Have a look at these 2 quotes from Minister Nazri Abdul Aziz. Do you see how these 2 assertions contradict each other?
Minister defends Malaysia's anti-corruption recordEverybody who has a honest bone in their body knows that the most important attribute of any agency seeking to effectively combat corruption is its INDEPENDENCE.
"The government has done everything it can think of to fight corruption," Nazri told the World Ethics and Transparency Forum here, organised by thinktank the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute.
"Under the prime minister, the ACA is given a free hand to look into all allegations of corruption," Nazri said.
Let me ask then
How can the ACA be truly independent, if it is "under" the PM? Doesn't this simply mean that the ACA can act against any wrongdoers, EXCEPT the Prime Minister and any parties under his protection?
Doesn't this imply that the ACA is forced to assume that the Prime Minister (and all parties under his protection) are incorruptible? Is this a fair assumption, do you think?
And if it remains "under" the Prime Minister, how can the govt say that they have done everything it can think of? Perhaps... we should be asking WHY the govt has not thought of making the ACA independent of the Prime Minister?