Dear PMX, corruption is being raised - answers are missing

 

 At a recent press engagement on Sept 29, when reporters pressed Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim over Transport Minister Anthony Loke’s resignation, he retorted: “The problem is corruption, plunder, and theft. You don't raise (those issues). But you raise Loke's resignation, for what?”

The premier appeared to suggest that the press was ignoring systemic graft in favour of political drama.

But over the past year, journalists have repeatedly raised allegations of abuse of power, procedural lapses and possible corruption across government agencies, most visibly within the Immigration Department.

The press has done its part. The pressing question is: what happens after those revelations?

Arrests were made. Officers are dismissed. Ministers announce reform plans in Parliament.

But what happens next?

Do the cases reach a concrete conclusion? Are those involved charged, cleared, or disciplined? And is the public kept informed along the way?

These are not hypothetical questions. The record provides several examples.

‘Phantom travels’ at KLIA

In June 2025, Malaysiakini reported that officers were allegedly allowing individuals to slip through border checks at manual immigration counters without passport scans or stamps, in exchange for between RM1,000 and RM1,500.

These individuals were then escorted to departure gates, leaving no official record of their exit.

The Malaysian Border Control and Protection Agency said officers who compromised their integrity would face strict disciplinary action, including dismissal.

But subsequent checks by Malaysiakini indicated that an officer identified by sources as one of those involved, known internally as “Thanos”, had been moved to an office-based unit.

He was neither suspended nor charged.

Since then, there has been no official statement on the matter.

In Parliament, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail (above) said MACC was investigating 50 related cases, with two recommended for charges and 48 referred for disciplinary or governance review.

He reiterated the government’s zero-tolerance policy and pointed to measures including autogates, body cameras and an Advance Passenger Screening System (APSS).

Those measures are real and welcomed.

But a year later, questions about what happened to those already implicated remain.

Foreign nationals were detained at KLIA with suspicious entry stamps traceable to the Sultan Iskandar Building Complex in Johor. Every official stamp carries a serial number assigned to a specific officer.

Six police reports have since been lodged at KLIA over such cases, all involving stamps from Johor. Yet there is no publicly known action against the officers concerned.

If a serial number can lead investigators to an individual officer, the question is straightforward:

What happened after six police reports were lodged?

Checks on court records found no one charged in connection with the alleged syndicate.

If charges have been brought, or disciplinary action has been taken, the authorities can say so.

Labour recalibration and closed files

The same question arises in the Labour Recalibration Programme (RTK 2.0), under which more than 700,000 undocumented migrants were registered within seven months.

Agents and migrant workers told journalists that immigration personnel allegedly solicited around RM3,000 per application to expedite queue numbers, biometric scanning and the issuance of temporary passes.

In November 2025, MACC sources confirmed the arrest of 11 immigration officers in connection with the scheme.

In May 2026, Malaysiakini submitted written questions to the Attorney-General’s Chambers on the status of the cases.

Weeks later, sources said the cases had been classified as “no further action”.

The AGC has not replied.

Again, the issue is not simply whether arrests were made. It is what happened afterwards.

A separate case involving Nepali national Mahendra Jung Shah raises a similar question.

Mahendra was detained by counter-terrorism officers in August 2016 and deported shortly after over alleged document falsification. He has consistently denied any link to terrorism.

In January 2026, Malaysiakini reported that he had re-entered Malaysia on a valid professional pass. Police and the Immigration Department did not respond to questions at the time.

In April 2026, the Immigration Department held a press conference announcing Ops Serkap, saying nine people had been arrested in an alleged RM100 million human trafficking and forgery ring that had been operating since 2019.

Director-general Zakaria Shaaban (below) named Mahendra as the alleged mastermind, said the operation followed six months of intelligence work, and announced the seizure of 111 passports, electronic devices and cash.

Four days after his detention, Mahendra messaged this writer saying he had been released. This writer has retained the message.

When asked, the Immigration Department did not respond.

Being released does not necessarily mean a case is closed. He could still be under investigation.

But that is precisely what the public has not been told.

The Immigration Department announced his arrest at a press conference, yet has not clarified whether Mahendra has been charged, released pending investigation, or cleared.

So, what is the status?

A RM500 million question

The next case is not an allegation of corruption. It is a question about taxpayers’ money.

Malaysiakini asked the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry why a sugar subsidy worth RM500 million a year goes to only two companies when 47 companies supply sugar.

The other 45 continue to sell without the subsidy.

The ministry took four weeks to respond, describing the arrangement as a macro-level policy decision.

But it did not answer the question.

This shows that the problem of official silence is not confined to criminal investigations. It extends to ordinary questions about how public money is allocated and why.

Why sources, and why silence matters

There is a common thread running through these cases.

MACC, the AGC, the Immigration Department and other agencies were given opportunities to respond or provide updates. In several instances, they did not.

That leaves media organisations relying on sources for information that should, where possible, come through official channels.

The contrast is striking.

Agencies are understandably quick to announce arrests, raids, seizures and investigations. However, when it comes to what happens afterwards, the public is often left waiting.

That is where the accountability gap lies.

It is not unreasonable for an agency to say that evidence is insufficient, that a case has been closed, or that an investigation is ongoing. All are legitimate outcomes.

What matters is that the public is told which one applies.

The media has raised these cases and will continue to do so. It is not asking for privileged evidence to be disclosed or for investigators to compromise their work.

The press is asking for something much simpler: Was anyone charged? Was the case closed? Is the investigation still ongoing?

Three straightforward answers can tell the public whether a case has moved forward, stalled, or ended.

So, when the prime minister asks why the press does not raise corruption, plunder and theft, there is an answer.

We do. But journalism does not end when an arrest is announced. Nor should accountability end with a press conference.

If the government is serious about eradicating corruption, abuse of power and theft, then telling the public what happened after the headlines fade would be a useful place to start. - Mkini

---

B NANTHA KUMAR is a member of the Malaysiakini team.