Malaysia must move past lip service to rebuild war against corruption

The fight against corruption which includes abuse of power, in line with Section 23 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, is never over. It continues on multiple fronts.

Recently, like the summer wind, there has been a whiff of fresh air blowing in. Gone is the old, in the form of the just-retired-but-not-short-of-controversy MACC chief commissioner, Azam Baki.

A new chief, a retired judge, and therefore well-schooled in the law of the land, has been ushered in.

He will know that the four cornerstones of an effective anti-corruption ecosystem are: knowledgeable investigators (MACC), effective prosecutors (Attorney-General’s Chambers), a judicious citizenry (public) and, last but not least, unbiased leadership with political will and acumen (government).

Compromise on any of these elements and the battle is lost. Lip service from politicians who have their own agenda or play to the gallery does not suffice.

These are the first words of caution to the learned ex-judge!

Early comments include proposals on asset declarations and transfers of some of the serving cohort at MACC who may have outlived their shelf life.

New blood, conversant in digital technology — and devoid of the shackles of past inertia and perceived selective investigations — should change the landscape.

The continuing breath of fresh air is the five leadership principles expounded by the newly-appointed MACC chief commissioner. Hopefully it does not find disproportionate pushback.

Whilst obviously well read, a useful reference book on matters of corruption is titled Overcoming Corruption: the Essentials, published in 2010 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and authored by Bertrand De Seville, a former solicitor-general and ex-head of Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Far from being anything like a wordy War and Peace novel, it is a practical handbook — just 80 pages long — written in straightforward English, and most importantly, grounded in real hands‑on experience.

He draws on the examples of Hong Kong and Singapore which now rank in the upper tiers of the global Corruption Perception Index.

Hong Kong was once a cesspool of corruption, with entrenched graft in the police force and gangsterism sustained by protection‑money rackets. In the case of Singapore, the single-mindedness of its then prime minister in eradicating corruption bore much positivity.

Malaysia can emulate these successes. It is not rocket science. Political will is crucial.

Compromise on integrity and governance frameworks are out the window. This is further input to the learned judge turned graft buster.

In this context, on another front, the deputy inspector-general of police has taken a strong stance on corruption in the police force. Some senior cops are now on the radar of the Independent Police Conduct Commission, an alternative channel for public complaints. The key word is integrity.

It is also heartening to note that police commissioner M Kumar has completed investigations into two cases that recently made headlines, both involving police reports lodged against the immediate past MACC chief commissioner.

All said and done, asset declarations, high conviction rates in corruption cases, staff transfers, digitalisation, and educational programmes may sound impressive, yet they fall by the wayside when public perception of the MACC’s integrity and trustworthiness remains sorely lacking.

In this context, various stakeholders have continued to renew calls for transparency regarding asset declarations, specifically on whether the shareholding of a senior civil servant was properly reported.

A special task committee was constituted, yet days have passed, but the promise of transparency remains shrouded in silence.

Given this scenario, it is indeed an astute observation: what is the purpose of declaring assets, whether personal or family, when no authority conducts routine audits to verify the submissions? Following on: what remediation steps exist for cases of non‑adherence?

Again, it is not rocket science. It can be operationalised speedily.

The Azam episode has left a bitter after taste. The public is wary — not on corruption per se — but on integrity, trust and accountability. Who is calling the shots on releasing the results of the purported “investigations” by the special committee?

Surely the chief secretary does not have that much power or influence, being a mere civil servant, in this unpleasant and worrisome episode.

Let’s cut to the chase and speak intelligently. The four cornerstones articulated earlier are not set on sound footing. Its robustness has been, and is continuing to be, compromised.

Those elected on the platforms of reform and curtailment of corruption are now pale shadows of themselves. The public has been shortchanged but lip service on integrity, transparency and integrity continues unabated; ironically with more gusto.

Verbal articulations from politicians on what is expected of the MACC and how the public should play its part in combating corruption ring hollow when some outstanding matters still continue to irk the public at large.

Hence, it is not surprising that corruption is now considered systemic, especially in the civil service, with inferences of selective investigations.

Corruption hinges on perception. If it is perceived, rightly or wrongly, that political will is either lacking or missing altogether, the battle is lost.

What the new chief commissioner can bring to the table is left to be seen. We can only wish him the best.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.