Institutional strengthening and what it can mean to M’sia
The work of anti-corruption agencies should always be about the organisation and not the individual at the helm.
By KK Aw
The chief of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) wants to take on an international appointment, and many people, including those from civil society organisations are very concerned, saying it would be a great loss to the MACC and the nation. There is some speculation he has been removed because of his involvement in certain controversial cases. On top of that, some quarters are using this opportunity to call for an independent MACC to fight graft. The minister in charge of integrity issued a statement that Putrajaya would ensure “his successor should be a person of the highest personal integrity, with intimate knowledge and extensive experience in the intricate workings and methods of combating corruption.”
But wait a minute, is the MACC so fragile that it is highly dependent on the chief of the commission to function effectively? Are the standard operating procedures not put in place such that the commission is a sustainable going concern? Do they not have the technical and management expertise to run the organisation? Has it not got an effective governance structure and operating model? If any of the above is not so, then this commission is a candidate for institutional strengthening.
Recently, I attended the IDEAS public forum on the topic: “Should the roles of the AG and PP be separated.” Constitutionally, the AG’s discretion is absolute, or so it seems, hence the suggestion to split his roles and powers. The essence of democracy is a consensus with checks and balances. How is it that so much power is vested in one person? Is this not an enormous anomaly? Whether the power is vested in one person or two, does it really make that much of a difference?
Is a chief executive duly appointed for his or her management or technical expertise or both? If it is technical expertise, does the chief executive suddenly acquire superior technical expertise by virtue of the appointment? The expertise required to run the organisation can be in so many specialised areas, each requiring years of experience to master. As such, can the expertise and wisdom of the chief executive surpass that of his office? Putting it this way, makes it obvious that it cannot be so. Unfortunately, these are the apparent expectations of the Malaysian public and the attitudes of some of its chief executives.
Corruption is an unfair fight between the corrupters and the public officers standing in their way. At stake for the corrupters is millions or hundreds of millions of ringgit, and more recently billions. In comparison, the public officers only have their salary and service benefits. Are we not expecting too much when we expect a public officer to single-handedly stop corruption? Is there an alternative?
Chief executives are appointed to manage government agencies and we should hold them accountable for this. The chief executives must put in place or maintain a structure that supports good governance and transparency. The work of the agencies should always be attributed to the organisation and not the individual. It is not uncommon for the media to frame it as though it is the contribution of the chief executives and pitch them against other parties. This is unhealthy and does not help to fight corruption in the long run.
In the UK, prosecution is undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service. In Australia it is by the Australia’s Federal Prosecution Service. Likewise, in Canada, it is by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. As we can see, the emphasis is always on the organisation rather than the individual.
Good governance is about the processes of making and implementing decisions. It’s not about making ‘correct’ decisions, but about the best possible process for making those decisions.
In the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), one of the most important decisions is whether to prosecute or not. A key to good governance here is the Public Prosecution Policy, which should be a public document. I tried searching for the Malaysian Policy using Google but did not find anything. The Australian Prosecution Policy is available here. It is interesting that this caveat was stated in the above page “The decision to prosecute must be made impartially and must not be influenced by any inappropriate reference to race, religion, sex, national origin or political association. The decision to prosecute must not be influenced by any political advantage or disadvantage to the Government.”
In the Malaysian context, even if the policies and standard operating procedures are in place, it does not mean that they will be followed. My analysis of the Auditor-General’s Reports for the years 2011 to 2014, shows that there is frequent and repeated transgression by public sector entities in regulations related to administration, approvals, documentation, procurement and public policies. Recent events are also not so reassuring to me. Is there documentary proof that the decisions made by the AG or AGC are collective decisions? Was a competent team assembled to handle the cases? Are the case deliberations documented? Perhaps, to enhance public confidence, the AGC should be audited by the National Audit Department (NAD), the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) or another competent authority for good governance. This should be considered part of their institutional strengthening.
While the NAD does mention governance in the AG’s report, it is mainly in the context of corporate governance rather than governance in decision-making processes.
Interestingly enough, the “mission” of the NAD is “to carry our audits in a professional and indepedent manner to produce a balanced report to the parliament and state legislatures towards enhancing good governance in the public sector.”
DISCLAIMER: I have no training in legal matters, and these are my opinions as a concerned citizen, trying to help unravel the conundrum we are in, in a pragmatic way.
KK Aw is an FMT reader.
Stay current - Follow FMT on WhatsApp, Google news and Telegram
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.