Take a hike mahathir for for plundering wealth in Malaysia,

Jug Suraiya,

(This is a comment) When he was hauled up before the British Parliament for plundering wealth in India, Robert Clive is reported to have said that he stood amazed at his own moderation.

Our members of Parliament, who have just voted themselves a little more than a 200 per cent increase in pay and perks, could well echo the words of the English robber baron.

In eastern tradition, the debate is started and everybody ignores the topic and sings his own separate song. There is absolutely no commitment to the topic and when the song ends, everybody is exhausted and defeated at the same time. The achievement in terms of the search for the truth is nil or maybe even negative.

By batsman

The search for Truth and questioning self both often have to go through painful processes of experience, understanding and realization. I suspect both are related even though this is difficult to prove. So it is that the art of debate may also have its revelations in the long and winding search for the Truth.

In western tradition, the debate is started and everybody concentrates on the topic whether in support or in opposition. This way, everybody sings the same song and stay focused and when the song ends, there is a sense of achievement perhaps even a few revelations. This is related to western traditions in many other aspects of life e.g. the advocacy system in law and legislation or even the philosophical concepts of the unity of opposites and especially in their application of checks and balances.

In eastern tradition, the debate is started and everybody ignores the topic and sings his own separate song. There is absolutely no commitment to the topic and when the song ends, everybody is exhausted and defeated at the same time. The achievement in terms of the search for the truth is nil or maybe even negative. Again this is related to many other aspects of eastern traditions and behaviour of which we discuss some below.

This observation is made by some other and not me – “I witnessed a meeting which included every kind of group: Sunni Muslims and heretics, and all kinds of … materialists, atheists, Jews and Christians. Each group had a leader who would speak on its doctrine and debate about it. … I never went back.”

Maybe even the claim that there is no commitment to the topic or to the truth is too much and the conclusion should be a simpler “There is no commitment”. Is this why Chaplain Yusof Estes says that although he loves Islam, the best examples of good Muslim behaviour can only be found in the west?

In religion, most can be said to be sincere, but a few join just to enjoy the protection of the Ummah and to make and profit from business contacts – typical crony behaviour. There is no real commitment even when these same people claim loudly for the whole world to hear that they are willing to die for Islam to support their championship. I am sure this behaviour is found not just in other religions, but in other institutions such as political parties. It is all too common to hear comments such as “Hudud Law may be applied in Malaysia only over my dead body”. Everybody likes to sing his/her own favourite song. Unfortunately it kills debate every effectively.

So it is that in the east, there is the common phenomenon of the “Great Betrayal”. After a hard fight where many sacrifices are made to achieve some small victory, some of the fighters turn into frogs or turn corrupt. This can be seen in all the liberation struggles of the east against western colonialism. This can also be seen not only in opposition parties but also in UMNO where the fight to uplift the Malays has been turned into a dirty crony grab after monopoly of power is achieved.

Can it be said then that the commitment to the Truth is greater in the west and the commitment to anything at all is weaker in the east? Does this conclusion mean that the westerners do everything better than the easterners, including the art of government, the art of debate and maybe even the art of love?

The sad part is that this conclusion actually justifies the ISA. It also gives strength to some westerners’ belief that easterners can compete only by selling their cheap labour or selling their bodies and souls. What do you think? Are you a positivist or a negativist? heeheehee

Indeed, our MPs' moderation in enhancing their emoluments is quite amazing. After a bit of haggling, they finally settled for a pay packet that works out to about Rs 1.60 lakh a month.

This, of course, does not include accommodation very often in the form of a Lutyens' bungalow in the most expensive and exclusive part of Delhi, the market rental of which would be at least as much again as their gross salaries, if not several times more.

Taking purchasing power parity into account, our MPs cost us more to maintain than the legislators of Japan, Singapore and Italy cost their respective countries. Another way of looking at it is that the cost-to-country of each of our MPs is 68 times what an average Indian makes. In comparison, lawmakers in Singapore, Japan and Italy respectively cost their countries four times, six times and seven times what the average citizen in each of those countries earns.

So aren't our MPs paying themselves a lot? Rubbish. They're paying themselves peanuts. In fact, they're remarkably ungenerous to themselves, as our MPs would be the first to point out to us. To put things in proper perspective, take the case of a CEO of an Indian private sector company which has a workforce of, say 1, 00,000 people. It is quite possible that a hypothetical CEO of such a hypothetical organisation would draw a total compensation package of upward of Rs 1 crore a month. The shareholders of such a company would deem such remuneration perfectly justifiable for someone who is providing leadership which is what a CEO's job is to 1,00,000 people.

By this yardstick, all our MPs are the equivalents of CEOs in their respective constituencies, to which they are meant to provide leadership. Some of these constituencies are larger and more populous than others. But if we take the total population of the country as one billion (in fact, it's somewhat more) and divide that by the total number of MPs that we have, which is 545, we will find that, on an average, each of our MPs leads or is CEO of, so to speak almost two million people. True, not all of these two million people have attained voting age, nor did all of those who are eligible to vote cast their ballots in favour of this particular MP who has been elected into office. Nonetheless, the MP concerned gallantly, and without complaint, shoulders the load of leading all the people in that constituency, regardless of who they voted for. Could noblesse be more obliging?

Looked at from this viewpoint and what other viewpoint could there be? our MPs have been astonishingly frugal about giving themselves their salaries and perks, which should be at least 10 times more than what they are. Furthermore, if private sector CEOs who are accountable to their shareholders get the sack, they are generally given a 'golden parachute' to ensure that they have a soft financial landing. Our poor MPs who thanks to the anti-incumbency factor are routinely sacked every five years (or sooner) by their shareholders namely, their electorates get no such golden parachute. Instead, they have somehow to scrape together funds to meet the expenses they'll have to incur in the next elections.

It's tough, being an Indian MP. So let's not grudge them their pay hike. And pay no attention to the cynic who says that the best thing our MPs could do for the country would be to take an altogether different sort of hike. The longer the better.