MALAYSIA: The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) is facing backlash over its decision to allow Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) to conduct an internal investigation into corruption allegations involving actor-director Afdlin Shauki. The move has sparked debate, with observers questioning the agency’s consistency, given its past actions in similar cases.

Departure from previous practices

As reported by MalaysiaNow, MACC has previously acted swiftly in corruption cases involving municipal councils, often detaining suspects without waiting for internal probes. In July last year, MACC detained seven enforcement officers from DBKL as part of an investigation into corruption linked to the protection of illegally operating premises. In 2021, it arrested a Johor mayor accused of accepting bribes for project approvals. The following year, nine people, including staff from the Shah Alam City Council, were arrested in connection with a cartel allegedly monopolising project tenders.

These precedents have led critics to question why MACC has opted for a different approach in the case of Afdlin Shauki, who is a DBKL board member and a vocal supporter of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

Allegations against Afdlin Shauki

The allegations first surfaced on the Telegram channel Edisi Siasat, which is known for exposing corruption within government agencies. The channel claimed Afdlin had violated procedures in an RM7 million (S$2.1 million) radio station project, later scrapped by Kuala Lumpur mayor Maimunah Mohd Sharif, as published in a MalaysiaNow article.

The channel went on to claim that the Sports and Welfare Club under Yayasan Wilayah Persekutuan (KSKYWP) had played a role in directing a contract worth RM4 million, which was originally allocated by DBKL for the production of creative materials, to an alleged crony-linked company. Additionally, a third allegation was made regarding the Friends of DBKL TikTok channel project, suggesting it had not gone through the proper tendering process. As a result of this alleged procedural bypass, a well-known podcaster was reportedly left with an obligation to deliver over 100 video clips to City Hall.

Afdlin has denied all allegations, calling them an attempt to tarnish his reputation. “Their agenda is driven by misplaced feelings of envy and revenge,” he said in a statement.

MACC responds

MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki stated that the agency would await DBKL’s internal findings before intervening. MalaysiaNow quoted him as saying that MACC integrity officers seconded to DBKL were involved in the probe and that the case would be referred to the anti-graft body if corruption elements were identified under the MACC Act 2009.

“I am informed that DBKL is acting on information received, and we do not know the truth of this offence,” he added in his statement.

Azam’s remarks suggest that MACC is taking a more measured approach in this case, relying on DBKL’s internal mechanisms before stepping in. However, critics argue that this stance could be seen as inconsistent with the agency’s past actions, where it had swiftly detained suspects without waiting for internal probes. This raises concerns about whether MACC’s decision reflects a broader policy shift or is an isolated deviation influenced by external factors.

Concerns over MACC’s consistency

MACC’s decision raises broader concerns about how they handle corruption cases, particularly when high-profile figures are involved. While some may argue that DBKL’s internal probe could be a preliminary step before MACC takes action, others fear it sets a concerning precedent that could allow misconduct to go unchecked.

Lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla has strongly criticised MACC’s stance. “Where is the consistency? If, for example, DBKL is allowed to carry out internal investigations first, why is the same not permitted for other agencies and private companies?” he asked.

Haniff also warned that delaying MACC’s involvement could compromise evidence. “If MACC wants to wait for the internal probe to finish, what proof is there that evidence will not be altered, switched, hidden or falsified?” he questioned.

Anti-corruption activist Jais Abdul Karim, head of Malaysia Corruption Watch, echoed similar concerns, stating that MACC’s approach should be clarified to maintain public trust. “Perhaps there were factors taken into consideration by MACC in determining whether a case should be investigated internally by DBKL or taken over by MACC,” he told MalaysiaNow.

“In any case, transparency and further clarification from MACC will help reduce confusion and ensure public trust in the integrity of the investigation process,” Mr Karim concluded.