Letter to editor
I WRITE in response to Centre to Combat Corruption & Cronyism (C4) Malaysia’s recent media statement, “Public trust without MACC reform is a mere fantasy”.
While we all agree that public trust is crucial for any institution, C4’s assertions that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) lacks independence is problematic.
Before C4 criticises the MACC, it should first address the transparency issues within its own organisation.
C4 has long received funding from foreign entities such as the Open Society Foundations (George Soros) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is directly funded by the US Congress.
These financial ties raise legitimate concerns about the potential influence of external forces on C4’s agenda. It is important to question whether C4 is promoting an impartial stance or advancing the interests of its foreign donors.
For an organisation that often positions itself as a watchdog, it’s akin to throwing stones from a glass house when they criticise others without introspecting on their own vulnerabilities.
Independent body
C4’s accusations that the MACC lacks independence fail to acknowledge the legal and institutional safeguards in place. By statute, the MACC does not need to report to the Prime Minister but is independent in its decision to investigate any suspicious corrupt activities.
Furthermore, the MACC is overseen by five independent monitoring bodies such as the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board, the Operations Review Panel and the Special Committee on Corruption which comprise members of the public as well as members of parliaments from different political parties.
The oversight bodies are designed to ensure that there is no political interference in MACC’s operations as well as responsible for reviewing the MACC’s conduct and ensuring its investigations are conducted properly and fairly.
These legal structures are intended to maintain the MACC’s impartiality which is contrary to what C4 seems to suggest.
If C4 is serious about reform and accountability, it should focus on strengthening the integrity of Malaysian institutions rather than tarnishing their reputation without a solid foundation for their claims.
In conclusion, public trust is vital but reform demands a holistic approach – one that also applies to organisations like C4.
Attacking MACC without acknowledging its structural safeguards while ignoring their own foreign influence is a disservice to the public discourse. – Oct 11, 2024
Salina M
Kuala Lumpur
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
