On 11th December 2008, the New Straits Times carried a report “Abu Kassim: Lapdog tag won’t stick any more” on the new Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to replace the discredited Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA).
This is the NST report:
KUALA LUMPUR: Five bodies will closely watch over the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to ensure its transparency and integrity.
They are the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board; Special Committee on Corruption; Operations Review Panel; Corruption Prevention and Consultative Panel; and a Complaints Committee.
With the five scrutinising bodies, Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) deputy director-general Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamed hopes that the MACC would not be accused of being the lapdog of the government as the ACA had been accused of thus far.
“The difference here is accountability. Now, they (critics of the ACA) say we are accountable to the prime minister and the Prime Minister’s Department, although we are only accountable to him when it comes to the agency’s budget.
“With five independent bodies scrutinising the MACC, no one can say we are accountable to the prime minister. Which other agency do you know of has to answer to five such bodies? Even the ICAC (Hong Kong’s Independent Commission on Anti-Corruption) has only four scrutinising bodies,” he said during a recent briefing on the MACC.
Members of the five bodies will not be paid any allowances for their work. Most will be taken from outside the MACC but will be assisted by ex-officio personnel drawn from the commission.The advisory board, for instance, will comprise seven individuals to be appointed by the king on the advice of the prime minister, but will have five ex-officio members.
Abu Kassim said the seven independent members are to be those with high integrity, respected by the community at large and from all walks of life, whether corporate figures, members of non-governmental organisations, legal professionals or academicians.
They will serve three years on the board for a maximum of two terms.
The board will be set up under the MACC Act.
The Operations Review Panel, which will be set up under an administrative order, will also comprise seven individuals and three ex-officio members.
These members will serve two-year terms for a maximum of three terms.
The Corruption Prevention and Consultative Panel will also have seven members and three ex-officio members, to serve for two-year terms of not more than three terms.
These members will be responsible for ensuring that the MACC does enough to educate the public on the evils of corruption and how to fight the menace.
It will also assist in maintaining public support for the MACC.
The Complaints Committee will handle complaints of a non-criminal nature against commission officers. The committee will look into complaints concerning the conduct of MACC officers while carrying out their duties, whether in receiving reports or investigating them.
However, if any complaint has elements of criminality, the complaint will be forwarded to the necessary government agency, such as the police force, for further investigation.
The Special Committee on Corruption, meanwhile, is different from the other scrutinising bodies in that it will comprise parliamentarians. To be appointed by the king on the advice of the head of the Dewan Rakyat, members may come from both sides of the political divide.
Despite all the big talk by Datuk Abu Kassim six months ago, the majoritarian opinion among Malaysians is that the MACC is even worse as a lapdog of the Barisan Nasional government than the ACA, despite the phalanx of five bodies to provide “checks and balances” absent in previous ACA legislation.
The mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock, political secretary to Selangor DAP State Exco and State Assemblyman for Seri Kembangan Ean Yong Han Hwa on Thursday after plunging from the 14th floor of MACC after going to MACC to co-operate in its investigations, is only “the last straw that has broken the camel’s back” after a catalogue of misuse and abuse of power by MACC in the past six month.
In the past six months, the five “check and balance” bodies have provided not a single check or balance to ensure that the MACC does not deviate from its parliamentary and national objective to declare war on corruption.
Instead, these five “check and balance” bodies appear to be completely helpless and impotent with the MACC declaring war on the Pakatan Rakyat as the catspaw of the Barisan Nasional national government.
I am not surprised at reports that a revolt is brewing among the “top advisers” in the five MACC “check and balance” bodies, who had been treated as if they did not exist and only role is to be window-dressings to give the MACC a good public image.
Although Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, who heads the Panel on Consultation and Prevention of Corruption, has confirmed that several of his fellow advisers have indicated that they may quit their appointed posts to protest the methods in which witnesses are questioned for information, he himself is determined to “carry on”.
Navaratnam said: “No point in resigning. That’s the easy way out. We’ve got a public trust to fulfil.”
Does Navaratnam and the members of the five panels have any clue what is going on in MACC in the past six months and why they had done nothing to bring the MACC back to the original objectives to declare war on corruption instead of declaring war on Pakatan Rakyat?
