Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
From Our Readers

Recently I read an article which asked the lawmakers to give ‘greater strength’ for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to combat corruption.

According to this writer, the government is serious in tackling corruption. What MACC needs now is more power from the legislature. The commission must have more autonomy and independence, particular in the appointment and termination of its chief commissioner and also an independent service commission to oversee the appointment and discipline of MACC officials.

I am sorry, this is what I gathered - when we are incapable of the substance, we just need to concentrate more on the form.  

Hence, when we upgraded from an anti-corruption ‘agency’ to a ‘commission’, that was supposed to be an improvement. When five oversight panels were formed to give ‘advice’ to MACC, it was also another improvement. I think this writer has forgotten to add one more - when a minister in charge of integrity was appointed, voila, we have achieved another feather in the cap.  

Apparently, it is still not enough. Now they are talking about lack of independence and power of MACC. They want security of tenure of for its chief commissioner, an independent service commission just for MACC and new laws governing unexplained wealth, awarding of tenders, contracts, government projects and land alienation which the MACC found inadequate to investigate.  

I am not particularly against the above mentioned proposals, but I doubt their uselessness. If we do not have the political will and the seriousness to tackle corruption, what we do not need are more red herrings.  

If the number of independent panels is a measure of anti-corruption efforts, I think we should form 10 panels instead of five. If one integrity minister is to indicate the government’s uncompromising effort against corruption, I suggest we appoint another few more. After all, with our bloated cabinet, two or three more integrity ministers will not make much of a difference.  

Now they are asking for more laws and amendments to existing laws to combat corruption. To me no laws are able to cover all eventualities and possibilities. What we need is relentless and tenacious application of laws without fear and favour that will ensure their effectiveness.  

I believe we have more than enough provisions and regulations governing the conduct and ethical behaviour of public officials where court or departmental actions can be taken against them if we are serious in wanting to combat abuse of power and corruption. So please stop complaining about lack of power and jurisdiction. I do not have to remind that the MACC does have lots of power, even to interview witnesses.  

Singapore only has a bureau, the Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau (CPIB), to tackle corruption. I don’t think Singapore’s tendering processes, including its periodic land auctions, procurement procedures, and award of government projects are anything more elaborate and stringent than us.  

But I guess there is only one difference - the officials there know if they have done wrong, they will be investigated professionally and promptly and punished quickly without fear and favour.  

The ‘geography of corruption’

Fighting corruption is not easy, but I think it is not difficult either if we are resolute enough. It is not difficult to discern corruption if we are observant enough. Some years back, I read an article by a town planner who wrote about the ‘geography of corruption’, i.e. there is a landscape of corruption which can be quite easily identified in any country.   

When you see a building that was not supposed to there, you know someone has taken some money to approve it. When you see uncollected rubbish, you know someone was paid but did not carry out his job. When you see opulent living beyond comprehension, you know someone has easy money. When you see irrational decisions in awarding contracts, tenders and procurement, you know compromise has taken place.  

We can’t see the baloney going on because we choose not to see it, not because we lack power or resources. So please stop giving more excuses. In fact, more power given to an agency unable to exercise it professionally and fairly is even dangerous.   

ADS