Referring to the report entitled ‘MP: Enough evidence to probe PM’s wealth’ and ‘MACC’s job is to probe the unusually rich’ in Malaysiakini recently, it is noted that many readers opined that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) should have initiated its investigation against anyone based on various information given.

Indeed everyone knows that corruption is one the most potent hindrance to the economic development of a country; it undermines the rule of law, weakens trust in public institutions and challenges democratic principles. This is a universal reality.

Nevertheless, one of the constraints the MACC faces is to continue to investigate the financial and property ownership of an individual who has excessive wealth suspected of corruption.

The MACC does not have any legal provision at present to compel a person with excessive wealth which does not match the income on their job position to declare his or her assets without reasonable grounds to believe, based on investigations carried out by an officer of the commission. This is clearly stated in Section 36(3) of the MACC Act 2009.

Though Section 36(3) of the Act seeks to secure an explanation of an apparent affluence of a public official, this section is unlike the provisions of Section 10 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance of Hong Kong.

Section 36(3) does not operate independently but must be read in conjunction with Section 36(1) of the said Act. Section 36(1) reads as follows: Notwithstanding any written law or rule of law to the contrary, an officer of the commission of the rank of commissioner and above, if he has reasonable ground to believe, based on the investigation carried out by an officer of the commission, that any property is held or acquired by any person as a result of or in connection with an offence under this Act.

An ‘offence under the Act’ is defined as: ...owns, possesses, controls or holds any interest in any property which is excessive, having regard to his present or past emoluments and all other relevant circumstances... liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years; and a fine which is not less than five times the value of the excess, if the excess is capable of being valued, or ten thousand ringgit, whichever is the higher Section 36(3) reads as follows:

Where the officer of the commission of the rank of commissioner and above has reasonable grounds to believe that any officer of a public body who has been served with the written notice referred to in subsection (1), such officer of the commission may by written direction require him to furnish a statement on oath or affirmation explaining how he was able to own, possess, control or hold such excess and if he fails to explain satisfactorily such excess, he commits an offence...

From the above, it is clear that there must be reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under the Act has been committed, before investigators from the commission can embark on investigations, in respect of excess wealth of public official. Thus far, there is no evidence proffered by anyone of any offence that has been committed by the individuals concerned under the MACC Act 2009 in order to trigger any kind of investigations, for excess wealth against them.

It is the intention of the Legislature that claims of excess wealth, is not in itself an offence that warrants investigation.

In this regard, it is imperative to ensure that section 36 of the MACC Act 2009 is amended to enable the commission to compel individuals to declare their assets.

Currently, there is no such provision. It is therefore important for members of Parliament to support the amendment to the law and the federal constitution to increase the commission’s independence and effectiveness in fighting graft.

WALTER SANDOSAM is a member of the Consultation and Prevention of Corruption Panel, one of the five panels which oversee MACC operations.