Idea behind "Arul Kanda vs Tony Pua" debate is principally flawed - CENBET

Any challenge by a legislator/politician for public debate over matters of public affairs or matters regarding a government incorporated company should not be directed to a bureaucrat or the CEO of that company.

Instead, it should be directed to the Minister charged with ministerial oversight over the matters or fellow politicians who defend the matter.

Analogous to the role and duty of a bureaucrat, it is not the business of a head of a government owned company to agree to the challenge for a public debate by a politician over the affairs of the company that he helms. His duty is to report to the Government in respect of the affairs of that company, to provide clarification in such manners as directed by the Government and to answer to any inquiry or investigation conducted by bodies charged with lawful authority (MACC, PAC, Bank Negara etc).

It is a ministerial duty to answer all queries on 1MDB satisfactorily. The Minister, having ministerial oversight of the affairs of 1MDB must not be seen to relinquish or delegate his political accountability to Arul Kanda, nor permitting him to accept the challenge by YB Tony Pua for a public debate.

Going ahead with the debate would set a bad precedent for policymakers to dodge their political accountability and ministerial responsibility. It would also become a political sideshow that distracts the current efforts to get to the bottom of the 1MDB debacle. This goes against the principle of good governance which CENBET promotes.

Having a Public Accounts Committee member to publicly debate with the group executive director of 1MDB, a company which PAC is probing, would only undermine the proper functioning of PAC and compromise its integrity as an institution.

Moving forward, efforts should be made towards enhancing the integrity of independent bodies or institutions such as the PAC and MACC and strengthening their supervisory and enforcement functions.