Speaking at an online forum organised by the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism entitled “Breaking the Chain of Corruption: Whistleblowers Vital to Break the Chain of Corruption. Is There Protection?”, Christopher Leong, suggested that the MACC be enshrined under the federal constitution like the judicial and election commissions.
He said that as a civil service organisation MACC was subject to the government’s standing orders.
“This means it’s independence could be compromised as even high-ranking officials can be easily moved to different departments.
“Even the chief commissioner himself can be transferred merely by administrative action. This non-security of tenure for even its highest-ranking official, makes MACC structurally susceptible to interference and pressure,” he said.
Leong, who sat on the forum’s panel, argued that if MACC was included in the constitution, the process to remove the chief would require a tribunal.
“Also, instituting term limits would ensure nobody is able to embed themselves in the role for an undue period of time,” he said.
Leong added that MACC’s hiring practices too needed to be overhauled, as currently there was no guarantee that officers hired by the MACC were cut out for the role.
“This is especially pertinent with criminal activity becoming more complicated and sophisticated in the digital age.
“Currently, MACC’s officers come from the general pool of civil service applicants, so they are not officers who have been specifically recruited or interviewed to become MACC officers,” he said.
Another member of the panel, veteran journalist R Nadeswaran spoke on the requirement for whistleblowers to be officially registered with MACC under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010, calling it “overly complicated”.
“People with evidence of wrongdoing should be able to report it to anyone without fear of having their right to protection revoked.
“Anyone who provides information should be considered a whistleblower unless they leak it publicly.
“If somebody discreetly gives their report, they should be treated as an informant under the Whistleblower Act, and there should be no need for registration.”
Under the current Whistleblower Protection Act 2010, disclosing information to a third party – which could include a company’s private integrity unit – before reporting it to the MACC could result in one having their right to whistleblower protection revoked.