Michell Zuckoff writes in The New York Times of Aug 5, 2016 about how the practice of disclosure of tax returns by presidential nominees came about and why it can be so valuable as a measure of character.

We know that Donald Trump has refused to do so till now.

The story begins in July 1969 when Congress eliminated a US tax code that allowed a sitting or former president to donate his papers to a public or non-profit in exchange for a very large tax deduction. Congress’ rationale was that such papers already belonged to the public.

Nixon claimed US$500,000 in deductions in 1969 for donating 1,000 boxes of his papers to the National Archives. The deed accompanying the boxes was dated March 1969 but wasn’t signed until April 1970 when the revised tax code applied that allowed no tax deductions.

So, had Nixon really beaten the deadline? Had he overstated the value of the papers to get a bigger deduction?

Reporters chased Nixon and others asked for a tax audit to ensure fairness. But Nixon refused to disclose his returns or allow a tax audit.

There the matter stood until October 1973 when Ted White, a 31-year-old reporter for the Providence Journal-Bulletin, broke the biggest story of his life (which later won him the Pulitzer Prize). One source provided him with evidence that Nixon had paid taxes of only US$792.81 in 1970 and US$878.03 in 1971, despite having income exceeding US$400,000.

By donating his papers with a backdated deed, Nixon had slashed his tax bill drastically. He paid the equivalent of a family of three earning about US$8,000 in 1970 dollars.

After White’s article was published, demands rose for full disclosure. The next month, White’s colleague at the Providence paper, Joseph Ungaro, asked Nixon about his taxes during his appearance at a newspaper editors’ conference in Florida. Nixon replied: “I welcome this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook.”

No single comment would stick more firmly to Nixon.

It had never before been necessary for a president to distinguish himself from ordinary tax cheats. Yet still he wouldn’t release his taxes.

In the meantime, the Inland Revenue Service (IRS) reversed itself and decided to audit Nixon’s returns for the previous few years. While the audit was under way, Nixon buckled to public pressure in December 1973 and released five years of tax documents. He also asked a congressional committee to review, among other things, his gift of the papers.

In May 1974, White won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting.

Three months after White won his Pulitzer, Nixon resigned from office, not because of taxes but under threat of impeachment for the Watergate cover-up. Among other misdeeds, he was accused of misusing the FBI., the CIA and the IRS In addition to losing his presidency, Nixon lost nearly half his net worth paying what he owed to the IRS.

But Nixon got one thing right!

The American people need to know if their president is a crook.

Prime minister system

Now, in Malaysia we do not use the presidential system, which has also been adopted by our big neighbour Indonesia for the last couple of decades.

We employ the system of prime minister within a constitutional monarchy. One big difference is that presidents are voted in through a national election i.e. the electorate of the whole country gets to cast their vote and he or she can claim to be “elected by all the people”.

Note the following drawbacks in our system, one that I believe has led to kleptocracy as alleged by the US Department of Justice.

1. First, our prime minister, in the Westminster system, is the leader of the party or coalition that has an absolute majority of seats in Parliament. That coalition has been Barisan Nasional or its predecessor the Alliance, since 1957. The party within that coalition that holds the most seats (but not an absolute majority in Parliament, by itself) is Umno. All six past and incumbent PMs have been the Umno leader.

Thus, the PM cannot claim to be “elected by all the people” as the US or Indonesian president can. He has always been the leader of Umno which doesn’t, by itself, have an absolute majority of MP's in our Parliament. Umno is merely the party with the largest number of MPs but their number is less than an absolute majority within Parliament.

2. Within Umno itself, the president and deputy president can agree not to contest against each other and then win the presidency/deputy presidency merely by being uncontested for those positions.

That means, even within Umno, the leader cannot claim to be “elected by all the Umno members” since no contestation took place!

3. Third, once the Umno president assumes his position, he has to keep the majlis tertinggi Umno or its supreme council members happy with him. There are both elected supreme council members as well as members appointed by the Umno president. This is a total of 30-40 people.

It is fortunate that these are all people of impeccable character and ethical behaviour otherwise it would be a simple matter for someone to induce them to vote as he wants them to, simply by dishing out a few million each eg 40 X US$5 million is only US$200 million. With a billion, you can do it 5 X and none will be the wiser.

Fortunately no one has that kind of money, yet, to play around with.

It becomes crystal clear that:

A. Our national leader is not one that is “elected by all the people”; and

B. Our system is highly leveraged so that an unscrupulous person with plenty of cash can easily induce a small number of leaders to do as he says; and

C. A cunning leader can use the financial system to generate vast amounts of cash, ostensibly to develop the nation, scoop up a vast ‘cut’ for himself and friends, and then use it for political purposes as well as buying expensive paintings, multicoloured diamonds, Manhattan and London penthouses and paying friends’ gambling debts.

Fortunately, of course, nothing like this could ever happen here!

This is the difference between a country like us, led by leaders with highly developed religious sensibilities and the corrupted, degenerate USA.

It is utterly, utterly baffling how the USA got to be the world’s most powerful country in history, both economically and militarily.