The way forward to restore public trust

THE “differences in opinion” between the chairman and six members of the purportedly independent Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) Anti-Corruption Advisory Board (ACAB) is certainly a surprise to the public at large.

In the process, public trust in our anti-corruption body has taken a severe whipping. In light of ACAB chairman Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang’s comments to the press on Jan 11, members of the board, as persons of integrity, should summarily submit their letters of resignation to the Palace.

When both the ACAB chair and members have not performed to expectations and are now subject to public ridicule, an honourable exit is the only way forward.

The view expressed that the authorities are “free to investigate” is incongruous as it reflects the ineptitude of the board, which is supposed to be a check and balance mechanism to ensure independence, transparency and accountability of the MACC.

It must be noted that besides Abu Zahar, ACAB comprises a retired senior police officer, a prominent journalist, a former MACC officer who is a fraud investigator, an academic and two prominent corporate figures.

Much flak has been directed at the current MACC chief commissioner since allegations of him owning shares in public-listed companies emerged.

But his action in serving a legal suit against the whistleblower at the onset undermines the process of whistleblowing, which is crucial in light of the recent amendments to the MACC Act, including Section 17A to introduce corporate liability provision for bribery and corruption.

Meanwhile, the joint statement issued by the deputies to support their chief even before investigations commenced smacks of misplaced loyalty.

More importantly, there appears to be sidestepping and shadow play by the oversight bodies, whether the Advisory Board or Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel, in responding to legitimate queries.

A respected academic resigned from the MACC’s Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel, citing the body’s lethargy in speedily addressing the issue when it was brought up.

It is embarrassing to hear from the chair of the panel that the said academic’s communication lacked specificity, only to be rebutted that attachments in relation to the issue were included. One can well wonder that if this issue can be sidestepped by feigning ignorance on a communication from a respected academic, how many of such issues that were brought up by other junior members of the civil service or the public could have been subject to such a charade?

Is this the rot in public service alluded to by some?

The complete dismantling of the current membership of the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board and its other panels is the only way forward to restore faith in the system and the MACC’s check and balance mechanisms.

WALTER SANDOSAM

Member, MACC Oversight Panel 2009 – 2016

Kuala Lumpur