Unforced errors of corruption

SOMETIMES it takes the involvement of a prominent individual to highlight the weaknesses of systems and institutions that are supposed to serve everyone.

The tennis world and beyond is gripped by Novak Djokovic’s attempts to compete at the Australian Open: if the World No.1 wins it for the 10th time, he will have won more Grand Slams than any man in history. Currently, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Djokovic hold 20 titles each; as a long-time fan of Swiss maestro Federer, I don’t want him to be bested.

Djokovic’s ordeal upon entering Australia has earned him sympathy even from critics who have long deemed him overemotional (he hit a ball in frustration that struck a lineswoman leading to disqualification from the 2020 US Open).

But his detractors now include millions who think it unacceptable that Djokovic remains unvaccinated against Covid-19 and yet still wants to compete around the world.

During the pandemic, Australia has had infamously tough criteria for entry and crossing state borders, including for its own citizens. Frustration among people subjected to repeated lockdowns obviously boils to anger when a rich and famous anti-vaxxer is able to be exempted.

Djokovic believed he met the exemption requirements of Tennis Australia and the Victorian state government (including anonymised assessments from two independent panels) before flying into the country, and the judge, in overturning the Australian government’s visa cancellation, asked “What more could this man have done”.

As I write, Djokovic has admitted to not isolating after a positive Covid-19 result and making a false declaration that he did not travel for 14 days prior to arriving in Australia (though he has said the latter was an “administrative error”).

This may make another visa cancellation more likely, but no doubt there will be a response. Djokovic has become a cause célèbre for anti- vaxxers and conspiracists who will protest loudly and possibly violently.

Separately, the indefinite detention of asylum seekers in poor conditions at Djokovic’s hotel has been spotlighted, besides the Serbian president decrying the “maltreatment” of his citizens.

Attitudes to vaccination add to diplomatic differences: only 47% of Serbians are fully vaccinated compared with 78% of Australians.

That is just behind Malaysia at 79%, and as we get our booster shots it is worth celebrating that when it comes to Covid-19 vaccinations, we are comparatively more united than many other societies, even though criticism is often hurled at Malaysian ministers, civil servants and public health advisers.

Public confidence in the medical community has been a key ingredient in that.

At the same time, public confidence in political institutions and oversight bodies has remained low to the point of cynicism and ridicule.

Recent weeks have seen the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) being embroiled in a saga following allegations – and a dramatic resignation by MACC panellist Prof Dr Edmund Terence Gomez – against its chief commissioner. To add further confusion, an exonerating statement from the MACC advisory board chairman was then contradicted by a separate statement from its six other members.

The allegations pertain to the quantity and manner of acquisition of company shares and possible conflicts of interest, and already there are sarcastic memes riding on the public’s scepticism from other recent instances of corruption (“I don’t know how the money got there”, “Someone else used my account”) and high expectations of officials, especially those responsible for fighting corruption.

Naturally, politicians and parties (sometimes in opposition to their own colleagues or wings) have taken positions defending or attacking the person involved; another practice is to attack the media for “misreporting” or provoking public anger.

Meanwhile, NGOs have repeated their calls for the MACC to be placed under Parliament rather than the Prime Minister’s Department.

These calls are not new. Back in 2012, Ideas (the Institute for Demo-cracy and Economic Affairs) released a policy paper entitled “Boosting MACC Independence for Greater Public Confidence”, of which two conclusions were that there must be greater involvement of Parliament, and that the chief commissioner should be openly recruited.

If those suggestions had been adopted back then, we probably would not be in this quagmire today, for the process of appointing the top corruption buster would have been transparent, and in the event of any alleged wrongdoing, Parliament would explicitly have the power to investigate and take action.

Such reform is also in the interests of a potential chief commissioner accused of wrongdoing too, for their claims of innocence could also be verified according to an established process instead of competing press statements and vague investigations with no timeline.

As I said at the beginning, sometimes it takes the involvement of a prominent individual to highlight the weaknesses of systems and institutions that are supposed to serve everyone. Whether the individuals concerned are right or wrong, the real test of political leadership is in enacting reforms to prevent such débâcles from recurring.

Tunku Zain Al-’Abidin is founding president of Ideas (Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs). The views expressed here are the writer’s own.