From Walter Sandosam
It looks like it’s open season on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). It’s a crying shame and a millstone around the neck in the war against corruption.
The commission was birthed with much promise under the premiership of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in early 2009 with the enactment of the MACC Act 2009 to eradicate selective investigations and to manifest its independence from political interference.
Fourteen years on and we are in the same quagmire of what some opine as pervasive corruption, namely in the public services, and insinuations of “playing politics”.
The prime minister’s comment – “MACC is an independent body and has the right to conduct an investigation against any party” – was issued pursuant to a Federal Court decision on Feb 24.
A seven-member panel of the Federal Court had ruled that the investigation conducted by MACC against Justice Nazlan Ghazali was done without regard for judicial independence and protocols.
“Investigative bodies like MACC must consult the chief justice before (initiating) the probe. Their failure to inform shows that there was a lack of bona fide on their part” were the comments of Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.
Lack of bona fide, to the layman, imputes sinister motives. This is most damning.
As a previous member of the initial cohort appointed to the oversight panels of MACC, I find that the comments of the chief justice are piercing, to say the least, on the integrity of a government institution.
In all this, the public is still none the wiser as to the purported funds in the account of a sitting judge. How long is the “correct process” to be? Are the investigations ultra vires?
If there is no truth in the matter, speedy closure is the best course. Truth is the best balm.
The prime minister did not earn any points in talking about “independence”. It earned an immediate rebuttal. An anti-graft NGO has scoffed at Anwar Ibrahim’s statement that MACC is an independent body, noting that Pakatan Harapan (PH) had been critical of the agency in the past.
The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) said PH leaders had previously levelled allegations that MACC was being used to force them to support former prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin. “So how can the prime minister now say that MACC is an independent body when it was his comrades in the past who had accused it of being a political tool?” it asked.
As a refresher, the comments of a politician, who is a senior figure at PKR, inter alia “when we win, we will come looking for you” (aimed at MACC chief Azam Baki) springs to mind. Why?
The prime minister had intimated that MACC was independent as it had five oversight bodies overseeing it. Where were these bodies in relation to the unflattering and critical comments by the chief justice on “bona fide”?
Unfortunately, the advisory board lost all credibility when divergent statements were issued in relation to a share trading issue involving Azam.
The operations review panel is currently composed largely of ex-civil service officers when the constituents were meant to be drawn from various walks of life, including professional associations. What happened here and who was responsible in recommending them to be appointed by the then prime minister in 2022 (term 2022-24).
The consultation and prevention of corruption panel had its share of brickbats pursuant to its ineffectiveness as highlighted by an eminent economist who had resigned from the panel to mark his displeasure over the ineptitude of the panel, again relating to the shares issue.
The above three of the five oversight bodies have much to answer for in relation to the noble objectives of the MACC Act 2009. It is shameful that these have collectively maintained a “dignified” silence instead of being on the forefront on issues relating to MACC such as the comments offered by the judiciary and/or other interested parties.
It appears the constituents are just decorative instruments unable to discharge their functions as mandated. Either way it is a sad turn of events in Malaysia’s fight against corruption.
The current MACC model demands a rethink and reboot. Who has the mettle for this? - FMT
Walter Sandosam was an MACC oversight panel member from 2009-2016.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.