Rights of family more important than good of nation?

In the article "I never gave favours to my kin", Pak Lah said he had never abused his powers as Prime Minister by giving favours to his family members.

“I have never misused my powers concerning my son,” Abdullah stressed.

Asked whether he was prepared to declare the assets of his family members, the Prime Minister replied: “That is the right of my family members. There is no need to declare them. There is no wrongdoing on their part that makes it necessary for them to do so.”

On whether that would be against his principle of transparency, he said: “This is not an issue of transparency. This is (about) the rights of an individual.”

Like Nostradamus' prophecies of ancient times, had I not - equally prophetically - already addressed this issue in a previous blog post about Conflict on Interest? Damn, why doesn't he read what I write before shooting his mouth off?

"Is it fair then, to penalise the businesses of family members and friends of politicians?"

"HELL YES! Of course it is! A political leader that is unquestionably free from conflicts of interest (and therefore, has the undivided trust of the people), is infinitely more valuable than a little inconvenience to his family and friends."

"If we can tell the world that laws like ISA and the Sedition Act are needed because the rights of certain individuals must not threaten the greater interests of the nation... how is this any different? Shouldn't the individual rights of your children, Tun M's children, Ling Leong Sik's children, the children of all other politicians and bureaucrats... shouldn't their rights to make money be restrained from threatening the interests of our great nation?"