Up to now, the members of these five “check and balance” MACC bodies are not generally known to the Malaysian public.
Instead of continuing a shadowy figures, let Malaysians know who are all the members of the five bodies, how many meetings each body had held so far and what they have achieved.
Lets have Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) not only for the MACC in the past five months, but also KPIs for these five bodies as to whether they are performing any useful function at all.
Together with Pakatan Rakyat MPs, I propose to seek a meeting with all the five bodies in the coming week to find out what exactly they are doing and whether they are discharging the legislative intent of the MACC Act or the very opposite and just a complete waste of public funds, energy and time.
For the MACC, in particular Abu Kassim – let MACC prove that it is not even worse of a lapdog of Barisan Nasional government than ACA in the past from its record of its first six months of establishment from 1.1.09!
Navaratnam said: “No point in resigning. That’s the easy way out. We’ve got a public trust to fulfil.”
Hello, my point is what is the use of continuing with a scam and a whitewash. Isn’t it obvious or are yr blinkers screwed on so tightly!
There has to be a public expression of utter disgust with the sick sham that MACC is. MACC, without mincing words is a skunk, not a lapdog – RPK thinks such ilk do not deserve the tag of honor of man’s best friend. And I agree with RPK.
They are 100% lapdogs … one bad incident and they are so protective about themselves. Doubt it will ever change. Not when you have the same people there, change the label but nothing will really change.
Are there SOPs?
Are MACC officers untouchable, unaccountable, and above the law?
Why no CCTV and recording of interrogations conducated at MACC?
Like this, how to be first world?
If Teoh Beng Hock had died in the custody of the police in Moscow or Chechnya, the death would have been all over the western media as yet another example of the brutality of the system.
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1971&Itemid=178
Time for heads to roll la … its been too many deaths for too long.
They still cant see the point. We have enuf of forms. We want more substance. Having another layer and another layer and another layer of check and balance means nothing because under umno all those extra layers means more money to be gained (or wasted depending on which angle you are looking) without any improvement in substance. All those 5 bodies are eventually still answerable to the prime minister ultimately. Who doesnt know that?
Navaratnam said: “No point in resigning. That’s the easy way out. We’ve got a public trust to fulfil.”
So tell us, Navaratnam, what are YOU doing or going to do about this?
///Although Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, who heads the Panel on Consultation and Prevention of Corruption, has confirmed that several of his fellow advisers have indicated that they may quit their appointed posts to protest the methods in which witnesses are questioned for information, he himself is determined to “carry on”.
Navaratnam said: “No point in resigning. That’s the easy way out. We’ve got a public trust to fulfill.”///
YB, you should first find out who are the members of these Five bodies who supposedly exercise oversight over MACC and who are supposedly persons of “high integrity, respected by the community at large and from all walks of life”,– and then ask each of them, especially Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, that in the light of the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock within the precincts of MACC where police have confirmed that the CCTV showed that he entered the building without coming out and that Teoh’s hand phone was not with him when he died , whether (1) they would support the call for the government to establish a Royal Commission of Enquiry to probe Teoh’s myterious custodial death (RCI) and (2) whether they as persons of “high integrity, respected by the community at large and from all walks of life”, would resign if the RCI were refused by the government!
This is reasonable poser. No person of “high integrity, respected by the community at large and from all walks of life” charged with duty to exercise oversight over a body, itself a watchdog expected to set an example of probity can remain and lend his stature and reputation to a body now under a cloud of public suspicions that is not vindicated by independent investigations by RCI.
For to remain so, would contradict “high integrity, respect by the community at large and from all walks of life”.
Lets not look far at foreign examples: lets look at only three local ones bearing on the meaning of public integrity and its vindication by resignations from the organizations that they can no longer support in their present forms:
· Dr Lim Teck Ghee director of Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS), has resigned after ASLI backed down under severe intimidation from parties which disputed its findings on Bumiputra’s equity share of the country’s wealth.
