Saravanan’s corruption charges: Reformasi requires equal justice, not convenient prosecution

K Sudhagaran Stanley

On 28 August, Malaysians witnessed scenes at the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex that looked more like the arrival of a superstar than that of a former minister facing corruption charges.

Former human resources minister M Saravanan was charged with three counts of allegedly receiving RM1.1m in bribes linked to the approval of foreign worker quotas during his tenure.

What was equally disturbing was the hero-like reception given to Saravanan. Scores of supporters gathered at the court complex, cheering and shouting words of support as the MIC deputy president arrived.

Now, everyone has the right to support a political leader and Saravanan has every right to defend himself.

But corruption charges are serious. A courthouse should not become a political rally where an individual facing corruption allegations is celebrated as though he has returned victorious from battle. This kind of political culture only normalises the very corruption Malaysia claims to be fighting,

But perhaps the more important question is this: why are people prepared to react this way? One possible answer is the enormous trust deficit that continues to surround our enforcement institutions, particularly the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

Ordinary people have repeatedly witnessed controversies surrounding the institution. The allegations of ‘corporate mafia’ involving the MACC and the shareholding controversy involving former MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki have raised serious questions.

When an anti-corruption agency suffers from a crisis of public confidence, even legitimate prosecutions risk being viewed through a political lens.

Adding salt to the wound is the timing of these high-profile enforcement actions. The offences Saravanan is accused of relate to events in 2022. Four years later, the charges have finally arrived.

Former Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob was also charged last week with failing to properly declare substantial assets following investigations that had been ongoing since 2025.

At the same time, the long-awaited report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Tabung Haji was finally released, followed shortly by MACC arrests and investigations involving individuals connected to its findings.

Complex corruption investigations can take time, but when several politically sensitive cases suddenly move almost simultaneously, people are entitled to ask: why now? What changed?

The political timing cannot simply be ignored. Pakatan Harapan suffered a crushing setback in the Johor state election, winning only eight out of 56 seats.

It subsequently lost control of Negeri Sembilan, winning only 11 out of 36 seats, while Barisan Nasional and Perikatan Nasional secured the numbers to form the state government. We are now witnessing renewed political cooperation involving Umno, Pas and other parties outside PH.

Correlation is not proof of causation, but politics does not exist in a vacuum. When enforcement action involving prominent political personalities accelerates immediately after major electoral setbacks and political realignments, the government must expect the public to scrutinise the timing.

Amid all this noise, however, one allegation towers above everything else and demands an immediate answer. In a letter dated 24 August to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Saravanan reportedly stated he had held several discussions with the prime minister since November 2025 concerning his case and that the prime minister had assured him that no action would be taken against him.

This is not some anonymous social media allegation. This is an assertion reportedly made by a former cabinet minister and sitting MP directly to the prime minister.

That allegation is mind-blowing and cannot be left hanging in the air. Anwar must answer it clearly and unequivocally. Did the PM give Saravanan such an assurance?

If yes, what exactly was said? On what basis could a prime minister assure a person under investigation that no action would be taken? Was the MACC investigation discussed? Was the possibility of prosecution discussed? Was the Attorney General’s Chambers involved in any way?

If no such assurance was ever given, then the prime minister should strongly deny Saravanan’s claim and an independent investigation into these claims must be initiated.

The memory of Zahid Hamidi being granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal in his 47 corruption charges after he had already been ordered to enter his defence remains fresh in the minds of many.

Questions concerning prosecutorial independence cannot continuously be allowed to accumulate without satisfactory answers.

Perhaps Anwar has finally seen the political writing on the wall after Johor and Negeri Sembilan. Perhaps he has realised that ordinary people are tired of slogans and are demanding visible action. If so, better late than never.

But anti-corruption enforcement cannot suddenly become muscular after electoral defeats and become quiet when political arrangements are comfortable. The rule of law cannot operate according to political seasons.

If the government has finally decided to clean house, then clean the entire house without fear, favour, political calculation or selective memory.

The people are also still waiting for the deeper institutional reforms that PH itself once championed.

Yes, there is now a new MACC chief commissioner. But changing the person without changing the architecture does not solve the fundamental problem.

Section 5 of the MACC Act still provides for the chief commissioner to be appointed by the Agong on the advice of the prime minister. The process therefore continues to carry significant executive influence.

A truly independent anti-corruption body should not have its leadership dependent on the political executive, whose members, allies or opponents it may one day have to investigate.

The same principle must apply to prosecution. The proposed separation of the attorney general and public prosecutor is an important reform and must be completed without dilution, delay or political compromise.

The public prosecutor must enjoy genuine operational independence, secure tenure and a transparent appointment mechanism insulated from political interference.

Similarly, the MACC requires an appointment and oversight framework capable of commanding bipartisan and public confidence. Anti-corruption cannot depend on whether we trust the prime minister of the day.

We need institutions strong enough to function independently regardless of who occupies Putrajaya.

Similarly, reforms to Malaysia’s migrant worker recruitment system must go far beyond prosecuting one former minister.

Corruption, excessive recruitment fees, middlemen, debt bondage, stranded workers, bogus employment arrangements, the monopoly of various migrant service systems, and abuse within migrant recruitment have been reported for years.

This is a systemic governance failure that has survived different prime ministers, different human resources ministers and different governments.

For too long, allegations have persisted that politically connected individuals, commercial intermediaries and powerful elites have benefited enormously from the migrant worker supply chain while impoverished migrants ultimately pay the price.

If the government is serious, then open the entire system to scrutiny. Publish the recruitment architecture. Identify the companies and intermediaries behind the supply chain, past and present. Examine the beneficial ownership of those in the supply chain. Audit the money trail. Review employer applications and quota approvals. Investigate political exposure and conflicts of interest. Identify who profited.

Prosecute wrongdoing wherever the evidence leads. Do not give the people one prosecution and pretend the system has been cleaned.

I have learnt one thing after years of working on governance and anti-corruption: Malaysia does not lack laws, agencies, committees or slogans. Malaysia lacks the political courage to build institutions powerful enough to act without political permission.

If the people genuinely want reform, we need leaders prepared to place the national interest above political survival, party interests, friends and alliances.

We need an MACC that no prime minister can control, a public prosecutor that no politician can influence, and a whistleblower system that ordinary people are not afraid to use.

Malaysia does not need anti-corruption theatre. We need anti-corruption institutions.

Reform cannot be something politicians shout during elections and rediscover after losing them.

Until institutional independence becomes a reality, “Reformasi” risks remaining what the people increasingly fear it has become, merely a slogan.

K Sudhagaran Stanley is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya, and former deputy CEO of the  Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center).

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: