Wong Chun Wai, please rethink as MACC advisor
By Helen Ang (CPI)
The royal commission of inquiry (RCI) was approved yesterday but it will not look into the cause of Teoh Beng Hock's death. The circumstances of his death are to be determined at an inquest presided over by a magistrate while investigations remain in the hands of the police.
Hence the RCI scenario is like two bald men fighting over a comb. Both sides are the follically-challenged opponents who will want their own appointees in the RCI.
But at the end of it all, though I don't doubt that the RCI will do a good job within its narrow terms of reference, what will eventually become of its findings? The RCI on police had compiled a thick volume but we've not seen any action to rein in the force since the IPCMC report was published in May 2005.
Also do please recall that MACC is already supposed to have been reformed, and only early this year. It's old ACA wine in new bottle, rebranded on January 1, 2009.
Prime Minister Najib Razak revealed yesterday as well that the RCI will have the purview to look into MACC investigative procedures.
Wasn't MACC advised as to what constitute best practices, including in the area of 'investigative procedures' before the show hit the road? After all, MACC has 42 eminent consultants sitting on various panels, committees and advisory boards providing oversight. Which begs the next question: Are the 42 Tun, Tan Sris, Datuks and assorted VIPs aware that MACC still hasn't put in place acceptable investigative procedures?
If the distinguished panelists are indeed aware that MACC standard operating procedures are flawed, then why did they consent to give their seal of approval by lending their names and conferring legitimacy to the enterprise?
