A lame-duck royal commission?

Finally the cabinet has announced a royal commission of enquiry (RCI) to probe the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s investigation procedure employed on the late Teoh Beng Hock. The cause of Teoh’s death, however, was left to an inquest in a magistrate’s court.

The move has drawn strong protests from the opposition. Pakatan Rakyat leader Anwar Ibrahim was visibly disturbed by the limited terms of reference of the proposed RCI, calling it a mockery of the people’s wish to find out the truth on Teoh’s death. Indeed, a magistrate’s court does not have the moral authority, the expertise, and the wide powers of the RCI.

Naturally, there are those cynical souls who scoff at the very idea of a royal commission in Malaysia. They doubt whether the RCI can yield any tangible result, and even if the RCI eventually comes up with a set of recommendations, the government will probably ignore them anyway.

Their cynicism may not be unfounded. But we have to understand the function of a royal commission in the first place.

A royal commission is an independent investigative body recommended by the government and made up of notable citizens appointed by the sovereign (the king) to look into matters of grave national importance. It is a strange creature rooted in the parliamentary conventions of the British Commonwealth.

In the 18th century, the more popular method of independent investigation in the United Kingdom was the parliamentary select committee. But it was proven to be sluggish because it was made up of partisan MPs, who had neither the time nor the patience to shift through the large body of evidence required for a thorough investigation.

From 1800 onward, with increasing concern for many social ills, royal commissions became popular – 11 in the first decade, 46 in the fourth, and 75 in the sixth.

By now, the defects of royal commissions are well known. They are expensive. They take a long time, and they may not yield the results that the people want. More than a few cynics have said that the royal commission is but an instrument for the government of the day to douse the rising heat of a resentful public over a scandalous issue.

Nevertheless, a royal commission is still one of the checks and balances that should play its useful part in any evolving democracy. It is one way for the government of the day to avoid accusation of a conflict of interest between its internal investigative agencies in any official investigation into a highly sensational issue.

Cops not trusted to probe MACC

In Teoh’s case, the proper authority to probe into MACC over his demise ought to be the police. But the MACC was set up partly to curb corruption in the police force. Asking the police to do the job would invite accusation of mutual back-scratching between the police and the MACC. An independent royal commission is indeed the right measure.

A royal commission also has wide coercive powers to summon witnesses and documents, seize documents and evidences, hold public hearings, research into cases, consult with experts from both within and outside the government, hold hearings in cameras, offering indemnities, summon classified information even, and coerce all public officials to aid in the execution of the commission.

The one strength of a royal commission is that once it has started, the government cannot stop its investigation. That is why governments are generally reluctant to set up a royal commission.

In Australia, The Wood Royal Commission in New South Wales and the Kennedy Royal Commission in Western Australia had been particularly effective in probing into the links between corrupt public officials and organised crime, which would otherwise hide behind the protective shield of a defective administration.

The Moseley Royal Commission, on the other hand, did good work with exposing the high number of deaths of Aboriginal people in police custody and in prisons.

Because of the quasi-judicial nature of the royal commission, it is often headed by a retired judge, but there are exceptions. In 1967, the Canadian Royal Commission on the Status of Women was presided over by a journalist, Florence Bird.

Tabled in 1970, the commission’s report contained 167 recommendations. The recommendations, many based on the public hearings held and 468 briefs received, dealt with issues such as day care, the Indian Act and equal pay for work of equal value.

Today, Canadian women enjoy far better treatment than their counterparts in many other countries. If I am not mistaken, in job recruitment ads in the newspapers, it is unlawful to specify the gender or the race of the applicants! When would that happen in Malaysia?

Generally, a royal commission is given a fixed time-frame of a few years to finish its work. But there are exceptions. Pak Bui in his blog the ‘Hornbill Unleashed’ has the following titbits to offer:

“The average duration from establishment to report is between two and four years. But certain royal commissions can have a semi-permanent existence. For example, the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts in the UK was first set up in 1869 with the task of advising and assisting in the preservation of historical manuscripts and to publish them. It is still in existence today.

“The famous Royal Commission on the Health of the Army was established in 1856, following Florence Nightingale’s reports on the suffering of British soldiers in the Crimean War. It continues to influence British policymakers to this day.”

Limited scope, but there’s still hope

In the case of Teoh’s death, the royal commission which is set up merely to probe into the MACC investigative procedure will definitely not satisfy a grieving public’s hunger for the truth behind his death.

But to say that the proposed royal commission will be totally useless is perhaps unfair. Torture and death has always been a hidden phenomenon in our country since independence.

Now the unprecedented attention on the issue resulting from Teoh’s nation-shaking death has compelled the BN government to set up a royal commission to investigate into this issue. If the findings and the recommendations will start a process of laying down rules for the treatment and investigation of future detainees and witnesses, then the royal commission would not have been a total waste of time.

The publicity surrounding the public hearing of the proposed RCI and the findings and recommendations will also have a positive dimension. Irrespective of whether the BN government will eventually accept those findings and recommendations, the whole process would have shaped public opinions of the national electorate.

In the case of the Lingam Tape Royal Commission, nobody was indeed charged for misdeeds in the miscarriage of justice in our judicial system. But together with many other incidents then, the drama played out in public about the under belly of our courts must have driven many voters towards the opposition in the March 8 general election last year.

I surmise that the prime minister and his cabinet full of skeletons have misread the mood of the national electorate when they decided that the royal commission would not investigate into the cause of Teoh’s death. My fellow columnist Kim Quek has already dubbed this a ‘Royal commission of deception’. This is probably a true reflection of the public perception about the whole issue.

Like many readers out there, I am very skeptical about whether the true cause of Teoh Beng Hock’s death will ever see the light of day. If that turns out to be true, then the BN ruling coalition is sure to pay a heavy price for it in next the general election.

Eventually, a royal commission in any country is as good as the government that appoints it, and the people always deserve the kind of government they get. Here in Malaysia, unless there is a change of government at the federal level, and a two-coalition system is firmly in place, future royal commissions will always be lame ducks.

SIM KWANG YANG can be reached at kenyalang578@hotmail.com./Mkini