One-man rule in MACC appointment

COMMENT | Many people may be agitated at Latheefa Koya’s appointment as MACC chief because of her political history. She, after all, occupied a high position in PKR and was a vocal supporter of a faction.

However, I think the main concern with the appointment was not the outcome, but the process. It is one of the most obvious violations of a Pakatan Harapan manifesto and principle.

When Harapan promised in their manifesto to return the appointment process of the MACC chief to the people, what they meant was to divest some of the decision-making power out of the prime minister.

At that time, Najib could simply sack the MACC officials who were unfavourable to him and appoint as chief the one who would never open an investigation against him.

Harapan thought that this had made the MACC subservient to the political wishes of the prime minister; the independence of this institution had been thoroughly compromised.

The solution, as Harapan suggested, was to ensure that the appointment of the MACC chief was not the sole prerogative of the prime minister.

One of the avenues was to include a parliamentary select committee in the appointment process so that the people’s voices - through their elected representatives - could be heard.

Of course, the parliamentary select committee’s opinion will not have a legal effect on the appointment, nor is there an existing constitutional provision necessitating a parliamentary opinion.

However, Harapan was chasing for a higher principle of accountability: no more absolute and concentrated power by the prime minister.

Chasing politicians

The reason why accountability particularly matters in the appointment of the MACC chief is the corruption of elected officials is what the public cares for the most.

We live in a time where corruption of politicians is taken as a given, and we are the host to the largest heist ever recorded in history: 1MDB.

If the MACC chief is not completely independent from the person who appoints him or her, then the system would not function properly.

When it comes to principle, personalities do not matter.

That means it doesn’t matter if the prime minister is a crook like Najib or a person who is sincere in wanting to crack down on corruption like Mahathir.

We must protect the principle of accountability before the familiar chapters of Najib appointing subservient MACC chiefs comes back to haunt us.

If we ensured there was parliamentary and cabinet consultation, the next prime minister who doesn’t pass the appointment process to another accountability channel like the parliament would invite public backlash.

That is how you create a culture of accountability – that is how you create institutions that last.

Abandoning accountability

That is why it is disappointing that Harapan is not honouring its own promise and principle. When asked if they were consulted in the appointment, politically shrewd ministers avoided it entirely.

Those who admitted there were no cabinet consultation of the appointment quickly covered their shock with the credentials of the new chief to deviate the issue.

I wonder: is there a deliberate attempt to undermine the principle of accountability or was the Harapan manifesto promise not based on principle in the first place?

Was the intention to replace Najib only and never a full desire to create a country that is democratic and accountable? Were we naïve to believe Harapan was on our side?

We are growing increasingly comfortable with one-man rule.

Comfortable with one-man rule

When the prime minister was asked whether he consulted the cabinet on the MACC appointment, he did not mince his words.

He said that he did not because he did not want to be ‘restricted’ by the cabinet’s opinion.

He also said that he normally makes many decisions himself because it is not necessary for him to ask the cabinet on what to do and who to approve.

This is problematic. The whole point of consulting the cabinet or the parliamentary select committee was to ensure that there is no absolute power by the prime minister.

The ‘restriction’ that the prime minister talked about was ‘accountability’. We hold the prime minister accountable by restricting his decisions.

That is the bare minimum we expect in the appointment process. That is the bare minimum to select candidates who are impartial and independent. That is the bare minimum to protect our institutions and sustain our democratic impulse as a nation.

It didn’t start out like that. At the start of the new regime, when the prime minister appointed himself the minister of education, he had to rescind it the next day due to public backlash. We guarded the democratic boundaries valiantly then because Harapan’s manifesto was still deep in our memory.

However, when the prime minister was able to get away with more and more decisions without much consultation, we have started to become comfortable with one-man rule. Any talk of the other component parties keeping the prime minister in check now appears futile and unconvincing.

In the previous interviews, the prime minister talked candidly about how most ministers still had to come to him for advice before making decisions.

He was the most experienced, and it is best he made all the necessary decisions. Over time, it made sense that he made every decision on his own.

This is called a slippery slope—and we are sliding down.

JAMES CHAI works at a law firm. E-mail him at jameschai.mpuk@gmail.com.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

Sometimes we get surprises, says Dr M of new MACC chief

PM: Latheefa was my choice, I did not discuss with cabinet

Azmin: Latheefa's appointment based on merit, not political ideologies

Parliament can review MACC chief appointment, but can't 'affect it'