Support letters, cigars: a betrayal of trust from the highest echelons

Following the International Anti-Corruption Day on Nov 24 and the rousing speech by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief on efforts since 2009 — when this writer was appointed to one of its independent oversight panels — there appears to be a spring in the feet of MACC in its investigative process.
The anti-graft body has moved quickly, summoning self-proclaimed whistleblower Albert Tei and a woman, Sofia Rini Buyong, to Putrajaya to assist in investigations, and to record their statements. Sofia had her statement taken on Nov 27.
On Friday, Tei and “man-of-the-moment” Shamsul Iskandar Amin, the ex-political secretary to the prime minister, were both arrested within three hours of each other. Sofia was arrested on Thursday.
The MACC is to be commended on its speedy action.
The speedy summoning of parties contrasts sharply with the lack of inertia by the MACC on the Sabah mining scandal, possibly due to lethargy or inability to decipher videos in a professional manner on the bribery revelations of the supposed whistleblower.
Who is tarring whom, both in the Sabah episode and the current one, is the obvious question. Is there a connection?
Answers are not immediately discernible, except possibly to the esoteric coterie who know what goes on in the corridors of power and political foreplay.
I had written then in support of the MACC that Tei should not be given protection under the Whistleblowers Act as he had his hand in the pie. He has since been charged as the briber in that episode.
In Shamsul’s case, the lack of integrity overall has been appalling, especially on the matter of support letters being issued although it has rightly led to his resignation. There was the immediate acceptance of guilt.
But if documentary evidence had not been brought to light by whistleblowers, this illicit behaviour would not have seen the light of day.
It is both sad and damning to all stakeholders who were elected on the promise of a "clean" government. It has opened a Pandora’s box on the type of deviant behaviour that the current government, voted in to eradicate such conduct, appears to be perpetuating.
Corruption, from an ethics perspective, has again raised its ugly head, whether money changed hands or not. Expensive cigars, renovations and business suits, if proven, suffice.
To say that in the final analysis — "contracts were not awarded to those in the support letter" — reflects a betrayal of trust by the highest echelons. It reflects a complete lack of understanding on good governance. Pontificating about it is hypocritical if not practised!
For MACC to maintain its credibility, no stone should be left unturned. All investigations should proceed speedily and with transparency. Complicity, if any, should be investigated.
Most importantly, there must not be the perception that investigations are being compromised due to certain personalities, including and not limited to politicians or persons of influence, having escaped scrutiny.
All parties are currently locally domiciled so there should be no delay attributable to jurisdictional issues or non-cooperation from foreign entities to delay investigations, unless parties have fled.
The reason "we can’t locate them as they are somewhere abroad", as reported for some other corruption cases, doesn’t hold water.
This is a delicate balancing act for the MACC given that the chief commissioner continues to be a civil servant answerable to the head of the government and a principal actor in this episode is his ex-political secretary. This is a lethal combo.
The oversight panels have a role to play here given they are deemed independent. Any shortchange on their part will grossly undermine the MACC Act 2009 under which these panels came into being.
On the other dimension, corporates which have elaborate ethics policies should also take cognisance that approaching politicians, corrupt as some are either for money or influence, should not be an acceptable business practice.
Contract bidders who submit such “support letters” should be blacklisted and removed from consideration.
It appears that politicians on either side of the aisle cannot be trusted to operate on the platforms that they were elected on. Ethics, integrity and governance are compromised.
The voting public is left in a quandary as corruption continues to be a damning indictment of the hollow commitment to reform.
"When in Rome do as the Romans do" is a fitting epitaph for those holding the reins of power. Should Putrajaya be the same?

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.