The controversy surrounding the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) orange lock-up attire should not overshadow the more important questions of whether corruption investigations are conducted independently, professionally and without selective enforcement, according to former MACC deputy chief commissioner Datuk Mohamad Fauzi Husin.
In a commentary on the debate, Fauzi questioned why MACC’s orange attire has attracted intense public scrutiny when similar detainee clothing used by the police has not generated the same level of controversy. He said detainee uniforms serve practical purposes, including identification, security and management when individuals are moved outside detention facilities.
However, he acknowledged legitimate concerns over whether such attire could create a public perception of guilt before a person has been convicted.
The issue has taken on greater significance following MACC’s decision to suspend the use of its orange attire for persons under investigation when they are brought to court for remand proceedings, effective Sept 4.
Fauzi said the decision, which followed comments from Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, raised questions over whether the orange attire was an essential security requirement, an administrative practice or a procedure that could be reviewed.
“If the orange attire is really the best option for MACC detainees, why did MACC accept the Prime Minister’s criticism and immediately suspend its use?” he asked.
Investigation Is Not A Conviction
Fauzi stressed that a person detained or investigated by MACC has not necessarily committed an offence.
“An investigation is not a conviction. A charge is not a punishment. The final decision remains with the court,” he said.
While detainees are subject to security requirements and cannot expect the same freedom as members of the public, he argued that enforcement procedures must remain reasonable and should not become a form of punishment through public perception.
“Detainee clothing can be part of the procedure, but it should not become a social punishment,” he said.
Fauzi called on MACC to clearly explain the rationale and rules governing detainee attire, including whether it is necessary for security and identification, whether there are written guidelines and whether those rules are applied consistently.
He said the same principles should apply regardless of whether the person under investigation is an ordinary citizen, civil servant, businessman, company director, politician, minister or former minister.
“No one should be immune from investigation simply because they have a big name. But firm enforcement must come together with justice,” he said.
Focus Should Be On Investigation, Not Clothing
Fauzi said the public debate should ultimately focus less on the colour of detainee clothing and more on the substance of corruption investigations.
Rather than asking why someone was photographed wearing orange, attention should be directed towards the transactions being investigated, the evidence gathered, the individuals involved and, importantly, where the money flowed.
He argued that corruption today can be concealed through government contracts, companies, intermediaries, proxy accounts, beneficial ownership structures, political connections and administrative decisions.
As a result, investigators and the public should concentrate on tracing money and identifying abuses of power rather than allowing the controversy over detainee clothing to dominate discussion.
At the same time, Fauzi said detainee attire should never be interpreted as proof that an individual is guilty.
The orange uniform is neither a court judgment nor a prison sentence, he said, and individuals under investigation must continue to receive due process.
Enforcement Must Be Equal For Everyone
Fauzi said the bigger test of MACC’s integrity is whether investigations are conducted independently, evidence is gathered professionally, suspects’ rights are respected, political interference is absent and enforcement is applied without fear or favour.
“That is the true measure of the integrity of an enforcement institution. Not the colour of the detainee’s clothing,” he said.
He nevertheless argued that detainee attire can carry a deterrent message by reminding the public that corruption can have consequences, but warned against allowing the uniform itself to become the scapegoat in the wider debate.
Fauzi concluded that anti-corruption enforcement should follow a straightforward principle: if there is evidence, investigate; if there are grounds, prosecute; if guilt is proven, punish; and if it is not proven, release the individual.
That, he said, is ultimately the standard of justice that matters — rather than the colour of the clothes worn by someone while under investigation.
