SOMEHOW, I am glad that a career Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) officer has been appointed to head this all-important organisation for the first time.
Firstly, I feel it's about time that an insider be chosen to lead the organisation. This is good for staff morale, particularly its senior officers. At least now, they have the opportunity to head the agency.
Secondly, previous directors-general torpedoed into the ACA had not really live up to public expectation. In fact, they had failed miserably to protect the image of the ACA, primarily through their own folly. As a result, they were unable to command the respect of their officers and staff and this was reflected in the lack of effectiveness in the agency's work.
I have to be honest. After the departure of Zulkipli Mat Noor, I was hoping that the position of the ACA Director-General would be filled by someone who is more than just a mere civil servant.
In my book, the ACA chief has to be a courageous character, one who is imbued with the strength of impartiality, fearlessness and wisdom. He can be a retired judge, a former minister, a veteran politician or anybody who is qualified professionally and responsibly prepared to act without fear or favour.
Time to prove himself
I would also venture to say that the ACA Director-General's post should be at the same level as the Chief Justice, Attorney-General, the Inspector-General of Police or the Army Chief.
I believe I am not wrong if the respective state ACA directors are in the same rank as the police OCPDs. How on earth can we expect these top ACA officers to perform when their positions do not commensurate with the heavy tasks entrusted to them?
They are supposed to ensure that all levels of political, administrative, corporate, non-governmental and religious leadership are involved in the efforts to instill and internalise noble values so that a sense of abhorrence towards corrupt elements in the Malaysian community is intensified. Surely then, we have to accord the ACA directors due justice before we can expect them to mete it out.
However, since a new DG has been appointed, let us give him the opportunity and time to prove himself.
Ahmad Said Hamdan ( above ), who has been helming the ACA since the sensational exit of Zulkipli Mat Noor, was confirmed as the agency's new head early this month. His appointment took effect on May 14.
Zulkipli's contract which expired on March 31 was not renewed by the government after he was mired in a controversy involving alleged corruption and sex crime. Zulkifli was a former senior police officer.
Three years at the top
As Ahmad Said is already 55, I would give him three years as the ACA chief. His contract could be extended for a longer period, of course but I hope that within three years, he would be able to deliver what is expected of him. Paramount of all, he must revive the credibility and image of the ACA to an agency which is seen to be effective and trustworthy.
The new DG should also seriously look at ways and means to assure the public that whistleblowers and informants are 'protected' and will not be punished. This is vital as the information received is usually the first step to open a investigation file.
In the
words
of former High Court judge Syed Ahmad Idid (
right
), "Those who give information are those quite near to the (corrupt) act. If you discourage them, you are telling the world, look you better not come and give us any information. Then there will be no cases being investigated."
Here, I am also reminded of a case which took place about two years ago. A policeman wanted to sue a student for filing a bribery report against him. However, the cop was later requested to withdraw the case as "it is against public policy."
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz said then that "you do not take action against a person who reports to the ACA," adding that the police should not take ACA reports against them as a personal matter.
"If the police take such action, then the public will lose trust in them," he added.
I thought Nazri handled this case well but then again, that was only a case involving a small 'fish'. The buaya (crocodiles) should be on the ACA's priority list.
Clear mission
Ultimately, for the ACA to be more effective, it should preferably be under the purview of Parliament and not the Prime Minister's Department. The ACA must be free and credible to conduct its duties without threat or interference of any party.
To take a look at history, the Anti-Corruption Agency of Malaysia began its formal operations on October 1, 1967. But with the passing of the National Bureau of Investigation Act, 1973, it was legally named as the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The change of name was necessary in line with the widening of its scope. The NBI did not only confine itself to the investigation of corruption cases but also to cases of national interest, for example, syndicated gambling, smuggling; serious criminal breach of trust, organised fraud etc.
However, the name NBI was reverted to ACA when the Anti- Corruption Agency Act, 1982 was passed by Parliament on May 13, 1982. The reason for the reversion was to reflect the actual function of this agency, that is, as an agency whose main function is the prevention of corruption.
That mission is clear - the prevention of corruption. So, can we not give the agency a free hand to do its job as defined when the Act was espoused in 1982?
At the moment, it is the political master who has absolute power in deciding if a corrupt individual or organisation is to be investigated, arrested, charged or if the case is to be thrown out. This makes the ACA lose its integrity, dignity and credibility.
Isn't it about time that the ACA be given more 'teeth'?
Hey, wouldn't this be one of the most effective ways to help Pak Lah in his anti-corruption fight? Or has the quest been conveniently forgotten...again?
FRANCIS PAUL feels it's about time the ACA shed its 'toothless tiger' image and start biting the many buaya around us. He can be reached at [email protected].
