The Anti-Corruption Agency works a case seemingly only when there is a public complaint. It is my perception that the ACA working system appears ill-suited for battling corruption. And perception has everything to do with corruption. Let it be at the agency's responsibility to handle its public education; I am grinding its apparent blindness in broad daylight.

To start with, why does the ACA rely heavily on public prompts to initiate an investigation ? Instead, the agency should at its own volition be out there initiating case investigations after case investigations on anything that falls within the national definition of corrupt practices. Waiting for a public complaint to initiate an investigation defeats any anti-corruption organisation.

The first definition of corrupt practices should simply be 'any one living beyond one's means and has access to corrupted revenue'. The second is perception; conducts that lead the public to perceive impropriety in a public figure - such grounds for association with corrupt practices is enough for the ACA to act on.

Looking back, the ACA kick-started its investigations into national steelmaker Perwaja only after persistent complaints from the public; catalysed only when the DAP made its report on perceived corrupt practices within Perwaja. Most recently, the issue with the taxi permits .

Now, is the ACA so securely confined in its four walls that it sees nothing, hears nothing, and does nothing unless the public complained? And what if the public do not complain? ACA, wake up to your watch dog tag. You are perceived to be the keeper of public virtues for public offices where propriety is spelled out. You are failing this perception test already.

Do you have no eyes and ears of your own to see common flouting by many a public officials and politicians alike? Need you be prompted with what one can see easily: public figures staying in mansions and villas, driving luxury cars and generally leading lavish lifestyle that would require roughly RM20,000 monthly income?

It is common knowledge that many public officers, including politicians, declare their taxes on their government salary while at the same time living a villa lifestyle more like a successful businessman. Is it that difficult to interpolate declared income thru versus actual lifestyle?

Complaints from the public has its place. In this case, perception should be good enough a basis for the public to complain, instead of rigorous proofs and reports. In fact, perception should be the only basic criteria, nothing more.