THE new Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief should not be someone from political circles as it could compromise the agency, said the chair of a parliamentary select committee, William Leong.

“The neutrality of the MACC chief is very important. Given the circumstances, the anti-corruption agency will invariably investigate reports related to politicians from both sides. 

“It would be preferable not to have a politician or former politician to head the agency. This is not about the person but it will make for a difficult situation,” said Leong, who heads the select committee on major public appointments.

The Selayang MP and practising lawyer said new MACC chief Latheefa Koya’s appointment was different from that of Dewan Rakyat Speaker Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof.

The difference is that Ariff was elected. He was an Amanah member before that and after being elected as Dewan Rakyat speaker, resigned from all his party posts.

Leong said a person’s involvement in the party, the length of membership and whether he or she was active are pertinent factors in such appointments.

“What’s missing here is if the committee had been given the chance, the answer to the question of whether Lateefah could be an exception to the general rule could have been answered.”

Political appointments to such positions should be avoided in general but there can be exceptions to the rule, he said.

“But that opportunity has been lost as it wasn’t referred to the select committee,” he said in his office in Petaling Jaya recently.

Constitutional constraints

The select committee on major public appointments is the first in Malaysia’s parliamentary history.

It was formed as part of Pakatan Harapan’s moves towards greater reform and transparency.

As good a step as that may be, the select committee currently still lacks the legal grounds to vet appointments, which are currently decided by the government and presented to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the prime minister.

Unlike the United States, public appointments do not need to go through Parliament, said Leong.

“Our challenge is that our constitution is unlike the United States’ where the president’s suggestions have to be endorsed by Congress. It’s a very vigorous exercise but we don’t have provisions for this in our constitution.”

Leong said the public appointments committee should not be confused with the American one, or even with the British model.

“In the UK model, the select committee looks at the candidates and then prepares a report for the government. But the final decision is with the government. The select committee is not meant to take away the executive’s powers but acts as an oversight. 

“This additional process is to enhance the legitimacy of the process where the person is appointed by merit and not by political patronage,” said Leong.

Besides the constitutional constraints, Leong said MACC, Suhakam or the Judicial Appointments Commission are governed by specific laws.

“There are specific laws like the Judicial Appointments Commission, Police Act and so on where the appointment is by the king on the suggestion of the government.

“What we are trying to do is something that is not provided for under our existing law. Like the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, etc, we want to have a select committee to ensure greater transparency in the appointment of public officers.

“But for us to do it, we need to change the law. As of now, these appointments do not need to go through the committee. Pending the amendments, there will be a need for some cooperation between the executive and Parliament to make this work.

“Otherwise, we have to wait for constitutional amendments and it will take time.” – June 8, 2019.