Selective enforcement – Who guards the guardians?

I WRITE today out of a deep sense of unease, not merely at isolated acts of alleged misconduct, but at the growing perception that key institutions are being bent, if not weaponised, in ways that threaten both the rule of law and the integrity of governance under the Madani administration led by Anwar Ibrahim.

Corporate mafia

At the centre of the controversies is the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), supposedly an independent guardian against corruption, but now increasingly viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a tool susceptible to manipulation by powerful corporate interests.

The allegation that corporate mafias are leveraging MACC processes to blackmail targets into corporate concessions or hostile takeovers is not only damaging to our business ecosystem but also undermining foreign investors’ confidence in the nation, especially so when it was reported by Bloomberg.

Selective investigation

The case involving businessman Victor Chin has become a lightning rod. The raid of his two properties and freezing of over 500 accounts linked to him create an impression of decisive enforcement. Yet, such action raises more questions than answers.

Is this a genuine pursuit of justice, or an act to divert public attention from intense criticism against the officers involved, or a show staged to hoodwink the public into believing that accountability is being upheld?

More critically, why has there been no visible effort to investigate the conduct of MACC officers themselves? In any mature system of governance, allegations of abuse within an enforcement agency demand internal scrutiny of equal, if not greater, rigour.

To pursue the alleged co-offender, while ignoring the potential misconduct of the enforcers is against the very principle of equality before the law.

Such selective enforcement prompted a plot twist when Victor Chin exposed that he had given a PKR member of parliament RM9.5 million to resolve his alleged issue with the ‘corporate mafia’.

Victor also claimed that he was a victim of ‘corporate mafia’ when he was ousted from NextG Berhad, a public listed company which has secured a RM1.73 billion six year government contract for the supply of international passports.

Soon after Victor Chin released his 40 page statement to the press, Sungai Buloh MP R. Ramanan, in an unholy haste, openly denied that he was the MP even before 30 March 2026, the deadline set by Victor Chin for the return of the RM9.5 million.

This can be a crack in the dam which may lead to exposure of bigger scandalous misconduct.

The controversial MACC chief

This brings us inevitably to the long-standing controversy surrounding Azam Baki. His widely reported breach of the civil service code, particularly in relation to share ownership, was never satisfactorily resolved in the court of public opinion.

A high powered special investigative committee led by Attorney General Dusuki Mokhtar was deployed to carry out an internal scrutiny, a report has since been submitted to the Federal Cabinet. The findings of the said investigative committee have been kept secretive.

In this respect, Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli claimed that the probe had uncovered a total of RM14 million in shares held by the MACC chief commissioner in nine companies. The value of the shares itself warrants a thorough investigation into the source of such wealth.

The defiant MACC chief, instead of giving an explanation to the public, has ironically suggested ways to curb corruption perpetrated via public fund raising. Why is the Madani government so fearful to take action against him?

On March 11, government spokesperson Fahmi Fadzil stated that the cabinet had received and discussed the report but refused to disclose any details. Two days later, DAP secretary general Anthony Loke admitted that his party was unable to persuade the cabinet to establish a royal commission of inquiry (RCI), but stressed that investigations were still ‘ongoing’. Interestingly, the Transport Minister revealed that he knew of a similar ‘corporate mafia’ case five years ago.

Thus far, there has been a total lack of transparency in the handling of this issue. What made it worse is that the government is counting on MACC to investigate itself. When the investigators themselves are under probe, silence, delay, ambiguity and insufficient engagement in the investigation can be as damaging as the allegation itself.

The government’s apparent reliance on the non-renewal of his term as a quiet administrative closure is wholly inadequate. Let us be clear, the expiration of tenure is not accountability, neither can it be seen as disciplinary action. It is an evasion of responsibility sidestepping the mischief that rots the institution.

Worse still is the perception that the Prime Minister himself was defensive of Azam Baki. After the shareholding scandal had been exposed, when asked by a reporter on the public pressure for the sacking of the MACC chief, Anwar Ibrahim replied “orang yang buat kerja, nak pecat pasal apa?” This is a stark contrast to Anwar urging for Azam Baki to be suspended pending investigation when he was found owning public company shares which value exceeded the permitted limit in 2021.

Systemic collusion

This suggests that the latter’s position is of particular value to the Anwar administration. It reaffirms public perception that MACC is used as a tool to ensure political patronage to the sitting Prime Minister. True or otherwise, such optics erode public confidence.

The rot, unfortunately, appears deeper. What we are witnessing is not a series of isolated lapses but the entrenchment of a culture, one where coercive powers can be selectively deployed, where enforcement may be uneven, and where institutional safeguards are insufficiently robust to prevent abuse. When such practices become institutionalised, reform becomes exponentially more difficult.

The government’s investigation led by the Attorney General has done little to inspire confidence. Without independence, transparency, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths, such exercises risk being dismissed as purely theatrical.

If even a fraction of these claims are proven credible, the implications are profound. They suggest not merely misconduct, but the possibility of systemic collusion.

Politically, the stakes could not be higher. The Madani government is already grappling with declining public confidence. Among non-Muslim voters in particular, there is a growing sense of alienation, fuelled by issues such as the demolition of Hindu temples and the non-renewal of pig farming licences in Selangor. These are not merely administrative matters; they strike at the heart of cultural and economic security for minority communities.

In such a climate, the perception that enforcement agencies are being weaponised compounds the sense of injustice. It feeds a narrative that the government is either unwilling or unable to uphold the principles of fairness and equality before the law.

As the next General Election approaches, this trajectory is politically unsustainable. No government, however well-intentioned at its inception, can endure if it loses the trust of the governed. Legitimacy, once eroded, is not easily restored.

The way forward

The path forward is clear, though not easy. The government must confront these issues head-on. This means establishing a truly independent inquiry into MACC (a Royal Commission of Inquiry is most befitting) , including the conduct of its officers; providing full and transparent accountability in the case of Azam Baki; ensuring that enforcement actions are even-handed and free from political or corporate influence.

Anything less will be seen as a failure of leadership at a critical juncture in our nation’s history. History will not judge this government by its slogans, but by its courage to act when it mattered most.