“LOOKS like there will be 2,000 MACC reports next year”. This was the remark of my friend Nordin Abdullah upon reading that the Auditor General’s Department will be auditing all 2,000-plus government link and government link investment companies (GLC and GLIC).
Any casual observer and consumer of news will tell you that this is a natural consequence of an audit. The annual Auditor General’s Report usually sees a slew of “raids” and arrests by anti-graft officers.
These are good optics for the Government and bound to score political points but if anything comes out of it is another matter.
Moreover, this enthusiasm to demonstrate action has in the past cost the reputations of innocent parties – individuals from senior management who probably deserved an administrative reprimand or even the sack but did not participate in graft.
They were paraded for the media but in the end, no action was taken or it was established there is no prima facie case or element of corruption.
These individuals should seek legal recourse against the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) for the shame they were subjected to.
The MACC with just 3,000 staff is already stretched. What more with what can be perceived as political cases that take precedence.
Despite a generous budget of RM388 million as announced in last year’s Budget speech (and expected to increase in 2025), it will never be enough. Even if it is a billion ringgit – it will not resolve the issues to the public’s satisfaction. Especially from an agency that in itself is facing a crisis of confidence.
Nevertheless, next year one can expect to see a few CEOs or directors of GLCs and GLICs being paraded in orange t-shirts to show the media and Joe Public that the MACC is serious in carrying out the Prime Minister’s reform agenda.
But how many of these catwalks will result in prosecution? MACC is notorious for its NFAs (No Further Action). And a large number of high-profile cases has resulted in NFAs with both the MACC and the Attorney General’s Chambers pointing fingers at each other – one for a purportedly poor gathering of evidence, the other for botched framing of charges.
Critics point at investigations into the Human Resources Development Corporation (HRDCorp) which involved both the Auditor General and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and showed administrative weaknesses but had not resulted in any punitive action.
In fact, in an unprecedented move the Corporation challenged the findings saying they did not paint the true picture of HRDCorp’s operations and went on to conduct its own audit.
This has set a precedent. Will these GLCs also challenge the findings of the Auditor General?
In the meantime, has the Auditor General’s Department the necessary resources to conduct these audits or will it be reliant on outside help due to the overwhelming task?
With over 2,000 staff and an annual budget of almost RM160 million the necessary support must be accorded to this institution which is critical in ensuring the intended reforms are implementable.
Amendments to the Audit Act 1957 is meant to give additional power to the Auditor General to follow up with agencies and institutions on if it has carried out recommendations to improve their respective processes to enhance good governance.
In fact, the amendments allow the Auditor General to even audit companies registered under the Companies Act 2016 if they received government guarantees.
This is to prevent another 1MDB or PKFZ.
Perhaps instead of relying on the MACC, current efforts to give the Auditor General more teeth should be the way, moving forward.
The Prime Minister had last year expressed his intention of making the Auditor General an ombudsman as well to compel ministries and agencies to adopt the recommendations made by the Auditor General.
Of course, in instances of blatant corruption, no exceptions should be made. — October 11, 2024
Terence is the editor-in-chief of Big Boom Media Sdn Bhd which publishes Scoop.