Revenge is the closest thing Malaysia has to an anti-corruption policy

Kua Kia Soong

If Malaysia were ever to nominate one institution for Uneco’s Intangible Cultural Heritage list, it should not be batik, wayang kulit or nasi lemak. It should be the Revenge Prosecution.

This Malaysian institution has succeeded where every anti-corruption blueprint, integrity plan, transformation programme, KPI (key performance indicator), slogan, acronym and five-year strategy has largely failed.

The formula is breathtakingly simple. You don’t investigate politicians while they are in power. You wait patiently until they lose power. Then, miraculously, witnesses regain their memory, files emerge from dusty cupboards, investigators discover fresh enthusiasm, and prosecutors suddenly realise that corruption is, after all, illegal.

Election day has become Malaysia’s equivalent of a Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission software update. Yesterday’s ‘No Further Action’ or ‘Discharge Not Amounting to an Acquittal’ becomes today’s ‘Strong Prima Facie Case’. The system works so well that perhaps the Electoral Commission should be placed under the MACC. After all, elections have proven to be our most effective anti-corruption mechanism.

The roll call is familiar. The 1MDB scandal transformed Malaysia into a global synonym for kleptocracy.

Former Prime Minister Najib Razak was convicted in the SRC International case. He continues to face other proceedings arising from the 1MDB affair.

Then came the littoral combat ship saga – billions spent, years passed, and the country’s most expensive invisible navy. Most countries launch ships. Malaysia launched committee reports.

The Felda controversies produced investigations, prosecutions and civil actions after years of public concern over governance and financial management.

The Jana Wibawa programme also generated investigations into the awarding of emergency contracts during the pandemic.

Even the party that once marketed itself as Malaysia’s detergent against corruption has discovered that political soap does not always remove stubborn stains.

The DAP’s former secretary general, Lim Guan Eng, first faced the Penang bungalow case, in which he was acquitted and discharged in 2018. He is currently standing trial over corruption charges linked to the Penang undersea tunnel project, which he denies. The case remains before the courts and no verdict has been reached.

It turns out that chanting ‘CAT’ – competency, accountability and transparency’ – does not necessarily make nine lives out of political credibility.

Of course, every party has an explanation. When our leaders are investigated, it is political persecution. When their leaders are investigated, it is the triumph of the rule of law.

Malaysia has accomplished what political philosophers thought impossible. Every accused politician is simultaneously an innocent victim of political conspiracy and a symbol of national accountability. The answer depends entirely on which party scarf the observer is wearing.

There is one remarkable feature shared by every ruling coalition. Each enters Putrajaya promising to eradicate corruption. Each leaves office having merely rearranged its beneficiaries. This is not reform. It is musical chairs with procurement contracts.

Institutional reform, meanwhile, remains the one reform everyone promises but nobody seems eager to implement once seated comfortably in the prime minister’s office:

• Political financing legislation? Too dangerous.
• Independent appointments? Too unpredictable.
• Transparent government procurement? Too inconvenient.
• A genuinely independent prosecutor? Too risky.

After all, today’s government might become tomorrow’s opposition. Better not build institutions that may one day investigate oneself. That would be positively irresponsible.

Malaysia therefore operates an unwritten constitutional principle: never create an independent institution capable of prosecuting today’s friends. Tomorrow’s enemies will do the job for free.

This explains why revenge prosecutions have become our closest approximation to accountability.

The irony is delicious. Every incoming government promises to end selective prosecution. Every outgoing government complains of selective prosecution. The only constant is the prosecution.

Which brings us inevitably to the present Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim. Today, his government insists that investigations and prosecutions proceed independently according to the law.

His supporters point to cases pursued against political figures from different parties as evidence that no one enjoys blanket immunity.

His critics see a more familiar Malaysian script unfolding. They argue that some cases move briskly while others proceed more slowly, are discontinued, or become entangled in prosecutorial discretion.

History offers a cautionary lesson to every Malaysian prime minister. Who would have predicted, at the height of their influence, that Dr Mahathir Mohamad would later become the subject of investigations into assets linked to his family – or that the late Daim Zainuddin would spend his final years confronting investigations over extraordinary wealth?

Power in Malaysia has an unusually short warranty. If our political culture remains unchanged, no future prime minister should assume permanent immunity from the revenge prosecution carousel. That includes anyone named Anwar, Muhyiddin, Zahid, Rafizi – or someone not yet famous. The wheel keeps turning. Only the passengers change.

Perhaps one day, after Anwar leaves office, another administration will solemnly announce that “new evidence has emerged”. Perhaps Anwar himself will denounce the charges as politically motivated. Perhaps his successor will reply that “no one is above the law.”

If that sounds familiar, it is because every government eventually recycles the same script with different actors.

In Malaysia, political revenge has become institutional continuity. The real tragedy is not that former leaders face investigation. That is perfectly proper where supported by credible evidence. The tragedy is that ordinary people have been conditioned to believe that this is when accountability begins.

A mature democracy investigates corruption during a government’s tenure, not merely after it has packed its boxes.

Malaysia still needs comprehensive political financing laws, stronger parliamentary oversight and prosecutors insulated from political influence. It needs genuine whistleblower protection, meaningful public asset declarations and anti-corruption agencies that pursue evidence rather than political calendars.

Until it has all of this, the General Election will remain our most productive anti-corruption agency.

Dr Kua Kia Soong, is a former MP and director of human rights group Suaram.

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: