When integrity gets twisted into accusation — Mohd Said Bani CM Din
To suggest that her appointment is 'tainted' simply because she is a civil servant is both legally unfounded and ethically disingenuous. Article 105 of the Federal Constitution clearly provides for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to appoint the Auditor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister — after consultation with the Conference of Rulers. This process was duly followed. The idea that a civil servant, by default, lacks independence is an insult not only to her professionalism but to the integrity of the Malaysian Civil Service as a whole.
In fact, the suggestion that only retirees are 'independent' is laughable. Since when did age or retirement status become the gold standard for objectivity? Is independence defined by being out of service — or by having the strength to serve without fear or favour?
Wan Suraya brings with her 29 years of administrative service, deep knowledge of government operations, and a track record unmarred by scandal. If anything, this positions her to understand — and scrutinise — government mechanisms with greater precision than someone parachuted in from outside with no institutional insight.
Auditor-General Wan Suraya Wan Radzi at a recent official function. Her appointment has sparked political debate, despite constitutional backing and a track record of public service spanning nearly three decades. — Bernama pic
As a communications professional, I must also highlight that this debate reflects a larger challenge — the erosion of ethics and integrity in public discourse. True communication isn't just about broadcasting opinions; it is about educating the public with context, accuracy, and respect for institutions. When we distort narratives for political mileage, we not only mislead the public but undermine trust in democratic processes. Ethical communication, especially in public service, must be upheld — not attacked — if we are to strengthen national confidence and civic understanding.
And let's talk about this so-called 'cheerleading' for Madani. If public servants attending a national event or sharing an official Facebook post constitutes propaganda, then we might as well shut down every government event since Merdeka. By that logic, any participation in public discourse becomes a conflict of interest. Perhaps next we'll be told that liking a post on workplace safety makes you unfit to investigate construction sites.
Let us be clear: auditors are not monks, nor are they mute. Their duty is not to hide in a cave until summoned — it is to engage with governance, communicate transparently, and uphold public trust.
Selective outrage over a social media post, or over a conflict of interest exemption that is both legitimate and previously exercised under certain contexts, reeks more of political theatre than constitutional concern.
Instead of applauding the fact that the National Audit Department continues to produce thorough, timely reports, certain quarters would rather question the messenger — simply because the message is inconvenient.
To the critics: if your goal is to discredit institutional integrity, do so with facts — not conjecture laced with sarcasm and double standards. And please, let's not pretend this is about transparency when it is clearly about politics.
Malaysia doesn't need a silent Auditor-General. It needs a courageous, competent, and constitutionally appointed one. And, fortunately, it has one.
*Prof. Mohd Said Bani CM Din is president of the Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA) Malaysia.
**This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
44 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
‘I stick to my speech': Ex-judge Abdul Rahman Sebli stands by bombshell farewell claim of pressure on the bench
PUTRAJAYA, July 28 — Fresh off his retirement as Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Sebli today reaffirmed his claim that he was pressured by a senior judge during his time on the Federal Court bench. The allegation, first made during his farewell speech in Kuching, Sarawak on July 23, came just two days before his official retirement. 'I have nothing else to say. I stick to my speech,' Abdul Rahman told reporters when approached at the Palace of Justice after attending the swearing-in ceremony for his successor and other judicial appointments. Asked why he had only recently made the claim public, Abdul Rahman replied, 'I think this is the right time lah'. When questioned whether he was concerned about possible repercussions, he said: 'I am not worried. I am saying what is right'. In his speech, Abdul Rahman alleged that the pressure came while he was still a junior Federal Court judge, before his elevation to Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak. He was appointed a Federal Court judge on August 8, 2019, and later ascended to the role of Chief Judge on January 17, 2023. Recounting the incident, he said he had circulated a draft judgment to six other Federal Court judges, in line with court protocol. He claimed a senior judge responded via email, criticising his views on a constitutional issue in the case. Despite the alleged pressure, Abdul Rahman said he stood by his judgment. Three other judges agreed with his draft, forming the majority. The remaining three judges dissented. He did not name the senior judge involved, nor did he identify the specific case referenced in his remarks. Former chief justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, when approached by reporters today at the Palace of Justice, declined to engage in a direct back-and-forth over the remarks. 'I don't want to make this a contest of words,' she said, before offering context about her tenure. Tengku Maimun noted that she dissented in five out of 19 Federal Court cases involving constitutional issues during her six-year tenure as chief justice. She said this demonstrated judicial independence on the bench. 'Because if I had any influence on their decisions, then surely I would not be dissenting in five out of 19 cases involving especially constitutional law,' she said.
