Clint Eastwood was a personal favourite in my adolescent years. More broadly, Westerns as a class of films had me hooked. The sheriff, the posse, the gold diggers, the lawless Wild West … a perennial contest between the good, the bad and the ugly, and not to forget the ‘Wanted’ posters with big dollar rewards on offer.

It was open season for all to hunt down fugitives and claim their reward. Notoriety depended on the size of the bounty on one’s head, while a hunter’s reputation grew based on the number of outlaws’ scalps secured.

Thinking about the ‘no find, no fee’ deal to hunt for the elusive MH370, my mind goes back to the bounty hunters of yesteryear. Obviously, we live in different times. One can’t stretch every little detail to show a parallel. The search has not been thrown open to anyone who wishes to. (Why not?) The success-based fee is time-bound and not open-ended. (Why not?) The comparison soon breaks down.

However, at the core, a reward for a ‘hunt and find’ and enlarging responsibility for the search to include private agents reflects an interesting dynamic. The commissioning organisation (the government) shares responsibility to find the plane but is not bound by the conditions of a success-based reward and time-bound search.

Once the ‘Wanted’ posters went up—plastered or nailed—did the sheriff stop looking?

Malaysia’s posture suggests that it no longer feels a binding responsibility as the flag state to search and recover the plane. We heard nothing between the years 2018 and 2024 from Malaysia, leading one to wonder if it had no obligation to mobilise funds for the search from other sources to augment its own, engage with the community of experts regularly and transparently, design and communicate a framework for private participation in the search, or plan and communicate its own search efforts. I have felt for long that it could have done much more to convey conviction and commitment. What I gather is perhaps its need for control disguised as caution.  

What put paid to the most recent search effort? The underwater exploration company Ocean Infinity, on a ‘no find, no fee’ contract with Malaysia for MH370, left the search zone in January 2026 and didn’t return. It had access to an array of experts and threw its best technologies and assets at the search.

Ocean Infinity, in a statement on 8 March 2026, said, ‘Although this phase of the search has concluded, our commitment has not. We’re continuing to work with the Malaysian Government in the hope of being able to return when circumstances allow.’

It made no reference to the unfinished search area or days under contract that the Malaysian Ministry of Transport’s statement explicitly referred to. What is ‘this phase’ they referred to?

Further, what circumstances precluded a return to the search area after 23 January 2026? And what conditions might enable its return to the search? Unfavourable weather conditions are likely a cover. A more attractive fee upon contract renewal, perhaps? A more open-ended time frame? Flexibility in search area definition? Less stringent conditions on what constitutes a find?

The statement released by the Malaysian Ministry of Transport on 8 March 2026 said that 7,571 square kilometres of the defined 15,000 square kilometre search area have been searched, and 28 operational search days out of 55 days committed have been completed. It was silent on the search plan for the remaining search area and the number of search days contracted. It was also silent on the expiry date of the contract with Ocean Infinity. It was from Voice370’s statement on 8 March 2026 that we learned of the impending expiry of the contract.

It is thus obvious that in what was said, much was left unsaid.

Should the sheriff decide the area within which the fugitive must be located and brought to justice?

Looking ahead, I would like fuller disclosure on the terms agreed between Malaysia and an underwater exploration and search organisation. I would like to be convinced about the rationale for some of the binding conditions on duration, search area, etc., and why more organisations cannot be engaged if they are willing. (Does it have to be one search party at a time? Will there be legal and other complexities?)

I would like clarity on what follows if Ocean Infinity doesn’t come back for another attempt at finding MH370.

Under international civil aviation conventions, under what circumstances is a flag state permitted to relinquish responsibility for a search for, and investigation into, a missing plane? What is the process? What role does the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) have in this? It would perhaps be unfair to haul Malaysia over the coals and accuse it of not doing enough if, legally, it can close the file on the search and investigation.

When do the ‘Wanted’ posters get taken down?

Another issue may be worth discussing. I frequently receive emails and messages from across the world with leads, speculations, and technical arguments in favour of or against a search location. I suspect this happens for two reasons: one, a belief that an affected family has the ability and moral standing to nudge the authorities to act on information shared, and two, trust in the Malaysian government to directly engage substantively within a reasonable time is low.

In a case such as this, can there be a publicly accessible process anchored by a team of experts named by the flag state that includes nominees of affected family members to evaluate alternative expert analyses, claims, and recommendations with adequate protections for sources and data where appropriate? This will entail costs. Fund allocations will be necessary. So will periodic updates and public acknowledgement of efforts be essential?  

There may be cranks who crowd the inboxes, but that would be a minor irritant that can be suffered in the service of a larger cause.

In the Westerns that I recall, victims seldom had screen time. They remained invisible. In this important respect, it is different today. We have a voice, and there is a whole network of amplifiers who keep up the chorus for justice and closure, reminding authorities of their responsibility to do the right thing and the bounty hunters to play fair and honourably.   

Will there be another search? Will Clint get lucky?

Note: The views expressed here are personal.