is very good.

Q: Is there such a thing as private morality and public morality?

A: No. When you talk about morality, it is the same whether it is in public or in private. If you have done something that is not morally right, it doesn’t matter whether you are on your own or not — it’s still not right.

When we talk about integrity and accountability, it has got to be total. You cannot say that what you are doing is outside of the public purview. When you are in a leadership role, you have to live by the standards and the code expected by society. There is no argument which says: “My private life is private,” because you cannot separate the two.

Q: If you are a leader and you admit to wrongdoing, apologise and step down, have you done more than what is expected of a leader or are you doing nothing less than what is expected of you?

A: There are two sides to this. So often, some leaders, when faced with a situation such as this, do not want to be accountable, or it takes them a long time to be accountable. For me, what Dr Chua did is an example of good accountability in a leader or a person.

As to whether he has done a fantastic act by resigning because that is the moral or right thing to do — well, what he did is the expected thing.

But because a lot of people who have done a lot of immoral things have not resigned or been accountable, then what he did is really very good.

But from the moral angle, if you are not able to repay the trust of the people, then you’ve just got to resign. And that’s supposed to be the norm — it’s not supposed to be extraordinary.

But, we have to be very mindful of the fact that before we make a judgment, we have to examine from which position we are judging from. As we speak today, we are using the normal judgment in terms of morality. If you cheat on your wife, then it is an immoral act.

Q: There are some people who empathise with him and say, “Well, after all, he’s a man …” Are men morally weaker than women?

A: I don’t think so. He happens to be a man; but if it had been a woman minister, it would be the same thing.

When a man and woman do an immoral act, there are two actors — the man and the woman. So, why assume that it is only the man that is immoral here, whereas the woman is also a participant.

There are some surveys that say that men think of sex 24 hours a day, but it doesn’t mean you should be any less responsible.

Q: Are there some things which society shouldn’t interfere with? Is it only an issue for him and his family? Do we have a right to condemn it?

A: Yes, we do have a right. We have surrendered some portion of our rights to the leaders, so we expect exemplary behaviour from them.

The saddest thing is that some leaders do not fulfil this trust.

Society has got the right to judge. The individual might have a character and behaviour worse than the leader, but the fact that the person is a normal or private individual means that the expectation to perform up to a certain standard is not there. If you are a leader, you have to expect that.

You cannot have the cake and eat it at the same time.

Q: So, any leader who is literally or figuratively caught with his pants down can’t say to people who are judging him that they’ve got a “holier than thou” attitude?

A: No. You know for a fact that when you become a leader, this is expected of you. And people judge you according to how you behave. You cannot turn around and say: “No, you are worse than me, so don’t talk.”

Musa said “leadership has to be leadership that asserts itself. It has to be a leadership that means what it says. And it has to be a strong ethical leadership by example”.

So, if you say that the public has no right to say that he shouldn’t be doing what he’s doing, that’s not right.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said last year that a leader must lead in order to be followed. This is what leadership by example means.

In the National Integrity Plan, there are nine principles that have to be adhered to, to make sure that we can have a society with integrity. Leadership by example is the first principle.

You cannot say: “I’ll do this in my private capacity.” You are a leader — you are entrusted with the responsibility.

Yes, we applaud Dr Chua for resigning; but, to start with, people will say that he shouldn’t have done what he has done.

Human beings are fallible. But once you make a mistake, you must answer for it. In the past, some other leaders took a long time to resign or for the court process to be settled. But I hope this will not happen in the future, because Dr Chua has already shown us the right thing to do.

It might be very bitter, very difficult to make the decision, but he is very strong in doing it. That’s accountability.

Q: Most ethic codes say a person is not supposed to tarnish the image of the organisation. But this means it is only bad when it comes out in the open. So, if it never comes out in the open, it’s okay?

A: No. You tarnish the image of the service when you misuse your position. If a public servant accepts a bribe, the person who gives the bribe will think: “This is the public service of Malaysia.”

