‘Corruption is worse than prostitution. The latter might endanger the morals of an individual, the former invariably endangers the morals of the entire country.’
– Karl Kraus, Austrian author
In recent days, Malaysians have witnessed corruption at its most brazen and corrosive. These events should compel us to confront an unavoidable truth.
The question is no longer whether corruption exists in Malaysia; it clearly does. The real question is whether Malaysia has the courage to confront it honestly and decisively.
Recent events – a growing list of corruption cases involving senior military officers, prominent corporate figures, and politically connected individuals, capped by an unusually blunt rebuke from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong – have once again put the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) under intense public scrutiny. And rightly so.
At the centre of this scrutiny lies an uncomfortable truth highlighted by anti-graft group C4 (Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism). MACC’s oversight bodies exist, but they lack bite. Oversight without enforcement is not accountability. It is theatre.
I am glad that Free Malaysia Today has highlighted C4’s statement, which is both timely and necessary. It serves as an important reminder to the government that it must take a hard, honest look at the MACC’s oversight framework and undertake meaningful reforms.
Oversight bodies without real powers are unlikely to inspire public confidence or ensure accountability. If the MACC is to meet Malaysians’ expectations in the fight against corruption, its oversight mechanisms must be strengthened and given real teeth – not merely advisory roles.
Under the MACC Act 2009, five oversight bodies were created to provide checks and balances. On paper, this appears robust. In reality, none of these bodies has the legal authority to investigate misconduct within MACC, compel action, impose sanctions or remove officials who abuse power or fail in their duties.
We have noted that these bodies can advise, review, recommend, but they cannot act.
That is not real oversight. That is institutional window-dressing.
If an agency can simply ignore recommendations without consequence, then oversight becomes optional. When oversight is optional, power goes unchecked. And when power goes unchecked, corruption thrives.
C4’s criticism is therefore not ideological or exaggerated – it is factual and structural.
A deeper problem lies in where MACC ultimately answers to. Despite its name and mandate, MACC remains effectively under the executive, with key appointments made on the advice of the Prime Minister. This creates an inherent conflict of interest, especially when investigations touch on powerful political or state actors.
An anti-corruption body that investigates the powerful cannot itself be dependent on the powerful.
This contradiction has haunted MACC for years, feeding public scepticism about selective prosecution, delayed investigations, and cases that quietly disappear.
Even when MACC acts decisively, doubts linger – not because Malaysians dislike enforcement, but because they no longer trust the system behind it.
C4’s call for Parliament and a strengthened Ombudsman to exercise primary oversight over MACC deserves firm support.
Parliamentary oversight, especially through a bipartisan select committee, would anchor MACC’s accountability to the people, not the executive.
It would introduce transparency into appointments, performance reviews, and institutional failures. Crucially, it would ensure that no government of the day can quietly neuter or weaponise the commission.
An empowered Ombudsman, meanwhile, would fill a critical gap – independent investigation of misconduct within MACC itself. No institution should be trusted to police its own abuses without external scrutiny. That principle applies to the police, the judiciary and certainly to an agency as powerful as MACC.
Oversight bodies must be able to investigate, summon witnesses, access records and recommend sanctions with legal force. Anything less is cosmetic reform.
The recent surge in corruption cases is not proof that corruption is new. It is proof that it has been allowed to fester.
When senior army officers are implicated, it points to vulnerabilities in procurement and defence oversight. When corporate elites are charged, it exposes weak governance and cosy state-business relationships. When public anger grows despite arrests, it reflects a deeper loss of confidence in institutions.
Corruption is not merely about bad individuals. It is about weak systems that protect them.
The King’s reminder that corruption involves both bribe-takers and bribe-givers is telling. It underscores a national impatience, even at the highest level, with half-measures and selective outrage.
All of us know that Malaysia does not lack laws; we lack enforcement with independence. We do not lack agencies; we lack accountability with consequences.
MACC was meant to be the sharp spear in the fight against corruption. Instead, its blunt oversight has turned it into a lightning rod for controversy and distrust.
If the government is serious about reform, then empowering Parliament and an Ombudsman to oversee MACC is not radical. It is necessary.
Oversight must have teeth. Accountability must hurt when ignored.
And anti-corruption must begin with those entrusted to enforce it.
Without that, MACC risks becoming yet another institution that promises integrity while operating within a system that quietly protects the corrupt.
And we, Malaysians, have had enough of promises.
——————————————————-
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at sirsiah@gmail.com
