It's public right to expect highest standards from anti-graft officers

In 1987, the American Embassy in Kuala Lumpur invited me to go on air with renowned American journalist Jim Anderson. At a time when satellite TV was in its infancy, the Voice of America was the only source of instantaneous information on American affairs. The discussion was done on speaker mode on the telephone.

With the presidential election the following year, one would have expected a serious discussion on the campaign and policies of prospective candidates. But two weeks earlier, Gary Hart, the Democratic frontrunner dropped out. Speculation surfaced that he was cheating on his wife. Hart denied the accusations, telling reporters: “Follow me around. I don’t care. I’m serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They’ll be very bored.”

It was a challenge that the press could not resist. Unfortunately for Hart, they already were on his back. The Miami Herald had photos of 29-year-old Donna Rice entering and leaving Hart’s home at suspicious hours of the night. Mr and Mrs Hart made public statements stating that his relationship with the younger woman was “platonic and innocent.”

Not surprisingly, the snooping press came out with a photograph of Rice sitting on Hart’s lap on his boat, aptly named Monkey Business, without his wife. Thus, ended Hart’s bid and he dropped out of the race.
I asked Anderson if the press is justified in prying into the private affairs of people and what rights do journalists have to hound someone who just wants to have some fun.

Anderson’s reply was something along these lines: “If you have skeletons in the cupboard, don’t even dream. Someday, the dark secrets, if any, will emerge. You are not fit for any government post if you lose your moral compass.”

This conversation, although 30-years-old came back as there is a public debate on social media of the alleged indiscretions of a “senior officer from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC)”.

A video clip supposedly of him having a “dirty weekend” in Bali has gone viral and stills from the video have been used to create several other images, which have been shared on social media. There have also been suggestions that a sequel filmed in Hong Kong will soon be made public.

There two schools of thought on this matter. One is that this is a private matter between two consenting adults. In some countries, adulterers are stoned or caned. But adultery is not a criminal offence in Malaysia, unless syariah law is applied. On a lighter note, adultery has been described as two wrong people doing the right thing!

If rapists can marry their victims and get away, why can’t this senior officer take the woman as a second wife? Would it not end the matter and put all speculations, accusations and innuendoes in the shadows?

The other thought is this officer, because of his status and position, has to be whiter than white. Although the woman involved is divorced, these “flings” were allegedly made while she was legally married to her husband. Thus, a police report that he “enticed someone’s wife”.

Section 498 of the Penal Code states: Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows, or has reason to believe, to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals, or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Forget the legal jargon and prosecution as for some reason, consent may not have been given by the attorney-general. However, from a moral standpoint, if the allegations are indeed true, should the officer step down?

Private sector has standards of conduct

In the private sector, almost all companies have “standards of conduct, performance and ethics” for its senior officers, which encompasses both their public and private lives”.

The same cannot be said of the public sector where there have been records of unacceptable behaviour, including the “pinching of the buttocks” of a hostess in a cigar room. Many others have been chronicled and archived but in almost all cases, the victims claim “it was a misunderstanding” or suddenly lose their memory! Obviously, in such circumstances, the perpetrators get away scot-free.

But in this case, there is video evidence supporting images of flight tickets, room bookings and photographs. It is unlikely the issues of memory loss or misunderstanding will muddle whatever investigations, if and when they are undertaken.

The higher your status and stature, the higher the standards expected and harsher the punishment for injudiciousness. In this case, the stature of the officer is high enough to invoke the highest form of punishment in the civil service – sacking.

Other senior MACC officers have taken a “no comments” policy and with grave silence. But at every press conference, the sedate mainstream media may remain silent on their own accord or from instructions from editors. However, those who consider themselves professional journalists will be expected to make the right call and raise the issue at all available avenues and at all appropriate times.

After all the brouhahas and publicity of their high-flying activities, including raids and swoops and the display of loads of money, the public has a right to expect the highest standards of conduct and integrity from those enforcing anti-corruption activities.

Appropriate action is necessary to uphold these standards. If not, the good name and reputation of the MACC will go down the gutter.

---

R NADESWARAN expects the highest standards and excellent conduct from public officials within and outside their office. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com- Mkini