It doesn’t mean just because it doesn’t come out, it won’t tarnish the image. The Code of Ethics for members of parliament, which was launched by the prime minister in 2004, says: “A member of parliament should always be of integrity, and should display exemplary behaviour.”

So, if, for example, you shout in public, then that is not exemplary behaviour. If you flaunt your wealth, that’s also not exemplary behaviour.

Q: What are the characteristics of an exemplary leader?

A: A leader has to be honest, accountable, morally upright, trustworthy and responsible. Members of parliament have to have the interests of their constituents at heart, rather than their personal interests.

You are given that responsibility, you have been elected into office, so you must always ask yourself whether whatever decision that you make, is it going to benefit you as a person, or your family, or is it going to benefit the public? The answer must always be “the public”.

For instance, if there is a decision to be made to build a bridge, you have to have this integrity check: “Is this bridge going to benefit my family’s house or my relatives’ house, or is it for the general good of the society?”

If the answer is that it is for the general good of the public, then that is a decision made with integrity. If your family benefits together with the public, then, well and good.

Q: MPs are law-makers. If they break the law, should they resign? For example, in Australia, a member of the federal parliament was caught for drink driving. The very next day, in parliament, the MP apologised to everyone and resigned.

A: In the Code of Ethics for parliamentarians, members of parliament must always show an excellent code of behaviour and character that can be exemplified in a formal or personal capacity.

The prime minister, when he was talking at the National Convention on Integrity in September, cited cases of the Japanese culture.

If a leader or a person in authority has done something wrong, they do the honourable thing — be accountable — by committing hara kiri (suicide). In fact, the ceremony itself is very deep in its tradition, where there are people watching, and there are rituals — just to say, “I’m sorry, I’ve done something wrong, I’m responsible.”

Of course, the PM wasn’t saying we should go to that extent here. It would be very good if over here MPs could be as accountable as the one in Australia, but within the context of our parliamentary system, and our culture as it is, it is going to take some time before that level of accountability comes in. That would be the ideal. We wish that it would happen in our society.

Q: Why is it that this doesn’t happen in our society?

A: We always try to hide as much as possible. This, again, is culture. We never want to say “I’ve done it” up-front. You throw rubbish when nobody’s looking.

Q: Does that mean that in our culture, truth is only what is seen?

A: Not necessarily.

When we talk about development, it is not only about having skyscrapers and fantastic highways. It is about the intellectual capacity, the moral values that we have that we practise every day.

Quite often, with ministers in the British cabinet, when something is wrong in the ministry, even though the minister is not involved, he or she would resign. Of course, the contrary also happens, like when the chief of the Metropolitan police refused to resign when a Brazilian was killed instead of the suspected terrorist. So, it does happen.

But there seems to be a tradition where they become very accountable. But that has not become a culture here.

Q: When you are in charge of, let’s say, a revenue-earning installation that has resulted in 142 accidents in 10 years, and you refuse to remove that revenue-making installation — what does that say about a leader? Is money more important than life?

A: A lot has been said about, for example, the Jelapang toll plaza, which has cost many lives and still hasn’t been moved. In some countries, there would be a resignation as a result of that. But not in this country.

I don’t think we lack morality or accountability. But we do not own up to something, that is wrong and it affects the lives of a lot of people. I cannot understand why.

Q: But if you do not own up to something, then you do lack morality and you do lack accountability, don’t you?

A: But just like when the bus accident happened where over 20 people died — the licensing authority that was in charge of the buses should have resigned for giving the licence. But there were so many reasons why the bus was on the road, there was no enforcement, etc — nobody wanted to take responsibility for it, to be accountable for that thing happening.

I put it down to our culture of not owning up to something that has happened.

The notion of “The buck stops here” is not in our culture — even when a very glaring mistake has been done.

Q: In Islamic governance, isn’t accountability important?

A: Yes. That is part of Islam Hadhari. Prophet Muhammad said: “If you hide even a needle from me when you are given a position of power, on Judgment Day, you will have to bring that needle to account for it.” So, accountability is very important in Islam.

But as to the question of why this is not being practised wholly by Malaysians is a good question, but I don’t have an answer for it.

