Friday 29 Mar 2024
By
main news image

cabinet_060315

KUALA LUMPUR: The Cabinet has agreed in principle to amend the Federal Constitution to allow the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to hire and fire its own staff and commissioners, a step which could bolster the body’s fight against graft, a forum heard on Wednesday night.

Bar Council president Christopher Leong said the agreement was conveyed to the council by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Paul Low at a meeting in December last year to discuss ways to increase the commission’s independence and effectiveness.

The proposals were crafted by the Bar Council together with the MACC.

Input was also given by other groups such as the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs, Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism, and Transparency International Malaysia.

However, MACC has not shown the Bar Council the final draft of the proposed amendments to be tabled in Parliament.

The proposals, however, do not include giving MACC the power to prosecute its own cases, an oft-repeated demand by legislators and some civil society groups.

Instead, the Bar Council said the power to take cases to court should be given to a separate public prosecutor’s office.

“Paul Low has said that the Cabinet agrees, in principle, to the proposal to amend the constitution,” Leong said at a Bar Council talk in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday night.

It is learnt that Putrajaya wants to table the amendments this year, but not in the March parliamentary meeting.

Leong said the proposals would see the creation of an Anti-Corruption Service Commission (ACSC) under the constitution, similar to the Armed Services Commission and the Judicial Appointments Commission.

Under the plan, ACSC would act as an oversight body to decide on policy and direction for MACC, which in turn would be responsible for field work and investigations.

ACSC would essentially take over the five bodies currently supervising MACC. Its actions would also be scrutinised by Parliament.

ACSC would not be dependent on the Public Services Department (PSD) to hire MACC commissioners and officers as was the case now, which limited its ability to be independent, said Bar Council vice-president Steven Thiru, who was also at the talk.

With ACSC, the MACC’s chief commission would have security of tenure that is protected by the constitution and outside the influence of the prime minister or Cabinet.

The MACC chief commissioner would then be chosen by members of ACSC before being officially appointed by the prime minister.

Currently, the MACC’s chief commissioner was still a civil servant under PSD, Leong said. With ACSC, the chief commissioner need not be a civil servant.

The proposal also calls for 40% of ACSC staff and officers to be from civil society and the remaining 60% from the public sector, said Thiru.

Thiru also outlined other proposals MACC felt were necessary. This includes making misconduct in public office, such as negligence and misuse of public funds by civil servants, a criminal offence.

Such a law would make government servants involved in leakage, such as those highlighted yearly in the auditor-general’s reports, liable to be hauled to court.

“MACC would also like the power to investigate public servants who have excessive wealth or who live beyond their means. Currently, they can only carry out probes if the civil servant has a prior offence.

“By amending the MACC Act, they can investigate public servants based on suspicion,” Thiru said.

MACC also wants a law compelling civil servants and politicians to declare their assets before and after leaving office.

“Corruption cannot be eliminated without this law,” Thiru said.

Other laws that need to be amended are the Whistleblowers Act, Witness Protection Act and Official Secrets Act.

The other critical proposal would be to split the Attorney-General’s (AG) functions between being a lawyer to the government and a public prosecutor who acts on public interest.

This would create a separate public prosecutor’s office, which would be a department independent of the AG and having powers to investigate anyone.

“The heart of the matter is less who should have prosecution powers and more about whether those powers are exercised in the public interest.

“The AG is a political appointee, so it is difficult to see him as independent. But a public prosecutor would have the ability to bring any case to court if they felt it was in the public’s interest,” said Thiru. — The Malaysian Insider

 

This article first appeared in The Edge Financial Daily, on March 6, 2015.

      Print
      Text Size
      Share