If we’re looking for “independence” of MACC from Executive, there is none.

The MACC’s Commissioner is apointed by PM. He and all members of MACC are drawn from public service subject to general public service general orders for discipline! In fact the entire present Anti Corruption Agency (present DGI & Officers) will fill up the MACC, so what’s the difference – old wine in new bottle?

There are three other bodies advising MACC.

First the Advisory Board, 7 members, supposedly drawn from people of distinguished public service and profession, they are also apointed by PM. Their role is advisory.

This is not satisfactory because being ‘advisory’, MACC is not obliged to follow its advice. And even so, in terms of advice, the advice relates to general problem of corruption, broad strategies to tackle it, and efficient running of the MACC and its resource needs, which any academic of social science, with MBA on organisation behaviour and needs and even some of us here can render such advice.

The second is “Special Committee on Corruption” which merely, looks at Advisory Board’s annual reports, seek clarifications etc. With 7 members drawn from Parliament (can be drawn from those who utter profanities in Parliament as well) this is supposed to be parliamentary oversight!

The third is a Complaints Committee which being not so important have its 5 members appointed by Minister of Home Affairs, and whose function is to identify work procedures of MAC, look into coimplaints of “non criminal” in nature!

Correction on typos – “emanate” in 2nd para and “which in TURN depends on rakyat” in the 3rd.

YB Kit ,

As what Nazri Aziz said in relation to Judicial Appointments Commission, “how independent can you be? Somehow, somewhere, you must be appointed by somebody. For example, the Cheif Justice cannot just fly down from heaven and say, “God has appointed me, so I am independent!”- pg 13 The Star, 13th December.

To fight for “independence” principle, whether in relation to CJ or MACC Commissioner, we cannot criticise the lack of independence merely by reason of the appointment being made by the PM via the King.

In my opinion, this is fighting in the wrong arena, a wrong front.

This is because under the principle of representative government (ie a government of, for and by the people), the Prime Minister being, by convention, the head of the majority party/coalition that won the election, supposedly embodies the will/sovereignty of the majority of the people/electorate. It would be out of t he question to have the appointment made by Opposition Head or by some body like Bar Council that is not elected by the people!

Therefore to buttress the independence principle, you have to take the matter along lines that CJ or MACC Commissioner should have security of tenure protected and sanctioned not just by some legislation but by the basic law the Federal Constitution. We cannot mitigate the risks of political interference if either office is subject to the general orders applicable to all senior civil service public servants.

Also the report of MACC findings must be to Parliament at large not some advisory body comprising 7 MPs from both Houses with majority drawn from ruling coalition.

Of critical importance is the MACC’s independent right to investigate and prosecute which must not depend on Public Prosecutor/AG’s or the PM’s aproval, OK and consent. The lack of this independent power of investigation and prosecution is, in my belief, the fundamental weakness of MACC, defeating the very purpose why it is formed!

There must be life tenure subject to termination only if mental/physical heath disables him or if he otherwise is guilty of criminal acts or misconduct unworthy of office, with the nature of misconduct defined. There must be be some clause somewhere to say that he cannot be removed just becuase he incurs the displeasure of the government by executing his duty without fear or favour of political consequences.

Even such a provision for life tenure is not by itself sufficient to guarantee political independence. The holder of that position, being human, can succumb to blandishment of power and tempatation of huge payoff to make a political decision or not to remain in that position. Likewise there is no guarantee that even if a man of impeccable integrity and independence of mind were appointed as judge or MACC’s commissioner in the beginning, he will remain consistent throughout a tenure of job that you could protract as a life tenure in the above sense.

The battle has to be taken to other fronts, one of the most pivotal of which is independence of the Press.

For this to happen, one has to cause the repeal of the Printing Press Publications Act and liberalise press licenses so that different press representing different concerns and interest groups may proliferate, and hopefully the truth is not suppressed from being published amid the clash of a contrariety of different versions of what hapen or what should happen. This assumes that online publications and blogs are likewise not manacled.

Continuing from last para of my last posting –

A press, unmanacled by the govt, is the search light on the dark corners and recesses of political and bureaucatic landscape for sheninegans and corruption.

It is the exposure to public of wrong doing that is the lynchpin – that must come first to force the politicians to respond to public pressure or suffer the penalty of unpopularity and withdrawal of votes, even more than investigation by police or MACC or prosecution by enforcement agencies, and thereafter adjudication of guilt or innocence by the courts, that come way way way after nthe first exposure….

Although all – the Press, MACC, AG/Prosecutor and Courts – play a part and hence each ought to be as independent and free from executive interference as can be – the first agency (the Press) is of greater importance because it is the institution that first starts the ball of exposure rolling…..