A truly independent ACA - The Sun

April 21, 2008

THE Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) proposal to make itself more independent by establishing a commission will go a long way towards improving its image, which has taken a battering of late.

The fallacy that the agency acts without fear or favour is further compounded by the recent admission of former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad that he has called up ACA officers to question them on a case they were investigating.

However, one hopes that the proposal by the ACA for a commission to investigate corruption – modelled after Hongkong’s very successful Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) will not be another cosmetic exercise in the same image as Suhakam – the Malaysian Human Rights Commission that has proven to be a toothless tiger, whose annual report is not even tabled in Parliament.

One reason for this is that after all the hard work the ACA puts in to investigate and make a case against an individual or individuals, whether the law will take its course hinges solely on the Attorney-General’s discretion.

Public confidence in the system has waned due to this discretion, which the people perceive is often used against those abused, and in favour of those protected, by the system.

Thus, one cannot fault the public’s lack of enthusiasm for the proposal, which to all intents and purposes is a good suggestion, as a commission against corruption would make the agency answerable to the people via Parliament.

Which is why, it is imperative that those tasked with ensuring the commission’s independence and effectiveness must be sincere in wanting to rehabilitate the image of the ACA – an agency that in itself has been rocked by allegations of corruption and abuse of power by its former head.

Firstly, the commission must comprise respected individuals from various strata of government, society and civil groups – be it former policemen, judges and members of organisations which champion transparency – to imbue checks-and-balances and reduce the likelihood of interference from third parties.

Secondly, the decision to proceed or not with prosecution must not be vested solely on one individual. A mechanism must be in place where the Attorney-General should be made answerable for his decision – making him, too, accountable to the people.

Thirdly, the commission must give detailed reasons as to why a case has been dropped. The present attitude of "we don’t need to explain or inform" does not help instil public confidence in the ACA.

Fourthly, there must be adequate protection for whistle-blowers. Previously, those who lodged reports were treated as suspects.

One hopes that finally, there is political will to ensure a competent, effective and transparent system to fight graft.