An RCI Is the Test of Madani’s Commitment to Transparency
The Madani government’s decision to deploy a multi agency probe involving the police, the Inland Revenue Board, the Securities Commission and even the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission itself to investigate the “corporate mafia” allegations surrounding its chief commissioner Azam Baki is difficult to reconcile with the standards of transparency and accountability that the present administration once championed.
At the heart of the criticism is a fundamental issue of institutional independence. When the investigation concerns allegations touching the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission itself, a process in which executive agencies, all ultimately accountable to the cabinet, are tasked with examining one another inevitably raises the spectre of conflict of interest. Even if such agencies conduct their work diligently, the structure of the inquiry alone risks undermining public confidence in its outcome.
This is precisely why many have called for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI). An RCI, by design, is intended to provide a forum that is independent, transparent and publicly accountable, particularly when allegations involve senior public officials or key institutions of state. In matters where public trust in governance is at stake, the credibility of the investigative mechanism is just as important as the findings themselves.
The reluctance to establish such an independent mechanism is therefore puzzling. Calls for an RCI have not come from a single political bloc but from across the aisle, including government backbenchers, opposition lawmakers, civil society organisations and governance advocates. When concerns span political divides, the natural response of a confident administration would ordinarily be to embrace the highest standard of scrutiny, not avoid it.
What makes the present situation especially striking is the contrast with the posture taken by many of the same political actors when they were in opposition. At that time, even minor allegations of impropriety involving government institutions often prompted emphatic demands for independent investigations and royal commissions.
Today, when similar and factually compelling calls arise in relation to the MACC leadership, the government appears markedly more cautious, even resistant.
This contrast risks creating the perception of political inconsistency and a departure from earlier positions. A government that built its moral authority on promises of reform and transparency must be especially careful not to appear as though it is retreating from those principles once entrusted with power.
Ultimately, the issue is not merely about the fate of one official or the reputation of one institution. It is about the public’s confidence in the integrity of the state itself. In circumstances where allegations are serious and involve the nation’s premier anti corruption body, only a process that is manifestly independent and openly conducted can dispel doubts.
An RCI is neither extraordinary nor punitive, it is simply the most credible mechanism available in the Malaysian constitutional framework for dealing with controversies of this magnitude. Persisting with internal or executive directed investigations while declining to establish such an inquiry inevitably invites a troubling question, if there is nothing to hide, why resist the most transparent form of scrutiny?
In the end, the issue returns to a simple democratic principle. This is a government elected by the people, and when calls for transparency and accountability arise not only from civil society but also from across the political spectrum, those concerns deserve to be respected.
Responding to those calls through the establishment of an independent RCI would not weaken the government, it would strengthen public confidence that the administration remains committed to the very principles of openness, accountability and integrity that it once so strongly championed.
Teresa Kok