Wrong to appoint PAC members to cabinet?

BN may think not, but think again.

KUALA LUMPUR: Former Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairman Nur Jazlan Mohamed is reported today to have told the Malaysian Insider that the appointments of four members of the bipartisan parliamentary committee investigating 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) to the cabinet was a “promotion” which they deserved.

Speaking of the appointments of Wilfred Tangau, Reezal Merican, Mas Ermiyatie Shamsuddin and himself to the Cabinet last week, Nur Jazlan suggested that “people should look positively at the promotions as they are to refresh the leadership ranks with younger and better people who have served PAC well.”

Yesterday also saw Barisan Nasional strategic director Abdul Rahman Dahlan ask if “it (was) fair to deny (Nur Jazlan) the opportunity to advance his political career,” according to Malaysiakini. He went on to justify Nur Jazlan’s acceptance of a deputy ministerial post by saying that he ought not to be deprived of the opportunity.

So, it seems clear then that the four PAC members’ appointments were “promotions” and “opportunities” for them to “advance” their “political careers,” which they took. But should they have?

The system of separation of powers enshrined in the Federal Constitution means that Parliament is independent of the Executive, and operates as a check and balance towards it.

The PAC was specifically entrusted by Parliament with an investigation into the conduct of 1MDB, a state -owned company for which the Executive was fully responsible. Any act which would amount to a sabotage of the performance by the PAC of its functions ought to be seen as a contempt of Parliament.

The huge outcry among parliamentarians and the public at large tends to show that many considered the appointments to be a blatant act to stymy or delay the fact-finding process which the PAC had already embarked on. In the eyes of these persons, it was a clear attempt to subvert the workings of the legislative committee.

There is also one other compelling argument, it seems.

Section 16 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009 provides that “any person who corruptly gives or receives any gratification as an inducement to or a reward for or otherwise on account of any officer of a public body doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction, actual or proposed or likely to take place, commits an offence.”

The term “gratification” under the MACC Act includes “any office,” which surely must include ministerial positions, while the term “public body” must by definition include the PAC.

Is there a case for contempt of Parliament? Has a criminal offence also been made out against the giver and recipients of these ministerial positions?

The response of the Speaker, the Attorney General and the MACC chief commissioner would be most interesting.