Wrong perception of MACC

THERE is much misconception and hence confusion about the role of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) as an investigation body in line with the provisions contained in the MACC Act 2009.

Some quarters have erroneously said that MACC has prosecutorial powers. This is a gross misstatement, which reflects a lack of understanding of the Constitution.

If indeed the MACC has such prosecutorial powers, then it can act as judge, jury and executioner at the stroke of a pen.

Of recent interest is the statement by the de facto Law Minister in relation to a certain political coalition’s funds for GE15. A senior politician had implied that the funds partly came from gaming companies.

Her statement is that the “MACC has only stated that no investigation papers have been opened thus far due to the general nature of the information obtained.”

It should be noted that there was much said by a professional body pursuant to the statement made in Parliament by the Law Minister in response to a query on another investigation, with words like “undermining the independence” of another institution being used. It included criticising the Attorney-General as an “abject failure”.

Is our institutional framework on the separation of powers going to the dogs?

On the question of an investigation paper being opened, this is not to be taken lightly. As part of the checks and balances mechanism in the MACC, an investigation once opened cannot be closed without being deliberated first at the Operations Review Panel, an oversight body consisting of independent members of the public who are appointed for three-year terms.

As a past member of this panel, I can attest that the head of investigations must provide detailed explanations to explain why any investigation once opened is to be closed.

It could be due to various factors, including lack of witnesses and credibility of evidence, as the standards of the AG must be met for a person or persons to be charged. Hence, the opening of investigation papers is not to be taken lightly. It is also a means to check that investigations are not closed due to “political pressure”.

It is in this context that placing the MACC under the EAIC (Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission) or any other oversight body is superfluous.

On the issue of political funds being contributed by gambling companies, the crux of the matter is whether or not any law has been breached.

There is no political funding law at present to legitimise or de-legitimise any sources of funding, be they local or foreign.

Thus far, our politicians have failed miserably in enacting such legislation on funds to drive political financing. So why is this shadow-play on funds purportedly being derived from the proceeds of gambling being conducted?

If anything, it is a moral issue over which the voting public is the best judge.

It appears that these are just “political sound bytes”, which lack merit to warrant an investigation.

The MACC is not to play the role of moral police by any stretch of the law. Politicians should just go on and sue each other in a court of law and leave investigation agencies to go about doing what by law falls under their purview.

WALTER SANDOSAM

Kuala Lumpur