· When Director-General and top officers of the National Registration Department boycott Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity (PSCI)’s hearing into the issuance of false identity cards in Sabah – what had variously been termed as “Project False I/Cs” or “Project Mahathir” – and the govt refused to compel their attendance, Tan Sri Bernard Dompok resigned as PSCI’s chairman.
· Dato’ Zaid Ibrahim resigned as Minister over the government’s use of the Internal Security Act that he didn’t agree.
I agree with Sheriff Singh.
So, tell us Navaratnam, after your mea culpa that you have not fulfilled the public trust what specifically you are going to do to make amends? We are all waiting.
This is the way to reply Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam’s “No point in resigning. That’s the easy way out. We’ve got a public trust to fulfill.” To fulfill & restore public trust (which is lost due to Teoh’s mysterious custodial death) the RCI is imperative which persons of integrity like him has to support, and if the govt does not allow that, then consistent with his claims to integrity, he has to resign! Resignation in such circumstances is not the “easy way” out: remaining so, is. Navaratnam has got it wrong. Dr Lim Teck Ghee, Tan Sri Bernard Dompok and Dato’ Zaid Ibrahim show the correct way. Tell Navaratnam and others responsible for oversight of MACC that. You’d know that Govt has to think twice refusing RCI if members of the 5 bodies vesting legitimacy to that body threaten to resign if RCI refused!
Even standard six pupils can tell MACC is the lapdog of BN.
MACC’s oppressive stance against PR and its refusal to investigate on mega corruptions like RM12.5 billion PKFZ and RM24 million Istana Khir Toyo scandals give solid proofs that it is the lapdog of BN.
“With five independent bodies scrutinising the MACC, no one can say we are accountable to the prime minister.”
Yeah right,
B,C,D, and E all report directly to A. So if F reports to B,C,D, and E that means F is not accountable to A.
Who do you think we are?? Lim Kit Siang?
//“No point in resigning. That’s the easy way out. We’ve got a public trust to fulfill.”//
I can’t believe it. Are you fellows really that naïve? The panels, the commissions, the oversights – they can stay or all go Timbuktu and there is not an iota of difference they will make.
It is good that someone from that “FIVE” advising bodies talks! Then, YB can ask them for What they had done! Where are the Code of Practice for MACC? Had they asked MACC for a Full Report on what had happened and commenting what had done wrong?
It is really shameful when all these “Five” should have act, or, apology, the URGENCY of Ramon seemed to be “NO RESIGNING”? and not talking of Responsibilities or Duties? The lack of the BASIC of Ethnics of any even if he worked only a Primary Officer?
The Quality and Attitude of those at Top can easy find what can one expect down the line!!
Shouldn’t he feel Shame when “Five” advising cannot even do the minimum Job of One in ICAC HK?
At least an order to suspend those in that Operation on Beng Hock and a Full report!!
Even talking with sense may help. But, did he?
Hello damb head woof, in malaysia everybody, A, B, C……Z report to A^. The rest are like you – waster of oxygen. If they are there, they don’t make a difference. If they are not there, the world can save some oxygen.
The MACC is definitely responsible for Teoh’s death. Whether they actually killed him remains to be proven. Teoh was in MACC’s custody, therefore they are fully responsible for his safety and well-being. It is immaterial whether he jumped, was pushed, struck by lightning, killed by underworld assassins or died from “sudden death”. For the MACC chief to say that he is not responsible is ridiculous. He is captain of the ship, therefore he is responsible. Otherwise he is unfit to command anything more than a lifevest.
To the members of the so-called advisory panels you are also responsible. If you have no power to influence what goes on within the MACC, just resign. Don’t be used as window dressing.
If I call you to my office at 2.00pm and you leave my office at 2.30pm instead of 2.10pm and gets run over by limkamput who has had one mug of toddy more than he could handle, am I responsible for your untimely demise??
I think Ramon’s statement is most honourable, he does not want to resign but seems to say that he wants to get to the bottom of it. Others want to resign and that is a sign of being SICK of the nonsense. Both are not wrong. Both show that they wish to be men of integrity. Just 2 different manners in facing this nonsense.
Let’s give Ramon a chance and see where he goes with it. Whether you like it or not, that is how it will work. If not then Ramon is in deep doo doo … then we can commend him or flame him.