Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chairman Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad’s description of the PAC as having “No bite but we can chase the truth” will not be agreed by many.

In an interview with New Sunday Times, Shahrir had responded in a Q & A as follows:

Q: Some have described the PAC as a toothless tiger.

A: We cannot bite because we are not an enforcement agency.

But we can exert enough pressure and provide the relevant agencies, like the ACA, enough evidence.

The ACA works closely with us.

We are also free to revisit any case at any time we want if we are not happy with the follow-up action.

We have the power to order a review of the case, like what we did with the Middle Ring Road 2.

For us, a case is never closed.

Shahrir’s answer begs two questions:

Firstly, how many cases can the PAC claim credit as having provided the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) with enough evidence to prosecute, let alone convict, corrupt or errant public officials. As far as I know, the PAC score on this is zero. I am prepared to be proven wrong by Shahrir.

Secondly, can the PAC really pursue a case to the highest reaches of responsibility to get to the very bottom of every instance of mismanagement of public funds? Read the rest of this entry »