That’s not part of our style of managing ourselves.

Q: Is there a difference between personal accountability and public accountability?

A: The essence of accountability is discharging one’s responsibility at all times, in accordance with established ethical norms, values and laws, and being willing to submit oneself to public scrutiny of every aspect of one’s conduct.

So, to me, when we talk about public accountability, it is when we have to submit to the scrutiny of every aspect to the public.

But when we talk about personal responsibility, then we are talking about the established ethics — whatever the ethics and values you subscribe to. You don’t have to subscribe to public values. However, being an excellent person, the values that you have, and the values that the public have, must be one and the same. The two shouldn’t be too divergent.

Q: Do you need morality to do a good job?

A: Yes. Otherwise, what would you ground your decisions on? You have to have certain ethical and moral values before you can make the right judgment.

If you are a person of low moral values, then, the decision you make will also reflect that. Your actions will reflect whatever you believe on the inside.

Even in the government service, there are certain standards or morality that are expected. That is why, if you indulge in extra-marital activities, if you are caught, you will be charged under the General Orders, because that morality standard must be observed at all times.

Q: If somebody is doing a good job, but he is proven to be taking part in something immoral in his private life, would it be all right to forgive him his trespasses?

A: But he has already betrayed the public’s trust. There will come a time when that person will have to make a decision that is morally-based. Today, you might not be making decisions based on some moral issues. But there will be other times when you are expected to make your decision based on this. So, for a leader, you have to be moral.

You cannot say: “I am doing a good job. I am visiting so many hospitals, my morals don’t affect this.” But there may come a time when nurses are having affairs in hospital and you have to decide on this.

This is where your judgment will have to be used. And if the leader himself does not have good moral standards, then the decision will be an immoral one.

Whatever you do is going to reflect your inner-self — that you are willing to compromise on morality. We are not robots — we cannot switch off. You cannot say: “I am a different person in private from who I am in public.”

Q: Now that society has excoriated Dr Chua, at what point should society forgive him, if at all?

A: When a person should be forgiven depends on which perspective you are looking from.

If you are a person who thinks that the matter is not a big deal, if you subscribe to this kind of behaviour, then the people who think along this line would probably have forgiven him already.

But, those who feel they have put their trust in the person, given over their rights to that person, and yet the person did not live up to that expectation, they might never forgive him. So, the forgiveness is easier for some groups, but not for others.

When you talk about integrity, it’s total. You cannot say: “I want to be good in 1, 2, 3, but not so good in 4 and 5.” Cannot. Integrity is total — you must be honest, ethical. You cannot say: “I have a lot of this, but a little of that.” It’s not okay.

Q: Should we, as a society, say, “fine, you can have all these shenanigans, but if you do a good job, we’ll accept you”?

A: No.

Q: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. But just because everyone sins, does that mean that no one should cast stones?

A: Since we expect our leaders to manage our well-being, they are supposed to be doing good things on our behalf. So, even though the public may have sinned, it has the right to tell the leader he is not doing the right thing. That person should be leading us towards excellence. If you compromise yourself, then you have to go.

Q: Was the way the affair was exposed moral or immoral?

A: Immoral. You shouldn’t take advantage of people’s indiscretions. Even though whatever happenned was not right, the way that they did it was wrong.

If you see someone who commits a crime and you keep quiet, then you are not doing the right thing. But, one should personally advise the wrongdoer first. Sometimes, this may not be tenable, so then you should report to the right authorities. If you expect other people to do the right thing, but you yourself are not helping the system, it won’t get done.

Q: With the recent scandal in mind, would you advise people who have skeletons in their closet to clear out their closets?

A: To start with, there shouldn’t be skeletons in the closet. Those who have skeletons in the closet should have a personal resolve not to add more skeletons to the closet.

To me, if there is taubat (repentance), and if you are not caught with whatever is already in your closet, then that is your good luck. As to whether you need to air those skeletons, that’s up to you. You have to ask your conscience whether you need to resolve the issue by telling people, or not.