Dr M continues to surprise

He's unpredictable!

Just when you thought Dr M is spiralling towards his old self again, adopting UMNO-type tactics of harping on bumiputra issues and dragging his feet on reforms, he surprises you... not with one but two things. Both are welcome developments but with caveats.

The first one was the surprise appointment of Latheefa Koya as the MACC chief. Her appointment was met with a chorus of praise from members of civil society:

Ambiga Sreenevasan said: "No doubt many crooks will be uncomfortable and terrified."

Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) Executive Director Cynthia Gabriel said: "I am completely taken by surprise but am happy about the choice. She is fearless, brave and a no-nonsense person. She will bring MACC to new heights."

Bersih Chairperson Thomas Fann said: “She is known to be a highly principled and courageous lawyer. Such qualities would make her a great chief of the MACC.

Human Rights Watch Asia Deputy Director Phil Robertson said: "Her strong adherence to human rights principles, tenacity and astuteness will serve her well in this new position to hold Malaysian politicians and civil servants accountable."

There are some criticisms about her being from PKR but the main concern has been with the process by which she was appointed. Dr M didn't even inform his Cabinet. Explaining this, Dr M said: "If the cabinet had to make the decision, it would have restricted me."

C4's Gabriel's response to this perfectly captures how I feel about this situation: "Although the appointment process should have been open to applications and reviewed by the parliamentary select committee, the random choice made in this case is a good one."

The other thing that came as a pleasant surprise was Dr M's views about Gopal Sri Ram's suggestion that the government hold an internal inquiry into judicial misconduct rather than have a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the matter. Sri Ram had said that an RCI was inappropriate as it would violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

However Dr M has come out against an internal inquiry and for an RCI. Why? Because that's what the public wants. He said: "There are many different opinions, but largely, the public wants an RCI."

That is correct. It is what the public wants. If the judiciary has been corrupted, the public wants to know what happened and who was involved. This is the only way to restore confidence in the judiciary, which has been eroded over the years (ironically because of some of Dr M's actions).

Having an RCI is absolutely the right way forward.