Featured

“Anonymous” commented

If the system of government that we currently have is evidently and somewhat flawed based on the points mentioned in the article, why are we still sticking to said system?

That’s the thing – we stick to it because we let the system remain the same. Just to clarify, BG is not against the idea of a constitutional monarch. We are not saying that this type of government is wrong. In fact, we appreciate that every type of governmental system, including a democracy, are not without its flaws. What is suggested is an improvement to the system.

For example, having two posts as anti-corruption director with an extremely powerful one such as Deputy PM does not sit well, and can be quite dangerous. This is because the power is too concentrated and there are higher chances of such power being abused itself. The power should instead be spread across the board. It is fair to want a powerful anti-corruption body to maintain integrity, credibility and legitimacy. However, having a direct interest in that department will undermine it altogether.

The government should be more dispersed so any kinds of interests are not biased and weighted to one side. Just to clarify too, even if this post was held by another person without such strong formation and links in the new government, it would still be worrying to have someone who has a position of a directorship of ACB to also have a powerful role in the PMO too.

The system should be constructed in such a way so as to eliminate any risks of conflict, and where there are conflicts, these should be handled in a proper, lawful manner. If the ACB themselves struggle to stay afloat and in line with procedures, then how are we to trust that the findings presented are not skewed and self-motivated too? And how can the credibility of a body such as ACB if they continue to make unfounded allegations?

Agreed, HM is our ruler, and above all he has the final say who goes in and out of government. HM places trust to those he delegates his powers to. But we cannot forget that the system directly beneath him also bears the responsibility in presenting full and accurate information to him. The misuse of this trust is what is being feared. How do we know the information is not skewed?

It is common knowledge that public concerns are frequently voiced out to senior ranked civil servants to improve a lot of things but they never get passed onto the higher powers, let alone reach HM himself. Why? Because the system may feel it unnecessary, irrelevant, the typical “no budget” excuse (when in fact suggestions could either revisit and refinance budgets efficiently) or they fear it will cause disgruntle. This is what is meant by skewed information.

The connections issue raised in the first post are a cause for concern because the system still has effectively not changed. How sure are we that these powers simply did not just change hands? Although job can be praised to be well done, it is hard to congratulate if done on grounds of shaky credibility and integrity, and suspicious links. (** New information: it was also conveyed to me that BSP’s partnership is with Megamas, also owned by DPM’s sister.)

Why are we then still sticking to this system? We as citizens currently do not have much say as to how these things work, at least not yet. It is the intention of the Brunei Gazette to help further this cause and encourage a better system, which includes minimisation of conflicts, due rights, fairness, and due process for a better Brunei and a better support to the govt of HM.