WHAT comes to mind if I say, the late Tun Ismail Ali?

He was the first Bank Negara Malaysia governor (1962-1980) and well known as a person of the highest integrity. He told his younger brother not to ever set foot in the bank while he was the governor.

In today’s circumstances, we should strive to assimilate Ismail’s values and standards.

We should trust our regulators and they should reciprocate by showing the highest standards in carrying out their duties.

While we were worried about the Covid-19 pandemic, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) surrounded itself with controversies.

MACC is a commission that is entrusted to fight corruption and protect the country’s well-being.

Last year, Johor police arrested officers from the police and MACC over the Nicky Gang case and MACC withdrew 29 corruption charges against a Federal Land Development Authority board member.

Then, there was silence and lack of transparency on the arrest of three officers over an internal probe into the misappropriation of US$6.94 million (RM30.4 million) seized by the commission.

In October, two officers ran helter-skelter out of a Sessions Court after being charged with corruption and in December, police arrested MACC officers in connection with a gang robbery in Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur.

The advisory board called for an immediate revamp of the commission to regain public confidence, stating MACC should be impeccable in ethics and integrity and the chief commissioner should be held accountable.

It is amusing that a new provision under section 17A MACC Act 2009 encourages commercial organisations to take appropriate and parallel steps to ensure businesses are conducted with integrity and without corruption.

MACC issued the Guidelines on Adequate Procedures to assist commercial organisations to put in place the necessary procedures to prevent corrupt practices.

It applied the TRUST principle (Top-level commitment, Risk assessment, Undertake control measures, Systematic review, monitoring and enforcement, and Training and communication), but is this principle applicable to MACC and the public service in general?

Is it any wonder that Malaysia fared badly in the Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index 2021, to 62nd (2019: 51st) position despite the launch of the National Anti-Corruption Plan 2019-2023?

The latest, an article “Shocking revelation: Najib’s trial judge conflict-of-interest exposed” led to an investigation initiated against the judge.

MACC said it bore the responsibility of confirming and investigating any report it receives that fall under its jurisdiction.

Question now is, in its haste, did MACC do due diligence and circumspection before making any announcement and as a commission, it should show greater care and objectivity in exercising its powers, especially in sensitive and high-profile cases.

As an ethical issue, conflict of interest involves competing interests as well as raises questions related to an individual’s integrity.

Irrespective of what the chief justice said, and even the rulers have to subject themselves to a special court, many people are asking, what happened to the police investigation on a share trading case involving a high-ranking officer?

The Securities Commission was unable to conclusively determine the validity of the allegations but a deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department said police are still investigating.

The powerful Public Accounts Committee was not able to conduct an inquiry.

The case was also discussed in a meeting of the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board and the Complaints Committee.

There are five external independent bodies to monitor MACC’s roles and functions and hopefully, all five are truly independent without any element of conflict of interest, both individually and structurally.

Conflict-of-interest situations on the part of public officials, if unresolved, can undermine legitimate decision-making; distort the rule of law; compromise the development and application of policy; disrupt the functioning of markets; affect the allocation of public resources; encourage corruption; and thereby damage public confidence in public institutions.

MACC owes a duty to the public to show that its integrity has not been compromised due to the above events and it is duty-bound to put its own house in order. Integrity should be a DNA in MACC.

It should proactively manage integrity hazards and tackle it pre-emptively.

Corruption is one of the most deep-rooted, pervasive problems that crippled economies and cause irreparable reputation damage.

Integrity is telling myself the truth and honesty is telling the truth to other people.

Perhaps MACC can introduce integrity testing among its officers.

By the way, MACC arrest statistics for the last five years were: 2021 – 851; 2020 – 998; 2019 – 1,101; 2018 – 894 and 2017 – 879. What was the success rate leading to conviction?

TI-Malaysia did propose for MACC to have prosecutorial powers and the Parliamentary Select Committee on Corruption forwarded the proposal twice, but it was rejected.

Whilst I agree with the proposal, until and unless there is an immediate review and revamp of the commission as called by the advisory board, it is best to KIV it.

What say you… – May 10, 2022.

* Saleh Mohammed reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.