What’s the point in reviewing the hiring of an MACC chief?

 

From Walter Sandosam

The law and institutional reform minister has commented that the mechanism for the appointment of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief is being reviewed.

The proposed improvements are expected to involve amendments to the Federal Constitution and the MACC Act 2009, possibly with a bipartisan parliamentary committee vetting the appointment (as pledged by a political coalition). Currently, engagement sessions are being held from stakeholders in the government machinery with comparative studies on other jurisdictions.

One might ask – is this really necessary?

The MACC Act 2009 came into force during the premiership of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. The main reason for its enactment was to address the perception that the anti-graft buster was subject to political interference with selective prosecutions.

Irrespective, if that was the order of the day, or not, the said Act came into force to restore credibility to the institution tasked to fight corruption.

Without credibility, all efforts will come to naught whatever the altruistic intentions for the country to be corruption free, or at the very least, for corruption not to be systemic.

Fifteen years on, it appears that there are still nagging doubts on the agency’s independence. The MACC chief continues to be part of the government machinery in as much as to the appointment to the post, not to mention his reporting line.

Notwithstanding the appointment of independent oversight panels, the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board (members of the public) and the Special Committee on Corruption (comprising parliamentarians from both sides of the political divide) pursuant to the Act, it appears that not all is in order.

MACC has been delivered many severe body blows, both above and below the belt; some consequent to their own doing. This has critically affected its ability to effectively function as a “going concern”.

The appointment of a non-civil service personality to head the function pursuant to the general election of 2018 had raised eyebrows as it was perceived by some quarters to be “non-independent”; a perception further reinforced given the resignation of the MACC head in tandem with the head of the executive.

Just prior to the recent elections, an opposition politician (now a minister) was highly perturbed that officers from the agency “visited” his premises just a few days before polling date. His rebuke to the MACC head is on record. Could it be a coincidence?

The Federal Court’s remarks when presiding over a suit on two constitutional issues that MACC did not follow protocol also included the words: “good faith”, “timing”, “bona fide” and “collateral”. This goes to the core of the issue on MACC’s credibility.

Others recall the issue on a parliamentary committee summoning the MACC chief on a personal matter in relation to share trading which has yet to be resolved.

The most recent debacle is an affidavit by a senior lawyer who has claimed “selective persecution” by MACC who had raided his firm. Apparently, there was a similar run-in with the agency in 2007.

This is a shame as it was revealed that MACC could not even get its act together to obtain the required documents during the raid as it was challenged that it was “not in line with the law”.

In all this melee, the independent panels meant to serve as a check and balance mechanism have remained silent. This is a monumental failure and one questions their continued existence.

It is fine and good to espouse good moral values on religion and integrity, and to be averse to corruption. However, it appears sadly that 15 years on, the issue of credibility in possible political interference has not been put to rest.

There has to be a holistic approach to address what ails MACC. Things cannot be seen or done in isolation or on a piecemeal basis. Only then can the anti-corruption crusade gain traction.

If politicians continue to use the agency in furtherance of their political agendas, perceived or otherwise, then we have lost the plot as a country. - FMT

Walter Sandosam is a former MACC oversight panel member and an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.