On 26 September, Bloomberg released a report citing three sources who claimed that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim had ordered Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief Azam Baki not to investigate Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak over the latter’s purchase of shares in HeiTech Padu Bhd.
Bloomberg had also reported that Azam had stated to MACC officials that Anwar had instructed him to launch investigations into former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, his three sons and former finance minister Daim Zainuddin instead.
The prime minister’s office and the MACC have both denied these allegations repeatedly.
Nonetheless, the credibility of the MACC remains under question while it is placed under the purview of the prime minister’s office, tainting any and all enforcement operations with the perception that they are politically motivated.
The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center) thus strongly urges the government to pursue MACC independence reforms in order to remove it from the control of the prime minister’s office.
Since Anwar Ibrahim’s ascent to leadership, the spate of arrests and investigations against politicians, both sitting and former, undertaken by the MACC have led many, especially those in the opposition coalition, to accuse Anwar of using the MACC as a political tool for silencing and intimidating his opponents.
For a prime minister who has touted himself and his administration as being committed to good governance principles, this latest report by Bloomberg is especially damaging to Anwar’s reputation. It comes amid the rising voices of discontent who have also questioned why certain individuals remain part of Anwar’s administration – namely Deputy PM Zahid Hamidi and Trade, Investment and Industry Minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz – both of whom are strongly alleged to be involved in massive corruption scandals.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a regular pledge or periodic auto-donation to Aliran
- Become an Aliran member
Investigations against Zahid and the subsequent discharge not amounting to an acquittal, in particular, have led many to doubt Anwar’s commitment to anti-corruption, and emboldened his critics in the opposition to challenge his stance.
The allegations of abuse of power by Anwar in directing the MACC’s operations are understandable. Even though the MACC is an enforcement agency with powers to conduct investigations, make arrests and make submissions to initiate prosecutions via the attorney general against individuals under the MACC Act 2009 – powers analogous to that of the police – it falls under and receives funding via the prime minister’s office.
The appearance of undue influence does not end there, as MACC chief commissioner Azam’s continued service is as controversial, having been appointed and reappointed to the position pursuant to Sections 5(1) and (2) of the MACC Act 2009.
While the provisions of the act stipulate that the appointment is made by the Agong on the advice of the PM, the application of Article 40(1A) of the Federal Constitution implies that the term “on the advice” minimises the role of the Agong in these instances to a formality, meaning that the PM was entirely responsible for the decision to reappoint Azam Baki.
This is clearly a demonstration of conflict of interest – how is the MACC chief supposed to carry out their duty impartially when their position is arbitrarily decided by the prime minister?
On 7 October, Azam further hit back against criticism, stating that it was “unfair”, reaffirming he did not take instructions from anyone, and that MACC’s functions were performed in accordance with the law.
This defence is mind-boggling and puerile because it belies a complete lack of understanding of the perception of governance both from the perspective of the public and the opposition.
The public has no way of knowing of the decision-making processes that take place behind the scenes, and opposition leaders are going to find any avenue to criticise the government and its institutions, regardless.
The clear solution to win public confidence and to reduce the avenues by which the opposition makes criticism in this context is to reform the MACC.
Regrettably, the government has opted to take a far worse route to dispelling criticism by the opposition. On 8 October, former Umno supreme council member Isham Jalil was called in for police questioning regarding his Facebook post, where he challenged the prime minister to sue Bloomberg for its reporting – which is tantamount to an intimidation tactic to silence criticism.
One step forward, one step back
Even in the instances where Anwar’s government attempts to commit to the reform of issues such as appointments to oversight and enforcement institutions, they fall flat when measured against previous similar initiatives.
The national anti-corruption strategy for 2024-2028 – a document meant to spell out the government’s plans in implementing anti-corruption measures and reforms – stipulates that relooking at the requirements for the appointment and dismissal of the MACC chief commissioner shall be a long-term sub-strategy, with an anticipated period of four to five years for implementation.
One need not look very far back in the past to see that this is a watered-down version of a similar strategy in the national anti-corruption plan for 2018-23, which proposed a public appointments bill to “regulate the exercise of Executive Power in respect of Public Appointments to certain constitutional and statutory offices”.
The facts at present do not lead to any clear conclusions about what comes next. The possibilities that arise do not bode very well for good governance in Malaysia. If the identity of Bloomberg’s source was to be discovered, they will not be likely to receive whistleblower protection under current laws because the protections are only granted when complaints are made to enforcement bodies – but how is one expected to blow the whistle to the very enforcement agency they are blowing the whistle against? Both of these situations, while hypothetical, are very real possibilities and would be significant steps backward in terms of governance.
Anwar and his administration must be made to know that the best way forward that does not compromise good governance is to pursue reform of the MACC, which includes disentangling the institution from the prime minister’s office and introducing a new mechanism by which the chief commissioner is selected.
C4 Center has long campaigned for complete independence of the MACC from the executive branch of government, proposing that the entire institution be placed under the purview of Parliament, possibly through a constitutional amendment.
In addition, the proposal for the parliamentary Special Select Committee on Corruption to be tasked with the nomination of commissioners to the anti-corruption commission was made.
The government must come to the realisation that these reforms are not just important principally but also time-sensitive as well. Anwar’s administration has been facing a growing amount of criticism for its inability to address corruption adequately despite paying lip service to it so often. The public trust deficit is ever-expanding.
Preserving the public’s faith in the administration makes it imperative that the government expedite good governance reforms such as these. The government would do well to remember that it does not rule by a majority, and that 2020 has shown us that the politics of the nation can change in an instant – goodwill and faith are finite resources and will dry up if not managed. – C4 Center
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme