Corruption In Malaysia Has An Escape Clause

---

 

From Kua Kia Soong
The defection by former PKR vice-president Xavier Jayakumar to the Perikatan Nasional (PN) government just as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was closing in on him has exposed the MACC’s lack of commitment to a truly independent graft-busting mission that all decent Malaysians expect.
On this score, both Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalitions are equally guilty of treating corruption as a political game that is used against their opponents rather than a commitment to expose corruption irrespective of whether the corrupt happens to be a political friend or foe.
Back in 2016, PKR secretary-general Rafizi Ramli’s expose of corruption involving money and “women” for those wanting to deal with the Selangor government was made with the standard proviso that he “might take action unless …”
He said then that he received the complaint from a “bona fide person that apart from money, now there are also requests for women when dealing with the state government”.
This was not the first time we witnessed such a tolerance of corruption by PH leaders in which the alleged corrupt person involved is given a choice of following a course set out by the accusers in the coalition.
We saw the same gambit used to get rid of the former menteri besar of Selangor Khalid Ibrahim when PKR’s Saifuddin Nasution waved a file of alleged corrupt practices over Khalid’s head to force him to step down as menteri besar.
Since the day Khalid did indeed step down as menteri besar, we have heard nothing more of the alleged corruption scandals upon which his removal was apparently based.
Doesn’t the former menteri besar have to face these allegations of corrupt practices any more and does he not have to accept the consequences if found guilty?
Did the taxpayers of Selangor suffer any loss in state revenue because of the alleged wrongdoing? If so, should he not have to pay this back to Selangor taxpayers?
On the other hand, if the alleged corrupt practices levelled against Khalid were found to be concocted and/or untenable, don’t the PH leaders who were responsible for such irresponsible ruses (including the frivolous Kajang Move) have to face the consequences of their actions?
These are the questions Malaysians must ask whenever the MACC or the attorney-general decide to drop their cases without adequate justification to the public.
Revolving door of corruption prosecutions
The new normal of a political revolving door since the 14th general election (GE14) in 2018 – BN to PH and now back to BN/PN – is also proving to be a revolving door of corruption prosecutions.
We saw the BN politicians being charged with corruption over the 1MDB and other scandals after 2018 and these are ongoing cases which expose the behind-the-scenes tricks by these politicians.
Nonetheless, there are others implicated in the 1MDB scandal who seem to have escaped the MACC operation.
Now that the PH government has fallen simply because former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad lost the plot, we are now witnessing the reopening of the corruption cases involving PH politicians and which were rather foolishly dropped by the PH government after GE14.
Of course, the revolving door is maintained by the revolving series of MACC chairs and attorney-generals who are appointed by the government of the day.
From their decision-making, it seems that their mission is to punish the foes of the ruling coalition and to let off those who choose to be friendly, rather than ensuring that all who are corrupt, regardless of political persuasion, are brought to book.
Justice must be seen to be done
With this new normal of a revolving door of corruption prosecutions, it is not surprising that the public view such prosecutions with cynicism and scepticism.
The citizens of this country want to see justice done without fear or favour – regardless of political affiliation or socio-economic status, whether the sum involved in the corruption is RM2.6 billion (as in the case of the former prime minister) or RM2.6 million (as in the case of the former chief minister of Penang).
Justice should not only be done but should “manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.
The decisions by the MACC chair and the attorney-general are thus crucial to vindicate the public’s interest in upholding an honest government and an independent judicial system.
Whatever their political affiliations, it is the responsibility of all public servants to maintain a high ethical standard to serve the people effectively and honestly. This is easier said than done when these crucial posts are appointees of the prime minister of the day.
Zero tolerance for corruption
So, what does this tell us about the attitude of the PN and PH coalitions towards corruption? They have clearly shown us that they are prepared to tolerate corrupt practices if the guilty ones follow the coalition’s wishes.
This is totally unacceptable. In the reformed Malaysia that Malaysians yearn for, there must be zero-tolerance for corruption.
We expect every case of corruption to be reported to the relevant authorities, including corruption among the police, and nothing less than that. We also expect the MACC to follow through its investigation to the legitimate end.
Corrupt leaders and civil servants must be accountable to the people. Furthermore, they must pay back what they have corruptly obtained from the people and atone for their indiscretion.
This is irrespective of whether the amount of money involved is RM2.6 billion in their personal bank account or RM2.6 million that they paid for a house.
An effective and independent MACC
First and foremost, the head of the MACC should be appointed through a process that ensures their independence, impartiality, neutrality, integrity, apolitical stance, and competence.
Their appointment must be based on non-political and non-partisan criteria. The degree to which the MACC can function truly independently hinges on its ability to fight corruption effectively.
The principle that these agencies should be independent is axiomatic. Being free from undue influence is generally stated in the form of being free from politics.
The ideal is that the MACC is part of an “apolitical” law enforcement system and implements a clear set of laws to bring about the apprehension, conviction, and punishment of offenders.
There should in fact be a statutory or constitutional basis for a claim to independence, asserting autonomy and limiting the powers of the executive.
Other mechanisms relate to the appointment, continuity, removal, and remuneration of anti-corruption officials.
It is not difficult to find models of the least corrupt countries and their more independent anti-corruption commissions, such as Singapore and Hong Kong. These are Asian countries whose experiences can be emulated.
This concerted effort to root out corruption requires strong impartial leadership and commitment as well as a team of skilled investigators able to collaborate with other investigative and prosecuting bodies and accorded sufficient powers and resources to make its operations effective. Independence, therefore, means freedom from interference as well as the capacity to act.
To conclude, eradicating corruption from our midst involves enhancing the citizens’ voice, including press freedom; judicial reform, especially the creation of an “independent” judiciary; civil service employment reform; the removal of unnecessary layers of bureaucracy; tough anti-corruption laws, and the assurance of politically independent law enforcement agencies.
Thus, any coalition that wants our support at the next general election must first declare their commitment to such reforms and demonstrate that they are serious about ridding the country of this scourge. If our neighbouring country can, surely Malaysia can too.
Kua Kia Soong is adviser to human rights NGO, Suara Rakyat Malaysia. - FMT
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---