FEB 26 — “Who polices the MACC?”

The question ended Bloomberg’s almost 6,000-words report “Who’s Watching Malaysia’s Anti-Corruption Watchdog?” 

It was raised by former Attorney General Tommy Thomas.

DAP national chairman Gobind Singh said on Wednesday (February 25) the party maintained its call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to examine allegations in the report which contained specific references to individuals, companies and cases.

Although the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has dismissed the allegations as baseless and originating from an anonymous blog, Gobind said the agency’s explanation alone was not sufficient to settle questions raised about its integrity.

Gobind, who is also the Digital minister, stressed that MACC’s credibility could not rest on internal clearance alone.

“A mere denial on their part alone is insufficient. It is a fundamental principle of justice that no one should be a judge in their own case,” he said in a statement.

“When the MACC’s integrity is questioned, a self-issued clearance does little to restore public or investor confidence,” he added, re-asserting that an RCI would provide an impartial and transparent inquiry.

A day earlier, DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke, who is the Transport minister, had said that an RCI was best placed to conduct an impartial review with the statutory powers required for a comprehensive inquiry.

“What is required is an impartial and transparent inquiry… The best option would be for an RCI to be formed,” he said.

I couldn’t agree more.

But in the long run, the Australian model of a parliamentary oversight vide the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission (PJC-NACC) assisted by an independent officer of the federal Parliament known as the Inspector of the NACC which I explained here. 

Since her appointment as the inaugural NACC Inspector, Gail Furness has launched at least two investigations into the conduct of the NACC and its Commissioner, Paul Brereton, with a major focus on potential conflicts of interest and “officer misconduct”.

The first investigation was in October 2024 and the second was only two weeks ago. 

The Australian experience informs us that parliamentary oversight of the MACC is doable. The MACC Act 2009 can be amended with the introduction of, after Part III (on Provision on Advisory Board, Special Committee and Complaints Committee), Part IIIA (on Provisions on Parliamentary Joint Committee and Inspector of MACC).

If Australia can, so can Malaysia.

And if DAP’s ministers can convey the party’s call for an RCI to examine allegations in the Bloomberg’s report to the Cabinet, so too can they convey the need to amend the MACC Act 2009 to provide for parliamentary oversight of the MACC assisted by an independent Inspector of the MACC.

If the drafters can create two works of art in the two Bills to amend the Federal Constitution, they can do the same to amend the MACC Act 2009.

*This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.