I refer with dismay and sadness on the type of media reporting practiced against Tan Sri Abdul Halil Mutalib, the retiring director-general of the Customs and Excise Department. The media, led by the New Straits Times , seems to have become prosecutor, judge and jury over a story that they broke, leveraged and now participate in passing judgment.
They want the Customs DG to be suspended, when Parliamentarians have committed worse \’verbal offences\’ and gotten away scot free, without punishment right there in Parliament. Where are discretion, honour and valour in all such reporting?
All investigative reporting must describe the real problem with facts and figures, explain the causes and sources, evaluate the real incident, and then prescribe the way forward. Allow me to argue against the injustice practiced in this case and on poor reporting standards practiced by the media against Tan Sri Abdul Halil Mutalib.
Firstly, I have yet to see any real evidence of the \’so-called RM 5 million expenditure\’, assuming that these are all from public funds. To allude to such an expenditure, there must have been \’serious and elaborate planning for implementation\’ by the relevant authorities within the Customs Department.
That has not yet been proven to my mind. Moreover, there must have been explicit instructions from the DG himself to implicate him as the cause and source of the offence. Knowing Tan Sri Halil Mutalib personally as a friend, he is just not such a man who would plan his own retirement bash in such grand and extravagant style.
Maybe we should let the Attorney-General finish the investigations first before we pass any judgment. My alternative hypothesis, rather, is that the DG is very well-liked by most of his staff and they on their own planned a grand and honorable send-off. There is no crime in that, even if on some occasions office meetings were used for such a farewell.
Genuinely thankful
Secondly, is there not already a custom of giving farewells and send-offs to retiring director- generals? Is it not a fact that if the DG is from a national or federal department, the practice of courtesy calls upon retirement is common place, especially in the uniformed services where discipline and authority are most important?
I can remember a former chief secretary to the government who was not only given a grand send-off but for whom the red carpet was literally rolled out everywhere he went when his time came to leave. All armed forces chiefs and police chiefs, too, necessarily get grand send-offs.
Why then begrudge the Customs and Excise Department – a revenue-generating and uniformed department – such a privilege just because the media highlighted it for reasons better known to themselves?
Thirdly, while I do not support lavish farewells, at no point did the NST take the time nor spare the energy to review the role and success of the same DG in performing his duties over the last so many years. Is it not plausible that the department and staff are genuinely thankful for the great service of excellence given to the department by the retiring DG?
In short, it may be the DG deserves such a grand farewell from the perspective of his serving officers and staff. Who are we to deny them such a feeling of gratitude and the bidding of farewell?
Fourthly, do the NST journalists always \’quote all statements\’ by the persons being interviewed? Even more importantly, are such quotes made within the context of the particular dialogue being undertaken? Without appearing to defend the man, I believe that Tan Sri Abdul Halil Mutalib cross-reference to the deputy prime minister may really deal with the issue that \’are all golf tournaments being reviewed with the same rigour by journalists?\’
Our journalists appear to be blindly following the model of the \’paparazzi\’, but let us also remember that such journalistic pursuits may have been partly responsible for killing Princess Diana. Do we need such \’feeding frenzy journalism\’ such as this where the man is not even running anywhere – he is only going to retire after maybe 35 or 36 years of public service!
If he was in fact a crook, as now implied, why would he have been appointed the first ever Administrative and Diplomatic Services (PTD) Officer to be the DG of the Customs, which is a uniformed and non-PTD department. Moreover, his term was further extended based on excellent service, as I understand it. Where were the media when all this happened?
\’Paparazzi reporting\’
Fifthly, is not the practice of \’official golf tournaments\’ a sanctified activity within the public services? Is it not normal practice for many government departments to consciously plan and synchronise their activities with school holidays and other related family or leisure activities?
Rather than prohibit such \’clever planning\’, is it not a better to advise and counsel prudence and good accounting and finances rather than complete abandonment of such good and healthy camaraderie?
Sixthly, as an also retired public servant, I personally feel dishonored that a man of Tan Sri Halil\’s stature is simply mistreated by the Press based only on conjecture and some hearsay and other still misinterpreted or misunderstood evidence. While I for one promote openness and transparency, this kind of character assassination and defamation is unacceptable, as there are proper procedures in treating such cases through the due processes of a public services enquiry.
Creating and relying on a kangaroo court of public examination is rather humiliating for the man and I suppose I feel his honour and dignity being denied by the lack of some kind of due process. What now with the Cabinet also being dragged into the same game?
Finally, I would like to conclude with Tan Sri Halil\’s poem. I believe that it says all in terms of his plans and intentions. After 35 or 36 years of honorable public service, his ship is finally ready to berth and the captain is ready for a long and permanent shore leave.
At this juncture in the journey of public service wherein normal gratitude and thankfulness should be the order of the day, why should he have to be on the defence over a farewell that is being planned by his people, willingly and voluntarily for him?
If the expenses are extravagant, there is just cause for concern, but is the media the right arbitrator for all such willing and voluntary expenses? Surely the media can investigate more justifiable cases of misappropriated expenditure of public funds.
Simply review the Auditor-General\’s annual report well and that will be a far more satisfying role for real investigative reporting. But this kind of \’paparazzi reporting\’ is not appreciated at all by – at least – this citizen.
Thank you Tan Sri Abdul Halil Mutalib for good and faithful public service, even if it became quite colorful at the very end!