MACC: Ruthless or toothless?
By Melody Song (The Edge)
When outgoing Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi pushed through a bill to enact the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in December 2008, it was understandable that it was greeted with mixed reactions.
The Opposition regarded the bill warily, proposing some 14 amendments during the 20-hour debate. All were shot down.
The first sign that the MACC seemed to target the Opposition was when Chief Commissioner Datuk Sri Haji Ahmad Said Hamdan said there was “strong evidence” that Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim had abused his powers. He was talking about cows and cars.
Khalid was accused of using state funds to maintain his private vehicle and purchased 46 sacrificial cows for slaughter in his Bandar Tun Razak constituency during Hari Raya Korban. The case was then sent to the attorney-general’s office.
Given the number of complaints lodged against Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN) politicians – many of whom have been in office much longer – and the seemingly slow investigations into those cases, MACC is seen by many to be a ruthless instrument of the government to use against the Opposition.
The Malaysian Bar Council was wary as well: "When launching the MACC, the Prime Minister gave the advice that the MACC must not end up with the same perceptions that afflicted the ACA — of not being independent, of being a toothless tiger, of practising selective enforcement and of not being professional in their investigations, all of which damaged the ACA's reputation and credibility."
Unfortunately, the three-month-old MACC appears to exhibit the shortcomings of its predecessor, the ACA.
Political analyst Wong Chin Huat says MACC is widely seen as selectively persecuting critics of the government, which has forced it down the same road as the Malaysian Police Force.
“They are seen as incompetent, ineffective and a tool for political persecution. This is very unfortunate,” he says.
The public agrees. According to a survey done by independent pollsters Merdeka Center, only 48% of the 1,018 registered voters polled were confident that the MACC would be an effective tool to fight corruption.
With the MACC’s recent probe into allegations surrounding Tourism Minister Datuk Azalina Othman Said and Umno Supreme Council member Norza Zakaria for money politics ahead of the Umno General Assembly, it might seem like the anti-corruption body may not be so biased after all. But not so fast.
Wong says that people have the impression that those who are charged are not necessarily the most corrupt, but the ones who have fallen out of favour with the powers that be. Both Azalina and Norza are widely regarded as Abdullah loyalists.
Political analyst Ong Kian Ming concurs. “It’s mainly those who are expendable.”
Transparency International Malaysia’s President Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam is willing to give the MACC the benefit of the doubt.
“The MACC is not the ACA. We have to be fair; it is still too early to judge,” he says.
He gave examples of how in Hong Kong, it took the public three to four years to accept that the now-revered Independent Commission Against Corruption, which the MACC seeks to emulate. It too was a better version of its predecessor, the Police Anti-Corruption Branch.
To improve public perception of the MACC, Ramon said that the MACC would need to display an even hand to slowly increase confidence in its abilities.
“The past is the past,” he said, referring to the ACA.
Political analyst Ong has a more simplistic benchmark for gauging MACC’s credibility.
“People want to see if Azalina or Norza actually go to jail.”
