THE unilateral decision by the Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to appoint Latheefa Beebi Koya as the new Chief Commissioner of the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has raised some hue and cry from some quarters who are more opposed to the manner or the process of her appointment.
Few, however, have questioned her integrity and ability to do the job well.
Dr Mahathir has been blunt and non-apologetic on his decision, which is clearly in line with the rule of law and the Federal Constitution.
As prime minister, he and he alone has the sole prerogative to appoint the MACC chief.
There are many who are harping on the Pakatan Harapan (PH) manifesto drafted more than a year ago amid an ever changing environment and an understanding that important appointments should go through a process of consultation among the PH party members and in Parliament.
It is more of an expressed wish and not mandatory and the timing for such a process is also not clear.
But in theory, those advocating the need for consultation for such an appointment is not wrong.
There is a need to understand Dr Mahathir’s decision objectively and with a degree of political maturity based on getting our priorities right and the age-old debate about whether the end can justify the means.
On priorities, if you read the PH manifesto in its totality, the single biggest problem highlighted in the manifesto was corruption and no other issues came close.
Yes, the new government has done everything it can and followed the rule of law to properly investigate and prosecute with evidence those who have been accused of corruption.
Investigations and gathering of evidence would take time as they must not be rushed into and seen as persecution.
Yet, the resistance to change with old habits die hard and the perception that many in the enforcement agencies and the civil service of the former government may also be tainted, is somehow making the public perceive, rightly or wrongly, that not enough is being done by the new government to fight and eradicate corruption.
Dr Mahathir must have felt that it is more important to quickly decide on appointing a highly respected, no nonsense and plucky civil society activist with a legal background than worrying about consulting so many people.
If he had opted to go through the process of consultation with so many parties wanting to give their views, and some may even lobby for their nominees, it would have taken a lot of time and create more friction and divisions within PH.
It would have been unnecessary and time consuming.
Partly spurred by public pressure to do more after one year in power, Dr Mahathir is a man in a hurry.
And rightly so. There is so much that he wishes to accomplish before he leaves office.
Past debts and losses from corruption are still draining the country and still holding our economy from moving forward.
Corruption is still quite rampant and needs to be addressed more holistically.
Many of the new ministers lack the expertise and experience that are needed to quickly steer the country forward.
The prime minister had no choice when confronted with a coalition of diverse political parties after GE 14, which he had to accommodate.
Most of them have no experience in the federal government before. Perhaps, it can be seen as part of the “growing pains” for any new government.
They must learn from making the mistakes themselves but the public is getting very impatient.
On hindsight, there should have been more experienced, honest and competent ministers appointed for the interim period and if there are no members of Parliament or MPs, perhaps they should be made senators first.
Based on the current configuration of MPs, Dr Mahathir does not have the luxury as he did in his previous term (1981 to 2003) when he commanded more than two thirds majority in Parliament.
As he was more in control then, he could consult any parties he liked and then made a decision quickly and no one was going to question him on that.
But in the present situation and a diverse make-up of PH parties, he could not afford for such a critical and important appointment to be bogged down by consulting with so many component parties in PH who might wish to have a say in the appointment.
But why stop at consulting only parties in PH? Why not consult the opposition and other parties too, including civil society and NGOs?
This would take more time and time is not a luxury that the new government has at the moment.
The position of the MACC chief needed to be filled in quickly. Otherwise, justice will be delayed as those involved in corruption would have more time to plot and plan to avoid prosecution.
The appointment of the new MACC chief can also be debated as part of the wider concept of whether the end can justify the means.
On a case-by-case basis, we have to decide, which is more important, the ends or the means.
In many cases the “end” is more important while in others, the “means” is more important.
In the case of the appointment of Latheefa Koya as the new MACC chief, if one examines the issue holistically, the end certainly justifies the means.---
The writer is a corporate and political analyst on local and global issues and he can be reached at kktan2271@gmail.com