He said MACC, in its present form, should be fiercely defended, as it was able to investigate whoever it wanted to, without having to ask anyone for permission.

“If we were to put MACC under Parliament, it is likely that we will have to follow policies that are set by politicians at a time when people are calling for us to be free from political pressure.

“A senior minister texted me, asking, ‘Am I being investigated?’ I replied, ‘Yes, thank you sir’. After that there was nothing more,” he told reporters on the sidelines of an event here.

He gave this example in comparing MACC to anti-corruption bodies in other countries, which, he claimed, required “permission” from their senate or Parliament to investigate high-profile figures.

Azam said when the Ultra Kirana Sdn Bhd ledger issue cropped up during Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s graft trial, he had mentioned that there was no need for reports to be filed as the agency had started investigating all the names mentioned.

“There are a lot of high profile people on the list. Do I need to ask anyone to start investigating? No, MACC does not need to ask anyone. So, tell me, what is the problem with the present system?” he asked.

Rather than having MACC parked under Parliament, Azam said, the focus should be on the chief commissioner’s job being safe from abrupt removal.

He said the chief commissioner’s position should have the security of tenure and any removal should be subject to a tribunal, the same way a judge is removed.

He reiterated that MACC was very transparent, with six independent bodies monitoring it, including a parliamentary select committee, for check and balance.

However, he added, “we remain open if legislators want to make changes in Parliament (affecting MACC)”.