Turning MACC into a law unto itself

ARCHIVES 2010

By admin-s On Jul 3, 2010

Even with its reputation in tatters resulting from its questionable interrogation methods in the Teoh Beng Hock case, it is insistent that it will not allow a video camera into the room in which its officers will record a statement of a witness in London which they are going to conduct shortly. It will also not allow a lawyer to be present during the interview of the witness.

By Tunku Abdul Aziz

A certain member of Parliament heading an MACC committee has suggested that MACC should not only be given more money, as if the tens of millions of ringgit of government funds already dished out are still insufficient, but also the power to prosecute cases investigated by that organisation itself. A monstrous idea even if the MACC had a reputation for the highest professional integrity which, of course, it hasn’t. The fact of the matter is that this much touted independent corruption fighting outfit modelled on the Hong Kong ICAC continues to be regarded with a degree of disdain.

The MAC does not enjoy the cachet and the public trust and confidence of the Malaysian public. Only corrupt politicians and public servants have complete trust in the MACC, but, sadly, for all the wrong reasons. Someone somewhere has to have his head examined for even thinking of making the MACC a law unto itself. Has the YB concerned not heard of the need for a system of checks and balances or the vital necessity of avoiding a conflict of interest situation in the conduct of public affairs as a means of reducing corruption? The whole harebrained suggestion is akin to allowing the Attorney-General to double as a judge in a case he has decided as AG to prosecute! He may well relish the idea, but will justice be served in the process? Or perhaps we don’t care.

The MACC is apparently only good at bleating about insufficient funding. Many anti-corruption agencies in countries much larger and better endowed than Malaysia would drop on their knees to thank God the Almighty for a drop of what we apportion to the MACC to do the work expected of them, but sadly they have failed to deliver. It is really quite pointless defending them on the grounds that they are still new. The acronym MACC may be new, and we sometimes forget that this is the same old wine-turned vinegar presented in a new bottle. By continually saying that they need even more resources, they are publicly admitting, and Transparency International HQ in Berlin please note, that corruption in Malaysia has become endemic in the system and has assumed Sub-Saharan African proportions. By their own admission, they have failed to arrest the spiralling problem of corruption in this country.

If the corrupt are crawling thick on the ground, in their thousands, why is it that the MACC has been so singularly unsuccessful in pulling in the bigger species such as cabinet ministers, chief ministers, menteris besar and others of their ilk? By your failure, are you intimating that Malaysian public figures are men and women of probity, honour, integrity and totally incorruptible? The money you ask for will be there, but we want to see some results. Is that too much to ask of our MACC that is proudly trumpeted and proclaimed as being based on the Hong Kong anti-corruption model? You can adopt any model, but do not forget that external factors can only be as influential as your internal weaknesses will allow. To use a soccer analogy, do you think adopting the German soccer model will make the slightest bit of difference to the moribund Malaysian national soccer team?