A Week of Turmoil and Allegations
The past week has been marked by a surge in activity related to corruption cases. On November 28, two individuals were arrested without delay. Following this, the situation escalated quickly. The pair was brought before the court, and they did not benefit from the protections outlined in the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Two key figures have taken center stage: whistleblower Albert Tei, who was previously linked to the Sabah mining scandal, and Shamsul Iskandar Akin, the former political secretary to the prime minister. Their involvement, though separate, has drawn significant attention from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) as it seeks to bring those involved to justice.
However, another individual has also found himself in the spotlight—MACC chief Azam Baki. His role has been pivotal in either explaining, justifying, or denying the actions of his officers. This has sparked various allegations, some of which come from Tei’s wife, suggesting that threatening behavior occurred during the arrest, including a firearm being pointed at Tei’s head and the seizure of property without proper documentation.
Lawyers have also raised concerns about possible interference with client-solicitor privilege and the serving of notices on them. These claims suggest that there may be undue influence being exerted, even though the lawyers are merely performing their professional duties.
Legal Concerns and Public Perception
The use of Section 30 of the MACC Act 2009 in this case has led to questions about whether these actions constitute intimidation, albeit subtly. It is akin to soft porn—present but not overtly so. The Bar Council has joined the lawyers in asserting breaches of legal privilege, which is unusual given their typical stance. Similar sentiments have been echoed by other non-governmental organizations.
The question remains: do these allegations of high-handedness hold any merit, especially considering the swift denials from MACC? These accusations could detract from the seriousness of the crimes committed by Tei and Shamsul.
Public perception plays a crucial role for any government agency. Negative publicity can undermine the very foundation of their operations. As enforcement agencies function within a broader societal context, managing public perception and ensuring accountability are vital. Malaysia should not be perceived as a police state.
Accountability and Transparency
The MACC chief commissioner has been quick to defend his officers regarding the events during Tei’s arrest. However, this is ironic because how can one defend actions if they were not physically present at the scene? It is possible that he reviewed CCTV footage from Tei’s home and body camera recordings. Ideally, this would cover all angles, but blind spots are common, especially when there are no independent observers.
The rationale behind stating that evidence will be presented if the case goes to court raises further questions. What happens if the charges are dismissed or if the defense does not proceed?
Either MACC acted improperly by using its power to make an arrest, or it did not. This issue is unrelated to the bribery charges currently in court.
Lessons from Past Incidents
A previous incident involving DBKL officers and the arrest of a balloon seller, captured on camera by passers-by, had a different tone compared to what happened with Tei. In that case, the authorities provided explanations, but in Tei’s case, this is not the case.
To clarify the events, an MP has called for the release of CCTV footage and other related recordings. This move could provide a clearer understanding of what actually transpired.
The Role of the Complaints Committee
Amidst the controversy, the function of MACC’s complaints committee has been overshadowed. Established under Section 15 of the MACC Act 2009, this committee has remained largely silent. It is unclear whether a formal complaint has been lodged with the independent oversight committee. Even if not, the committee should be aware of the concerns raised.
Have the members forgotten their roles and responsibilities? Maintaining silence in the face of such events is detrimental. At the very least, the chairman should engage the media to explain the committee’s current actions. This would help protect MACC from negative and potentially harmful comments.
If the committee chooses to remain silent, then what is its purpose? Someone must ensure that MACC is held accountable. Truth must be revealed.
As a former member of the MACC independent oversight panels, I find the lack of transparency both disheartening and frustrating. Could the committee consist of retired civil servants unwilling to challenge the status quo during this turmoil? If so, the provisions of Section 15 have been rendered meaningless.
The Stakes for MACC
The pressure is mounting on MACC to respond and preserve its credibility. Why prolong damaging its image if the CCTV and body camera recordings prove otherwise? We do not want a repeat of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s “black eye” episode.
We must also consider the ongoing discussions about the chief commissioner’s extension of service as a civil servant. Should Azam Baki step down?
The views expressed here are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.