KUALA LUMPUR – Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s claim of non-interference with government agencies such as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the judiciary is being scrutinised by analysts who argue that the assertions may not hold true.
Azmi Hassan, a senior fellow at the Nusantara Academy for Strategic Research, pointed out that Dr Mahathir had appointed individuals into high positions during his second tenure, raising public perceptions of political appointments.
“If we relate it to when Tan Sri Tommy Thomas was appointed as Attorney-General, and Latheefa Koya as the head of MACC, there was the perception of it being political persecution on the enemy of Pakatan Harapan at that time,” he told Scoop when contacted.
“It would be difficult to agree that (Dr Mahathir) was not involved or never touched on the AGC (Attorney-General’s Chambers) and judiciary during his tenure.”
Many had questioned Latheefa’s appointment as the head of MACC given her membership in PKR, and a lack of experience in leading law enforcement agencies.
However, her expertise as a lawyer received confidence from observers in the past.
Azmi also highlighted the 1988 judicial crisis that occurred during Dr Mahathir’s initial 22-year tenure.
In response to Dr Mahathir’s statement asserting non-interference with agencies such as the AGC, the MACC, and police, Azmi raised concerns about political influence and appointments, emphasising that such claims needed careful examination.
Yesterday, Dr Mahathir had also challenged Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s claims about investigating individuals with a ‘Tun’ title, suggesting that MACC investigations might be influenced by political affiliations.
Azmi countered this notion, stating that the MACC has “done a good job”, but suggested placing the agency’s independence directly under Parliament to prevent any claims of bending the law.
Meanwhile, Oh Ei Sun, a senior fellow at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, characterised Dr Mahathir’s rule as “authoritarian at best and dictatorial at worst.”
“When (Dr Mahathir) hinted at his displeasure toward his political rivals, most of the enforcement agencies would automatically ‘know what to do’ without his explicit instruction,” he said.
Oh agreed that investigating a ‘Tun’ might not be as challenging as investigating a sitting prime minister, where both the AGC and MACC fall under the latter’s department.
Awang Azman Awang Pawi, a sociopolitical analyst from Universiti Malaya (UM), speculated that Dr Mahathir’s claims might be influenced by his past experience, when opposition to him was minimal due to Umno’s strength.
He emphasised the need for fairness within the unity government and questioned the basis of Dr Mahathir’s claims, pointing out the absence of evidence linking Anwar to interference with the MACC and judiciary.
Awang also criticised Dr Mahathir’s selective approach in questioning Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s dismissal not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) while not disputing a similar outcome for Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, calling for consistency in evaluating legal decisions regardless of political affiliations.
“Why is it that when (Muhyiddin) received the DNAA, it was not disputed? (This is) very selective. If the decision involves their allies, then it is right, and vice versa, although it is the Attorney-General’s power,” he said, adding that Dr Mahathir should refrain from having double standards. – January 23, 2024