The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) has completed 85 percent of the probe into the complaint against Penang Deputy Chief Minister Hilmi Yahya, for allegedly instructing the Immigration Department to renew the work permit of an expatriate of a pharmaceutical company who has been accused of sexually harassing a subordinate

Yet, the ACA has decided to inform the media they have found no evidence so far to support the allegation, suggesting that it is a matter of time before Hilmi is cleared of any wrongdoing.

Indeed, according to The Sun , Hilmi, upon hearing of the premature revelation, has already been acting innocent.

Didn't it ever occur to the ACA that the premature revelation is highly improper precisely because the probe is still going on?

Why the need to go to town with incomplete findings? It raises two disturbing implications:

First, the ACA showed a lack of professionalism. Is it so difficult to understand that a vital element of professionalism is to be objective; that offering incomplete findings to the public certainly goes against it?

The second, related implication is that ACA demonstrated a lack of ethics. Their very act of premature revelation is already casting doubt over their possibility of ever coming up with anything to the contrary.

Does this not exert unnecessary psychological pressure on the rest of the witnesses to be interviewed?

What if one or two of the remaining witnesses were to take the brave stand and provide solid evidence that supports the allegation against Hilmi? Will this not create undue obstacles to the ACA themselves in arriving at a proper conclusion?

It is hard to accept that the ACA was naive or ignorant of the implications of their action. After all, they should know that the very basis of the integrity of their work rests on striving for objectivity by strictly observing rules of professional and ethical conduct.

Instead, what has transpired with their premature clearance of Hilmi is that they open the doors to the perception or speculation that their probe has been politically tainted. How can the ACA expect to earn public respect and trust?