Where Are Macc S Independent Committees

---

 
From Walter Sandosam
It appears Malaysia has taken a sabbatical on its laudable aim to improve on its rankings in the global Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).
Malaysia’s performance on the global CPI 2024 has remained the same — at 50 (raw score) and 57 (ranking), respectively — compared with 2023.
Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) points out: “We could have done better if not for the slow pace of reforms including several high-profile discharges not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) cases”.
Two reforms stand out: the separation of duties between the attorney-general and public prosecutor (given its relevance to perceptions on the DNAAs issued) and the more easily achievable amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (WPA).
There has been much deliberation, and many views have been expressed as to the extent to which the amendments should be made.
As a former member of the MACC operations review panel, I had written in the past that the WPA is meant to be exercised in good faith and not to be used as a “get out of jail” card by those indulging in corruption themselves.
An anti-graft body has come out with a debatable viewpoint premised on the “end justifies the means” rationale wherein it was argued that if one is serious about combating corruption, then anything goes.
It is argued that immunity should be the “carrot” offered under the law even if the said whistleblower was, in the most extreme instance, wholly involved, perhaps even to the extent of initiating the process of offering bribes.
This goes against the grain of any law proposed to ensure orderly social conduct. No law opens the barn door for anyone to the extent that there is unbridled immunity from prosecution irrespective of their own conduct. Ethics is important.
The MACC chief commissioner has weighed in on key improvements: protection should be extended to individuals who, under certain circumstances, are compelled to be involved in a case even if their role is minimal but still wish to come forward with information, as under the existing law, even the slightest involvement disqualifies them from protection.
On another note, sadly, in the past, some politicians, in their search for fame, turned reporting on corrupt activities into a circus event. The media was alerted before the authorities which could lead to evidence or witness tampering.
The backdrop to this is that some quarters are questioning the perception that in a mining case in Sabah, action has not been as robust as expected. It is reasoned that there could be an element of politics in the equation.
The whistleblower in this case, who was an active participant, had wanted a guarantee of immunity from the MACC. It was not forthcoming. As reasoned by an experienced lawyer, the fear was that the whistleblower may be prosecuted while the other participants, given they are politicians, may not.
Hence the question: if the WPA was meant to attract whistleblowers in good faith, then should not any requested guarantee also be given in good faith by the MACC?
Has this line of argument, or logic, any merit? If so, amendments to WPA are superfluous.
Therein lies the dilemma. The Sabah case has to a certain extent undermined the credibility of the MACC, notwithstanding chief commissioner Azam Baki’s contention that the evidence is either insufficient or lacks credibility. This on the back of the many videos currently circulating. It has also attracted a viewpoint from a former deputy law minister among others.
The credibility of the graft busters was expected to be holistically addressed with the enactment of the MACC Act 2009. It called for an advisory board and other independent oversight panels as a “check and balance” mechanism should comments be made on credibility.
The MACC website indicates that it is “in the process of appointing new members’” to the advisory board. Are there no appointees competent enough to take up the appointments?
As for the “independent” operations review panel, which now consists mainly of ex-civil servants as opposed to a broader societal mix, nothing has been heard.
This is much unlike the years just after the Act, when the chairman of the panel would hold press briefings, without the presence of MACC officers, to share developments on “hot” corruption cases. Credibility was addressed.
The fight against corruption and ascension in global rankings is not made easier when issues of credibility arise, either in perception or reality.
While addressing WPA amendments which do not compromise on integrity issues, let’s also do the homework on “restoring” any nuances which question the credibility of the graft buster. Back to basics – the MACC Act provisions. - 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.

---