Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim has taken a swipe at Section 36 of the MACC Act, saying that it lacks proper oversight and enables nosy neighbours.
He called for MPs to reevaluate the law, citing the UK example in which the court, rather than the investigating authority, may compel an individual to disclose their assets.
Section 36 is on powers to obtain information, empowers the MACC commissioner and higher ranking officers, within reasonable grounds and based on the investigation carried out by an MACC officer, to seek a written declaration of property, income, savings and assets.
"Section 36 of the MACC Act empowers any of its officers to require you to declare where you got the money to buy a new Bentley or an apartment in Damansara Heights.
"This is their way of dealing with corruption and abuse of power. If you refuse to comply, you can go to jail for up to five years.
"This law has been in our books for the last 13 years, yet our parliamentarians are pretty happy with it. They have not, obviously, been served with the notice to explain their wealth. It is an unfair and unreasonable law to me, though," he said on X.
Zaid (above) likened such powers given to the MACC to that of a nosy neighbour.
"If my nosy neighbour enquires where I have money to buy a new car, it’s none of his business. It’s my right to have privacy so that no one should encroach on my domain.
"Should MACC be treated differently from my nosy neighbour? No, unless I have committed a criminal offence under the MACC Act," he added.
Yesterday, embattled tycoon Daim Zainuddin’s wife Na’imah Abdul Khalid claimed trial to failing to abide by a MACC notice to disclose her assets.
She was charged under Section 36(2) of the MACC Act 2009 at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.
The 66-year-old was alleged to have committed the offence by giving a sworn written statement that did not comply with the MACC notice under Section 36(1) of the MACC Act.
‘Who oversees MACC?’
Zaid said that the MACC must have reasonable grounds to warrant the application of the section.
"They must have started the investigation and reasonably believed an offence had been committed.
"But here in our country, the test of whether MACC has begun an investigation and whether MACC has reasonable grounds to compel the issue of the notice depends on MACC.
"In Britain and many places, the order to compel the production and disclosure of assets or financial records of unexplained wealth of suspected criminals is by the court. Not the investigating authority,” he added.
"This ensures proper oversight so no one can harass or intimidate their political opponent. Who oversees the MACC?" he asked.
Zaid said that our MPs must be careful when approving criminal laws that may infringe on the rights of innocent people.
"We must have safeguards against improper and excessive use of investigative powers. Laws must always be fair and just in their application. That’s why we have judges to arbitrate what is reasonable and appropriate.
"And don’t forget, in our culture, civil servants, including investigating officers, have too much deference to political masters, which makes them an easy target to be ‘weaponised’," he added.
Zaid urged MPs to have a serious look at the MACC Act in the next sitting.
"You never know when you will be served with the notice to explain where you got the money to buy the house for your third wife 30 years ago," he said. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.