With respect to DAP national chairperson Lim Kit Siang, his call for a White Paper on the status of government's investigations into high-profile cases in the past decade will, like his many innumerable calls in the past decades for a White Paper in respect of various scandals, lead to nowhere.

The excuse would always be the same — insufficient evidence. It has already begun with Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad saying "Investigations were not as simple as others might think compared [with] those who made accusations" in the Star (May 27).

The crux of the problem is that various quarters here — including opposition parties and non-governmental organisations — suspect but could not prove a certain lack of will on law enforcement agencies' part to prosecute high-profile and politically well-connected perpetrators of white-collar crimes. It is part of the larger picture of selective prosecution as well as immunity because of the lack of transparency and accountability in the government.

If such a complaint were legitimate, and if it were also reasonable to assume that no abettor will authorise a prosecution of his partner, it would be a more constructive proposal to call for an institution of an alternative agency to initiate private prosecution based on the collective resources of individuals, opposition parties and NGOs committed to the Public Cause in instances where public prosecution evinces no prospects of getting off the ground.

The mechanism is by way of private summons representing a class of the public whose interest as taxpayers or minority shareholders or in any other capacities is adversely prejudiced.

This means that 12 alleged cases of "sexual misconduct" alluded to by Khalid Jafri and Taib Azamudden Mohd Taib, the ex-imam of the National Mosque, are excluded if they have no prejudicial effect on public funds. Bakum Dam, Perwaja and many others might come under purview.

A team of public interest lawyers must be engaged. I assume that there is no lack of such professionals and that financing legal action should not be a problem as money could be raised from various sources.

The most important assumption is independence of the judiciary. The courts are looked upon to adjudicate fairly for public interest and to make the relevant declaratory orders without fear or favour.

The most important task however is the gathering by that "private prosecuting agency" of relevant information and evidence failing which such private prosecution is destined to be struck down by the courts as oppressive, if not inviting a counter-defamation suit.

This must be entrusted to a paid team of private investigators trained in law as well as commercial and corporate matters to gather intelligence, weigh and sift through probative value of evidence.

The Internet for example provides one of the many avenues for informants to give leads to this agency without reprisals. The leads are to be investigated and pursued for veracity. Other material witnesses may in that process be identified. Documentary evidence must be looked for as well as ways and means to procure and introduce it as evidence in circumvention of the restrictions of the Official Secrets Act.

In summary, where there is doubt that law enforcement agencies will prosecute with alacrity those who are protected by political patronage, there is simply no other choice but to initiate a private alternative agency funded by public interested individuals and organisations to undertake private prosecution on class basis and for public causes — or at least to gather sufficient evidence to present to and pressure the normal law enforcement agencies to act.

This is more practical than awaiting for the proverbial White Paper that is never presented. If the excuse for non-prosecution is lack of evidence, and this lack of evidence is caused by either a lack of will to gather it, or lack of manpower or sheer incompetence, then it is high time for private enterprise and initiative to find the evidence and present it to hold those in breach of public trust accountable.