Free Malaysia Today
an hour ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Ex-CJ denies interfering in apex court judges' decisions
Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat stepped down as chief justice on July 1, and Abdul Rahman Sebli retired as the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak on July 24. PUTRAJAYA : Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat has denied allegations that she had attempted to sway the opinions of Federal Court judges during her tenure as chief justice, particularly in matters of constitutional interpretation. Tengku Maimun, who served as the top judge from May 2019 to July 1 this year, said the Federal Court had decided 19 constitution-related cases during that time and she was in the minority on five occasions. 'Statistically, five out of 19 represent about 25% of the dissenting judgments. 'That fact alone would manifest that judges decided independently without fear of favour, without external and internal pressure,' she told reporters after attending the elevation ceremony for 20 Court of Appeal and High Court judges here today. She said if she had truly wielded influence over the apex court's decisions, she would not have found herself in the minority or issued dissenting opinions on so many occasions. She was responding to claims by Abdul Rahman Sebli, who retired as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak on Thursday, that he once came under pressure from a 'very senior member of the judiciary' to rule in favour of a litigant who had sued the federal government in a controversial constitutional case. Rahman dropped the bombshell during a farewell speech to judges, lawyers, judicial officers and legal officials in Kuching on Wednesday. He said that as a Federal Court judge at the time, he had prepared a draft judgment which he circulated to six other members of the bench for their review. 'Not long after that, I received an email from a very senior member of the judiciary telling me how wrong my opinion was on the constitutional issue. 'I was a relatively junior (judge) compared to the judges who pressured me,' Rahman said, adding that he was essentially asked to toe the line. Rahman said he stood by his draft judgment in the case, which held that the constitutional issue should be decided in favour of the federal government and not the litigant. His opinion was supported by three other panel members, making it a narrow 4-3 majority decision. He said among those in the majority was the then-president of the Court of Appeal. Tengku Maimun was in the minority. However, the majority decision was later set aside in what he described as an unusual move by a three-member Federal Court panel less than a year later. Rahman was referring to the final appeal by Maria Chin Abdullah, who was barred from travelling overseas in May 2016 without any reasons provided by the immigration department. In her minority ruling, Tengku Maimun declared that the ban was unlawful. It had been imposed on Maria, who was the Bersih 2.0 chairman, on grounds that she had allegedly disparaged the government. The majority of four judges, with Rahman writing the main judgment, had upheld the validity of an ouster clause in the Immigration Act, barring decisions from being challenged in court. Rahman held that judicial power was determined by Parliament. In her minority ruling, Tengku Maimun declared the clause unconstitutional and said the right to travel fell within the scope of the constitutional guarantee on personal liberty. She also stated that the Federal Constitution's clause on the powers of the judiciary should be read in the context of its original meaning, as it represented a basic feature of the constitution, regardless of later amendments. Article 121(1) originally vested the judicial power of the federation in the courts. An amendment in 1988 removed the words 'the judicial power of the federation' and merely stated that the courts would derive their powers from federal law. Rahman, who also attended today's event, said he stood by what he had said in his speech last week. 'There is nothing to worry about as what I spoke was the truth,' he said.
Malay Mail
2 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Philippine flooding centre stage at Marcos state of nation speech
MANILA, July 28 —Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos blasted 'useless and crumbling' flood control projects in a state of the nation address today that focused on domestic issues after a months-long feud with his vice president. Addressing a joint session of Congress after days of rain that left at least 31 dead, Marcos repeated his recent warning that the nation faced a climate change-driven 'new normal', while pledging to investigate publicly funded projects that had failed. 'Let's not pretend, the people know that these projects can breed corruption. Kickbacks... for the boys,' he said, citing houses that were 'swept away' by the floods. 'Someone has to pay for the grave damage and corruption,' he said, adding he would demand a full list of failed flood control projects and make it public. After months dominated by a feud with his vice president that left many voters disillusioned, Marcos's speech leaned heavily into bread-and-butter concerns. 'The people feel a sense of defeat and dismay at the government, especially when it concerns basic services,' he said, referencing disappointing mid-term election results in May. 'The lesson for us is very simple. We need to do better. We need to work faster.' Marcos spent much of his 70-minute speech unveiling promises for the second half of his six-year term—from 40,000 more classrooms to new power plants and free dialysis treatments—though he offered little by way of detail. Notably absent was any explicit mention of the rising tensions with China over disputed areas of the South China Sea that figured heavily into last year's address. After 12 months marked by violent clashes at sea and an increasingly close military relationship with the United States, Marcos said only that the country faced 'new threats' to its sovereignty while adding 'more allies who can help us in our time of need'. No shows Numerous high-profile allies of Vice President Sara Duterte, whose would-be impeachment trial was scrapped by the Supreme Court on Friday, skipped Monday's address, including the president's senator sister Imee Marcos. The feud between the Marcos and Duterte political dynasties loomed large over the May mid-terms that saw the vice president's camp outperform expectations. The duo swept to power in 2022 in an alliance that began crumbling almost immediately. Their feud exploded into open warfare this year with her impeachment and the subsequent arrest and transfer of her father, ex-president Rodrigo Duterte, to face charges at the International Criminal Court in The Hague over his deadly drug war. The timelines of those two events coincided with a sharp dip in the president's polling numbers. Marcos had publicly stated that he was against the impeachment while consistently maintaining he was powerless to intervene. 'New normal' Last week, the Philippine president for the first time blamed climate change for storms which are hitting the country harder and more frequently, saying Filipinos would need to learn how to adapt. 'This is not an extraordinary situation anymore... This will be our lives no matter what we do,' he told a cabinet briefing, adding the country should plan for the long-term in addressing natural disasters. 'This is the way it's going to be as far as we know for... many decades to come, so let's just prepare,' he said. Michael Henry Yusingco, a senior research fellow at the Ateneo de Manila University School of Government, on Monday praised Marcos's pledge to tackle corruption around flood control projects but warned that follow-through would be everything. '(To) have a really significant effect on his legacy,' Marcos will need to put people in charge that will 'not be afraid to go after these politicians', he said. — AFP
