An oath is a statement of intent, or a promise.
Among the major types of oaths are, the Hippocratic Oath taken by physicians to practice medicine honestly, the divine oath sworn upon a deity, and the oath of office taken by those assuming public office, including judges and politicians.
Even the Yang di-Pertuan Agong will take his oath of office before assuming the duties as the King of Malaysia. The same goes for all the sultans of the respective states.
All Members of Parliament and state assemblymen must take their oaths of office and secrecy before assuming their duties.
In Malaysia, this oath is an affirmation of allegiance and loyalty to King and Country, and to protect the Constitution.
Implicit in the oath is the moral and ethical conduct of the politicians to serve the people.
However, this is usually not the case because the oath is not legally binding.
They take it as a formality rather than as a conviction to serve the people and the nation.
Over the years, we have seen how politicians have reneged on their oaths, placing personal interests and sectarian agenda above everything else.
In the early years after Independence, when the spirit of nationalism and servitude to the nation and the fellow man were burning bright, politicians then were true to their calling, guided by their oaths, and statesmen such as Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, Tun Tan Siew Sin, and Tun V.T. Sambanthan.
It was a period of inclusivity and equity, evidenced by the granting of citizenships to over a million Chinese and Indian immigrants, embraced by the indigenous Malays as one people – the citizens of Malaya.
But the chauvinistic sentiments that led to political adventurism, which caused the infamous May 13 riots, put asunder what had been envisioned by the founding fathers, exposed the fragility of ethnic relations, and strengthened the argument for socio-economic reengineering to engender a harmonious and stable nation.
After the implementation of the New Economic Policy to address the economic, educational, and professional imbalance, and after the demise of Tun Abdul Razak, the ruling politicians began to renege on their oath of office.
Over the years, the ethical and moral significance of the oath of office appears to have been abandoned in favour of greed and avarice for power and wealth.
The oath of office has become a mere ceremony, to be recited without conviction.
This was most evident in the number of scandals, such as the 1Malaysia Development Berhad, the Littoral Combat Ships, the KL-Singapore High-Speed Train, and the East Coast Railway Project controversies.
There are also other instances where the oath of office has been reduce to mere words.
This can be deduced following a series of recent cases where politicians, including senior ministers, were charged in court with corruption and abuse of power.
Thus far, in our short history since Independence, the conduct and behaviour of politicians/political parties and even civil servants, do not, for the most part, reflect the sanctity of the oath of office.
The once-solemn and sacred oath of office that proclaims the moral and ethical integrity of the person carrying out his or her duties and responsibilies has now become a ceremonial trapping, bereft of its attendant conscience.
There is a need to relook at the oath of office, especially political office, to ensure that it does not become a mockery. The taking of the oath should be meaningful, and driven by conscience, and should be reflected in the conduct and behaviour of the politicians.
To this effect, we should consider making the oath of office (like the oath of secrecy) legally binding, and any unreasonable deviations from its tenets should invite punitive action.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of Twentytwo13.
