The Failure of Our Institutions

ARCHIVES 2011

By admin-s On Jun 15, 2011

It was either a sign that MACC did not fully understand its functions as an agency or was reflective of an institution which exists just as a Christmas decoration on a very colourful street in GagaLand.

By Art Harun

When MACC opened a Twitter account some months ago, I was actually pleasantly surprised that it chose to follow my twitter account. I promptly decided to return the compliment by following MACC on Twitter.

From then on, I could read MACC’s instant reports of the Teoh Beng Hock RCI proceedings on Twitter. I must say it was a good initiative by MACC. Kudos to whoever that was in MACC who decided to utilise the social-networking facility by engaging the cyber-society through Twitter.

During the height of the Sarawak election campaign, I decided that it was about time that I had a two-way communication with MACC over Twitter. Conscious of the fact that the biggest election issue for that election was the alleged wealth – which were not rebutted and categorically denied – of Taib Mahmud and his family members, I decided to tickle MACC’s feet with a question.

My question to MACC over Twitter was “why doesn’t MACC investigate the wealth of Taib Mahmud?”

I did that because from what I gathered over various reports – which I must say were unconfirmed but were not met by firm denials – Taib Mahmud and his family members own vast properties in Sarawak, Canada and other countries. The wealth imputed to him and his family would, if proven to be true, far exceed the amount of his salaries, allowances, bonuses and perks as a Chief Minister, even if it is assumed that he spent all those income on acquiring properties and nothing else throughout his tenure as the Chief Minister of Sarawak.

To my simple mind, surely Taib Mahmud has a lot to explain on how he managed to acquire such vast properties during his tenure as the Chief Minister. If he said that he was a good businessman who manage to accumulate such wealth, then the next question would be where did he find the time to undertake such businesses when he should really be managing Sarawak on full time basis.

So I asked MACC the above question on Twitter.

The reply which I got from MACC was disappointing, to say the least. It was either a sign that MACC did not fully understand its functions as an agency or was reflective of an institution which exists just as a Christmas decoration on a very colourful street in GagaLand.

The reply was “we need proof, we will investigate only when there is proof.” Or something to that effect.

And so I shot back, “isn’t the function of investigation to find proof?”

I did not get any reply to that one till today.

My public engagement with MACC thus met with an early termination.

MACC perhaps does not really understand what its functions as an investigative agency are. May I put it in simple term.

When there are any report of alleged corruption or abuse of power, MACC is supposed to investigate. If the reports are clear enough, MACC does not even have to wait for the public to lodge a report. Any of its officers can lodge a report to start the ball rolling.

MACC does not wait for proof. MACC is supposed to find the proof by investigating into the matter. The purpose of investigation is to get proof. If there are proof, there is no real necessity for and investigation. Get it, MACC?

In any event, the real purpose of an investigation is not to get proof. It is to get information and evidence. It is not for MACC to proof anything at all. When MACC completes the investigation, it has to compile all the information and evidence and send it to the Attorney General Chambers.

The AGC is then supposed to decide whether all the information and evidence gathered by MACC constitute sufficient proof to prosecute the person being investigated. It is not then for MACC top proof anything. The burden of proving guilt is on the AGC if and when it decides go prosecute.

Get it, MACC? Or do you want me to spell that out in Bahasa Melayu?