Investigation and prosecution of corruption cases is selective, says Transparency International
BANGKOK (TrustLaw) – Malaysia's fight against corruption has lost ground in recent years due to selective investigation and prosecution of graft cases, combined with a lack of political will, the head of Transparency International (TI) in the southeast Asian nation has said.
Ngooi Chiu Ing, secretary-general of the Malaysian branch of the anti-graft watchdog, told TrustLaw a further obstacle is that the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC), the country's main body for tackling graft, lacks prosecution powers. These lie solely with the attorney general who has made "odd" decisions not to take further action in certain cases, he added.
One example of how graft cases either go unnoticed or are not investigated in Malaysia is the Alcatel-Lucent bribery controversy that erupted in December.
The French telecoms equipment giant was accused by U.S. officials of bribing officials in Latin America and Asia, including Malaysia, to secure contracts between 2001 and 2006. The company has agreed to pay $137 million in fines and penalties.
"The Alcatel issue surfaced due largely to the wide reporting on the case in the U.S. which was picked up locally. It is unfortunate that we needed a charge from a foreign legislation (the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) to highlight incidences of possible corruption in Malaysia," said Ngooi.
"Cases of corruption will occur – the issue is selective non-investigation or prosecution."
Observers say Alcatel-Lucent is just the latest example of graft in Malaysia, which mainly involves major government projects and contracts with huge public funding.
PUBLIC SCEPTICISM
Malaysia dropped to 56 in Transparency International's 2010 corruption perceptions index (CPI), covering some 180 countries, from a high of 23 in 1995. It has steadily fallen in the rankings, and despite being considered the third cleanest country in the regional bloc of southeast Asian nations (ASEAN), it "has lost ground while others are gaining", Ngooi said.
"What this says is that Malaysia needs to be more proactive in addressing corruption, especially grand corruption if it wishes to maintain or improve its CPI position within ASEAN."
While there have been numerous media reports about high-profile corruption cases involving ruling party politicians and powerful individuals, the public's perception is that few are investigated and even fewer end up in court.
In addition, the MACC, set up in 2009 to replace the Anti-Corruption Agency Malaysia, has been unable to catch any big fish, fuelling widespread belief that it is not completely independent.
Ngooi, however, is optimistic that things will change under Dato Sri' Hj. Abu Kassim bin Mohamed, who was appointed chief commissioner of the body at the start of 2010. He noted that Ling Liong Sik, former leader of the Malaysian Chinese Association and ex-transport minister, and Khir Toyo, ex-chief minister of Selangor state, have been investigated and charged with corruption by the commission in recent months.
The MACC would be more effective if it had prosecution powers, Ngooi said, like Indonesia's successful and powerful Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), although the KPK has become more subdued after it came under attack and lost leading officials.
UN CONVENTION RATIFIED
Still, campaigners see Malaysia's ratification of the U.N. Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) in September 2008 as cause for optimism. And the country has started implementing parts of the convention, such as the Whistleblower Protection Act.
"It is a good first step in addressing an important supporting component in the fight against corruption," Ngooi said.
There is room for improvement, however, such as creating a central authority or ombudsman responsible for all whistleblowing information, he added. Currently each enforcement unit is responsible for agencies only under their authority, which could lead to a lack of coordination.
"The value of this Act will be based on the successful prosecutions based on information provided, but equally the protection of witnesses and whistleblowers. This will encourage more people to trust the authorities and provide information without fear," Ngooi said.
More importantly for the TI official, "the fight against corruption is not solely the domain of enforcement agencies or civil society".
"Each citizen has an equally important role to play," he emphasised.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
