The case for a royal commission into MACC

M Santhananaban

From mainstream media reports, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief Azam Baki’s narrative on controversies appears to enjoy a far more dominant and unofficially endorsed role.

It is fairly clear that the current administration will go to great lengths to defend or protect him. There is no appetite for a full-blown inquiry – and certainly not a royal commission of inquiry.

Serious allegations of MACC misconduct have been reported in the international media since late 2022, including claims that have yet to be fully and transparently addressed. If these reports are without foundation, a credible independent inquiry would be the surest way to establish that.

The proposed internal task force chaired by the government’s chief secretary – that includes the attorney general, the Public Service Department director general and the Treasury secretary general – has drawn concerns about impartiality from critics and civil society groups. Many observers question whether such a panel can be truly independent given its composition.

These concerns are not unreasonable. This kind of arrangement limits scope and raises questions about whose interests it ultimately serves.

The BMF scandal, which erupted under Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s administration, is a cautionary tale. When the Bumiputra Malaysia Finance scandal surfaced – especially after the murder of auditor Jalil Ibrahim on 18 July 1983 – Mahathir first attempted to blame his predecessor Hussein Onn and then Bank Bumiputra chairman Kamalul Ariffin.

Only after that did he agree to a limited commission of inquiry without full powers. Even then, it was Chooi Mun Sou who noted in his autobiography that the new leadership of Bank Bumiputra was actively shredding documents relating to the scandal.

The inquiry’s saving grace was that the towering trio in the commission – then auditor general Ahmad Noordin Zakaria (who headed the inquiry), chartered accountant Ramli Ibrahim and Chooi – operated outside the criss-cross loyalty syndrome that typically binds civil servants.

Yet Mahathir refused to sufficiently acknowledge their findings and went on a tirade against Ahmad Noordin.

The BMF inquiry was, in a sense, a tolerably open one. But it still fell somewhat short – and the current proposed probe risks being even more constrained.

The weakness of the current proposed team is that they are part of the same administration, with the attorney general in particular serving as principal adviser, defender and apparent spokesman for the government. This raises legitimate questions about whether the process can be seen to be impartial.

It is true that covering up a reasonably well-suspected misconduct by a public office holder can work – up to a point. But there is no guarantee it will stay buried forever. Circumstances change, and questions surrounding a person suspected of misconduct do not simply disappear – and may resurface under even more difficult circumstances.

Suhakam, Malaysia’s human rights commission, has called for a royal commission of inquiry to safeguard the MACC’s institutional integrity, stressing that any inquiry must command public trust. Civil society groups have echoed this demand.

The real test of the administration’s sincerity is simple: establish the truth. A properly constituted royal commission would have the mandate to summon witnesses, access documents and bring full transparency to bear on what the MACC has been doing.

If everything at the MACC is above board, what is there to fear from a royal commission?

Dato’ M Santhananaban is a retired Malaysian ambassador with 45 years of public sector experience.

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: