Last week, Malaysia witnessed something rare: the army chief was put on leave pending an investigation. The move was announced by the Defence Ministry to let the probe proceed without conflict of interest.
This followed public allegations by activist Badrul Hisham “Chegubard” Shaharin, which prompted the MACC to begin a probe under Section 17(a) of the MACC Act 2009.
At first glance, this appears to be progress, a sign that no-one is untouchable, and that investigations can proceed without interference; however, a deeper look raises uncomfortable questions about consistency, precedent, and the nature of accountability in Malaysia.
To our knowledge, no senior armed forces chief has ever before been publicly placed on leave while corruption investigations were pending. At least not in the visible, administrative way seen in this particular case. Past controversies involving defence-related procurement or alleged irregularities did not trigger such precautionary measures.
Compare this army-chief-going-on-leave case, with what we know about the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) scandal, a multi-billion ringgit procurement where not even a single ship has been delivered despite over RM6.08 billion paid.
That case drew extensive scrutiny from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and was declassified to reveal serious issues in procurement, cost overruns, and irregularities.
However, even in that matter, which incidentally had been investigated for years and turned up in the Auditor-General and PAC reports, we note that there has been no public administrative removal or leave for top officials directly linked to decisions. Instead, leaders were called for questioning, but stayed in their roles.
It was Chegubard’s public allegation that had triggered a swift administrative move, and that raises a troubling question: “Are high-level investigations activated by formal process, or by political/public pressure?
If accountability depends on who makes the allegation or how loudly it is aired, that suggests a reactive system rather than a predictable, transparent one.
Compare the response in this case with the LCS scandal and other defence controversies:
- Army Chief: Immediate leave ordered amid ongoing MACC probe. The Star
- LCS scandal: Years of PAC hearings, audits, and declassification — but no top official placed on leave for investigation.
- Statements from Defence leadership: Leaders have insisted those involved in LCS irregularities “will not get away with it,” with PAC urging MACC prosecutions.
What we can see is that the visible administrative step of removing a key official from position pending probe, as seen with the Army Chief, has not been applied in the LCS context, despite extensive public documentation and financial scrutiny.
The LCS project has become symbolic of procurement failures and governance concerns:
- The project was awarded via direct negotiation and has seen massive cost overruns and delays, with not one ship delivered despite payments totaling billions.
- PAC found cost overruns of about RM1.4 billion and identified equipment left in storage that is partly obsolete.
- The MACC has completed investigation papers and submitted them to the Attorney-General’s Chambers with recommendations for charges based on irregularities.
- Former navy chief, Ahmad Ramli Mohd Nor, was charged but then granted a discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) on health grounds, leaving accountability unresolved.
- Critics, which include political figures, have questioned why officials have not been charged directly given years of forensic audit evidence.
- Civil society groups have also condemned LCS as a governance failure, pointing to mismanagement of public funds.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) conducted extensive hearings and reported on the LCS project’s shortcomings, noting how money was spent and where problems lay.
Although the PAC can expose and recommend, its powers are limited. It cannot prosecute, nor can it suspend officials. That role belongs to enforcement bodies like the MACC and the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
In the LCS scandal, even as MACC completed investigation papers with recommendations for prosecution, the pace and visibility of action against senior figures remain slow and opaque.
This contrast, whereby action in one case vs limited action in others, will only undermine confidence in accountability mechanisms.
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s government now faces a test of resolve and whether it will keep to its promise of reform and anti-corruption:
Swift administrative action in one situation sets a precedent, but the inaction or slower responses in larger, longer-running, costly scandals raises serious questions.
If accountability appears selective, it risks eroding public trust. Leaders must be consistent in applying principles, and not just respond to public criticism or whistleblowers.
Putting the Army Chief on leave while the MACC investigation proceeds is not wrong. In fact, it could be a positive step toward stronger governance. It is a welcome and necessary step.
Unless such standards are applied consistently across all high-value and high-impact cases, and this includes the multi-billion ringgit LCS scandal, then Malaysia’s fight against corruption will feel incomplete and uneven.
The real test is not a single administrative leave.
It is whether institutions act uniformly, predictably, and transparently, regardless of who raises the allegations.
Leave a Comment