— By the mid-1990s, it was apparent that Malaysia had two problems that concerned investors. One was official corruption and the other, a judiciary whose integrity was suspect. Both problems were well known although the issue of judicial integrity, or its lack thereof, was always ignored or denied outright.
But the findings of last year’s Royal Commission of Inquiry showed that what was always suspected and whispered about was irrefutably true. In the twilight of his political life, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi now wants to put things right. It could be his greatest farewell gesture to the country.
Last week, the Malaysian Parliament passed two bills — an Act enabling the formation of a Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and another authorising a Judicial Appointments Commission.
The MACC is modelled on Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption and designed to replace Malaysia's present corruption fighter which has justifiably been dismissed as toothless. The new board will be overseen by an advisory board of eminent people and a committee of seven lawmakers that will present an annual report to Parliament.
Like its HK counterpart, the MACC has wide ranging powers including those of arrest, investigation and the interception of communications. It has also the power to protect whistle blowers and to investigate people living beyond their means.
The Judicial Appointments Committee will have a nine-man panel to nominate judicial candidates to the Prime Minister. The committee will comprise five senior judges and four eminent persons and will be selected after consultation with institutions such as the Bar Council.
As ever, there are critics. There are those who argue that the MACC has too much power. This is a patently ridiculous notion when juxtaposed against what will soon be the former Anti-Corruption Agency — a weak agency precisely because it lacked such powers. The other contention is that the MACC isn’t wholly independent and that the Attorney-General would still call the shots in deciding to prosecute.
Sadly, all the fuss over the Attorney-General’s power boils down to the individual. In Malaysia's first 25 years, no one ever questioned the Attorney-General’s motives. Unfortunately, the current office holder’s motives are now being questioned; it is this reality that should be considered by the government.
The criticism of the judicial commission lies mainly in the fact that the Prime Minister still wields considerable power; he can ask for two more choices if he does not like those nominated, and that he alone can appoint and remove panel members who will nominate the judges.
Against this, the law now says that the premier must consult institutions such as the Bar Council before appointing or removing anyone and that is to be a check on his power. The critics should understand in all jurisdictions modelled on the Wesminister system, even developed ones, have executive involvement in judicial appointments.
No comments:
Post a Comment