When ACA (Anti-Corruption Agency) morphed into MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission), it was declared as modelled after HK's ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) with an implied objective to emulate the latter's well known success.
When ACA was formed with Harun Hashim as Director, it was well known for its success in efficient investigation and successful conviction of a number of high level politicians. Perhaps, it was too efficient for comfort to BN political leaders, and somehow, Dr. Mahathir changed the rules and politicians who lived beyond their means were not investigated. Together with OSA, ministers and heads of ministries who were inclined, must have had a field day in enriching themselves, virtually with impunity.
Perception? Well, most people would not be surprised when Rafizi revealed MACC's appalling record when compared with ICAC.
In an immediate response, a BN smart alec came out with an 'explanation':
'Later in Parliament when Rafizi was debating the royal address, Jerlun MP Datuk Othman Aziz said the ICAC figures only showed that Hong Kong had more corruption cases.'!!!
From The Malaysian Insider:
MACC’s record is"shocking” says PKR’s Rafizi
BY ELIZABETH ZACHARIAH
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has a dismal record in combating corruption, says PKR’s Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli.
Rafizi said this after comparing the MACC’s record with its Hong Kong counterpart, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).
He made the observation after receiving a written reply from Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Senator Datuk Paul Low on the agency’s record in fighting graft.
Low had provided a comparison of the agency’s record with its Hong Kong counterpart.
Rafizi said based on statistics obtained from MACC's annual report in 2011, the commission only has a 20% hit rate when it comes to investigating complaints, which paled in comparison with ICAC's wjhich was 77%.
What was worse, he said, was the percentage of the number of investigation papers that were opened against the number of reports received.
"ICAC's percentage is 77% while MACC's is a shocking 20%.
"That means only one in five reports is investigated. So if you file a report with MACC, chances are it won't be investigated anyway.
"The rate of successful convictions of MACC (68%) also pales in comparison to ICAC, which recorded 86%.
"So not only does the ICAC receive more tipoffs, opens more investigation papers, but (it) also has more convictions.
He challenged Low to increase the effectiveness of MACC by working to improve the percentage of investigation papers and its conviction rates.
"He must make sure that MACC can be comparable to the ICAC."