Heads needed for law reform
THE fight against corruption is definitely moving into higher gear as evidenced by the announcements made by the Special Cabinet Committee on Anti-Corruption. The National Governance, Integrity and Anti-Corruption Centre (GIACC) helmed by a past chief commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has taken the bull by its horns and embarked on a series on initiatives so that there is a concerted, cohesive and coordinated effort to fight corruption.
The efforts put in to date are commendable, including the rebirth of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) which was first established in 2006, and the revamping of the institutional infrastructure to combat corruption.
Other than the above perceived “low-hanging fruits”, there are many other issues which need fixing – and the sooner the better. For some of these changes, parliamentary approval is needed. This means that either new laws have to be introduced or the existing laws amended.
As the current administration’s primary focus is on eradicating or at least reducing corruption, speed is of the essence.
One of the last bills passed before the change in government was the Corporate Liability provision. This effectively allows for corporations to be charged for committing corrupt acts. A two-year implementation period was given for directors to familiarise themselves with the provisions of this law. Realistically, however, this period of two years is too long.
There should be more focused effort from the GIACC to get this initiative into higher gear as corruption involves both the giver and taker.
High on the agenda should be the political financing bill, which has been bandied about for some years now. Since politics has gained notoriety as the hotbed of corruption, action is long overdue.
Coupled with this would be a “misuse of public office act” as some cases of misconduct fall out of the ambit of raw corrupt acts.
The objective of the financing bill would be to regularise financing and donations and to have open disclosure. As in other countries, a limit on donations should be set. It would definitely be a healthy development given what has recently come to light.
The crucial point is that all political parties would be governed by the same rules. The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) has advised that as a matter of law, there is no legal prohibition to such a new law.
The new attorney general has, at a recent interview, disclosed that law reform will be supported and the AGC will facilitate such reform. He rightly wants to shed the notion that the AGC has had a reputation, rightly or wrongly, for acting as a brake on law reform.
The proviso is that someone has to take ownership because the AGC cannot do everything on its own. Stakeholders are encouraged to prepare their own bills. This would be easier as they would know their problems and could provide their draft laws for the parliamentary draftsmen to work on.
The essence of the AG’s stand is that the ministries must help out. Ministers must push their respective ministries if there is to be seriousness in reforming our existing laws.
Whether it is reform of the current laws pertaining to child marriages or the proposed political financing bill, the respective owners have to get on the ball and set the direction for reform to change the existing legal landscape for the better.
This will be the acid test on the performance of the new administration as opposed to verbal duelling and altercations with members of the past administration on the veracity of claims made. This is both time-consuming and unproductive in the effort to right the past excesses and abuses. Getting the rule of law correct has to take precedence. WALTER SANDOSAM Kuala Lumpur