MACC must respond to preserve its credibility

The week has seen a flurry of activity on the corruption front. Two individuals were summarily arrested on Nov 28. After this, things moved swiftly.

The duo has been charged in court, with no protection accorded under the Whistleblower Protection Act.

The two main men of the moment — whistleblower Albert Tei, primarily linked to the Sabah mining scandal earlier this year, and ex-political secretary to the prime minister Shamsul Iskandar Akin — featured prominently, albeit separately, in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) actions in bringing these rogues to book.

Inadvertently, unlike in television series where the bad guys are “booked”, another personality has been thrust into the limelight. MACC chief Azam Baki featured prominently in his role to either explain, rationalise or outright deny the actions of his officers.

There are allegations, true or unfounded, including from Tei’s wife, that threatening actions occurred, including a firearm pointed to Tei’s head, and confiscation of properties without acknowledgements being signed.

To further add spice, lawyers have come out to allege interference with client-solicitor privilege and the serving of notices on them, arising possibly to the perception that undue negative influence is being exerted even though all they are doing is executing their professional duties.

Could this chain of events, which saw the citing of provisions under Section 30 of the MACC Act 2009, be interpreted rightfully or wrongfully as intimidation (as claimed by lawyers), though not explicit? It is akin to soft porn — it’s there but also not there!

The Bar Council has also thrown its weight behind the lawyers claiming breaches of legal privilege. This is concerning, as normally they do not wade in. Somewhat similar comments have been attributable to other NGOs.

Do these allegations of high-handedness have merit, given the swift denials by MACC? That is the burning question. They detract from the “crimes” of both Tei and Shamsul!

Negative publicity is not good for any government agency. It affects the core of their existence when umbrage is taken. As enforcement agencies do not operate in a vacuum, the management of public perceptions and accountability are important. We are not a police state and should never be perceived as such.

The MACC chief commissioner has been swift in the defence of his officers on the events that happened during the arrest of Tei. This is ironic, as how does one defend actions if one was not physically present at the place where they allegedly occurred?

A possibility is that he had viewed the CCTV footage from Tei’s house and/or also seen the body camera footage. Hopefully it covered all angles. It is not uncommon to hear of blind spots, especially where there is the absence of non-interested parties.

What is the rationale for “it will be presented as evidence if it goes to court”? What if charges are dismissed or defence is not called for?

Either MACC has been high-handed and abused its power to arrest, or it has not. It has nothing to do with the bribery charge in court.

The previous episode of DBKL officers and a balloon seller’s arrest, which was captured on camera by passers-by, had a different ring as to what actually transpired and the explanations by the authorities. In Tei’s case, this is not so.

Nonetheless, to shed more light, an MP has called for the release of the CCTV footage and other related recordings. This will no doubt cast a better light on actual proceedings.

Hidden in the limelight, when all breaks loose, is the function of MACC’s complaints committee. It came into force in line with Section 15 of the MACC Act 2009. Nary a whisper has been heard.

It is not immediately verifiable if a formal complaint has been lodged with MACC’s independent oversight committee. Even if not, surely it is not oblivious to concerns raised.

Have the members forgotten their specific roles and explicit terms of reference? Maintaining an aura of silence far removed from present on-goings is a stain.

At the very least, the chairman should engage the media as to the committee’s current actions to address the melee. This will insulate MACC from distasteful and possibly repugnant comments.

If it chooses to maintain a dignified silence, then what is the committee there for? Somebody has to watch out for MACC – truth should be told.

As a past member who was appointed and served on two (out of five) of the MACC independent oversight panels, this opacity is both saddening and exasperating.

Is the committee a cohort of retired civil servants not wanting to rock the boat while all hell breaks loose? If it is, then the provisions of Section 15 have been buried forever!

The ante has been upped for MACC. It must respond to preserve its credibility. Why prolong tarnishing its image if CCTV and body camera recordings prove otherwise? We do not want a repeat of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s “black eye” episode to return to haunt us.

We must also bear in mind that there are already calls as to the status of the chief commissioner’s extension of service as a civil servant. Should Azam go?

 

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