C4 To Keep Pushing For Ombudsman Bill Despite No Update From Govt

---

 


While there has been no update from the government about the status of the Ombudsman Bill, the Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) has come out with its proposal on the bill in the hope of assisting the tabling procedure.
C4 Policy and Legal Research officer Prishanth Linggaraj said the group will continue to engage with the Prime Minister’s Department’s Legal Affairs Division.
The bill was said to be in its final stage back in May last year and was scheduled to be tabled in Parliament in October by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman Said.
Media had also reported that three engagement sessions had been done with the parties involved such as NGOs, public service agencies, and MPs to allow the investigative body to act independently.
However, there has been no update about the status of the bill since then.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman SaidPrishanth said Azalina had already briefed the Parliament in September last year that further view was necessary with other existing institutions such as the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC).
“We are presenting this proposal now primarily because it has taken months to conduct the necessary research.
“This is an extremely complex topic of reform and given that the Ombudsman Bill is still not tabled in Parliament, we hope that this will assist the Legal Affairs Division greatly in their efforts,” he told Malaysiakini.
During the presentation of the proposal, Prishanth said the bill served what was needed to ensure good governance and efficient public service.
He said that at present, the system is being managed by the Public Complaints Bureau (PCB) which is stationed under the Prime Minister’s Department and governed by circulars.
He added that the Ombudsman Office will be an independent oversight body of the public service.
“(PCB) is not independent. In essence, it falls under the same executive branch of the government that it seeks to oversee. So, the lack of structural separation creates an inherent risk of improper influencers and consideration being taken into account when the office is seeking to investigate the complaints that it receives,” Prishanth said.
‘EAIC should be dissolved’
In C4’s policy brief for the office, the group said the ombudsman should not overlap with the existing bodies such as the MACC, Suhakam, and the Independent Police Conduct Commission.
“However, we do have an exception and we call on this. We do think that the EAIC should be dissolved and its functions assigned to the ombudsman.
“If we look at what EAIC does, it investigates misconduct and (under the EAIC act) largely mirrors maladministration. What EAIC does is investigate maladministration on a smaller scale.
“We have PCB and EAIC largely doing the same thing, You have a situation where (there are) duplication effort and wastage of public funds,” Prishanth added.
In the policy brief report, the group also mentioned how the ombudsman demands robust structural measures, especially in appointing and removing ombudspersons, staffing, and budgeting.
“Existing laws governing oversight institutions like MACC and Suhakam grant the prime minister unilateral discretion in appointments and removal, creating a conflict of interest.
“Parliament should be empowered to decide on appointments (and removals) either through a parliamentary vote or Parliamentary Select Committee,” it added.
It also added that the Ombudsman Office should have the autonomy to govern its affairs without interference from the executive, allowing independent decision-making on crucial matters such as staffing and budgeting. - Mkini

---