Can MACC and SC probe each other effectively?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Effectiveness of MACC and SC Probing Each Other Remains a Subject of Question

The ability of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Securities Commission of Malaysia (SC) to effectively investigate each other, particularly when probes involve senior officials, has been raised as a concern. This apprehension stems from the admission by MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki on January 5 that he had allowed his brother to use his share trading account in 2015. Subsequently, the SC announced it would question Azam over alleged violations of stock trading laws, while MACC is reportedly investigating complaints against SC board members for misconduct.
Potential Conflicts of Interest and Impartiality

Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo has voiced significant concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest that could compromise the impartiality of investigations between the two regulatory bodies. He highlighted that Azam Baki, as the head of MACC, is responsible for the commission's direction, control, and supervision, as stipulated by Section 5 of the MACC Act 2009. The situation is further complicated by a statement of support for Azam Baki issued by three senior MACC officers, which Gobind suggests could cast doubt on the integrity of any internal or mutual investigations.
Role of the Attorney General and Disciplinary Regulations

Gobind has called upon the Attorney General (AG) to clarify whether a conflict exists or if there is a likelihood of compromised investigations. The MACC chief commissioner, for disciplinary purposes, is considered a member of the general public service of the Federation, as outlined in Section 5(4) of the MACC Act 2009. This places MACC officers, including the chief commissioner, under the purview of the Public Service Commission (PSC) as the Disciplinary Authority, governed by the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993.
Powers of Interdiction for Investigation Facilitation

Regulation 43(1) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 empowers the Disciplinary Authority, such as the PSC, to interdict an officer for up to two months if they are suspected of a criminal offense or serious disciplinary offense. This interdiction, often referred to as 'garden leave' or 'ditahan kerja', allows the officer to stay away from work while remaining on payroll, thereby facilitating the investigation process. The PSC is explicitly empowered to place an officer on such leave to ensure an unimpeded investigation.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Can MACC and SC probe each other effectively?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends