02/03/2026

MONDAY | MAR 2, 2026

3

Proposed seven-year term draws criticism

‘Exclude Parliament in public prosecutor appointment’

PETALING JAYA: The proposed seven-year term for the public prosecutor (PP) under the constitutional amendment separating the roles of attorney-general and PP has drawn criticism for being excessively long and may need reconsideration. Taylor’s University senior law lecturer, Dr Wilson T.V. Tay said the tenure is unusually lengthy, noting that only three of the 10 former attorneys-general since independence have served more than seven years. “Constitutionally, a term of seven years would also be among the longest in the book. Longer than a term of Parliament, longer than the maximum time one can serve as a senator, and longer even than a term of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.” Tay urged the government to clarify how it arrived at the seven-year figure, suggesting the rationale could be explained during the Bill’s second reading when the responsible minister is expected to provide a detailed justification. From a governance standpoint, Tay said a shorter term would be preferable, allowing sufficient time to assess the PP’s performance before considering an extension. “Personally, I don’t see why it should stretch beyond five years – the maximum lifespan of a parliament and also the standard term of a Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who is, after all, the supreme head of the federation – at one go.” While supporting provisions for renewal, Tay recommended setting limits. “Yes, there should be provision for renewal, but there should be a cap – two terms (or 10 years, as is being proposed for the position of prime minister) would perhaps be an ideal ballpark figure.” Despite these reservations, Tay described the Bill as “a good start”, highlighting that it introduces job security and pay protection for the PP, while reducing the prime minister’s influence over appointments by involving the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Conference of Rulers, and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC). “It is not apparent that the reformed JLSC, which would now include at least two senior judges and a member appointed by the Agong in his discretion, would be necessarily subservient to the executive branch,” he said. Tay also voiced concerns over a clause in the proposed Article 145B granting the PP the authority to decide which courts handle criminal cases – a power previously held by the attorney-general. He explained that the Supreme Court, in 1987, had originally classified this authority as judicial, meaning it should be exercised by the courts themselves. A 1988 constitutional amendment, however, transferred the power to the attorney-general. “With the current amendments to Article 145, the power should now be returned to the courts to maintain a proper separation of powers,”Tay said. As an additional safeguard, he proposed a reporting mechanism. “It would be good if there is a requirement for the PP to periodically report to Parliament on their work and be scrutinised,” he said, stressing that such scrutiny differs from Parliament controlling appointments or removals. “If the PP’s work is reported to and examined by Parliament, it would create a public forum for accountability. “Political pressure on the JLSC could result if anything improper is revealed, but this differs from Parliament directly controlling the office.” – By Harith Kamal

PETALING JAYA: Giving Parliament a formal role in confirming the appointment of a public prosecutor (PP) would politicise the office and risk triggering a constitutional clash, a legal scholar said, as lawmakers prepare to debate a landmark amendment separating the roles of attorney general and public prosecutor. Taylor’s University senior law lecturer Dr Wilson T.V. Tay said subjecting the PP’s appointment to parliamentary confirmation hearings could undermine the very independence the proposed reform is intended to secure. His remarks come amid debate over whether the PP’s appointment should be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny under the proposed constitutional amendment. Tay dismissed the need for parliamentary confirmation, describing it as unnecessary and constitutionally problematic. “Firstly, Parliament itself is a political body and so making the appointment of the PP conditional on Parliament’s confirmation obviously politicises the process.” He added that Malaysia’s constitutional practice does not suggest that Parliament operates independently of the executive. “Parliament does not generally have a track record of acting independent of the executive branch’s will. “In practice, all legislation passed consists of government bills. The government, through its majority, determines who presides as speaker and deputy speakers. “Parliament has also never formally rejected a government bill or dismissed the government through a vote of no confidence.” More significantly, Tay pointed to the wording of the proposed amendment, which states that the PP shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong “in His discretion”. “Constitutionally, this is significant because under the proposed new Article 145A(1) – which sets out how the public prosecutor is to o Confirmation hearings would politicise process and clash with discretionary powers of Yang di-Pertuan Agong under proposed amendment, says law expert Ű BY HARITH KAMAL newsdesk@thesundaily.com

The landmark amendment affecting the role of the public prosecutor’s office at the Attorney General Chambers is scheduled for its second reading in the august House today. – AMIRUL SYAFIQ/THESUN

PP for misconduct, requiring a two-thirds majority before a tribunal can convene. They are also proposing to reduce the PP’s proposed seven-year term to four years to prevent excessive power accumulation. The opposition has also urged a delay in the second reading, citing constitutional and institutional concerns. Perikatan Nasional chief whip Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan warned that transferring absolute prosecutorial powers from the AG to the PP without strong accountability mechanisms could leave the office unanswerable to Parliament or any other body. The Bill will be debated in the Dewan Rakyat today. Passage requires a two-thirds majority – at least 148 of 222 MPs. Today’s debate could determine whether this landmark reform will be implemented as planned or deferred for further scrutiny. – By Harith Kamal politicised to an unacceptable degree.” He cautioned that the mechanism could become a campaign pledge. “It might become an election promise that if a certain party or coalition is elected to power it will haul a PP with whose decisions it disagrees before a tribunal. “The possibility that he (or she) might be taken before a tribunal if a certain political party wins should not be a consideration at all in the mind of a PP – yet it could be, if we create this power for Parliament.” Instead, Tay maintained that Parliament’s proper role is oversight, not control over appointments or removals. “The right balance is that Parliament – by virtue of its largely open, spontaneous proceedings – should be able to scrutinise the conduct of the PP from time to time. “Parliament should remain true to its nature as an inherently political body. “But it should not be turned into a tool for political parties to remove PPs they dislike, as that would undermine the very independence the reform seeks to establish for the office,” he said. The constitutional amendment is scheduled for its second reading today.

be appointed – the Agong would have the discretion to choose the candidate, as long as the person meets the qualifications and conditions stated in the Article.” Introducing parliamentary confirmation, he cautioned, would create a direct institutional conflict. “If Parliament is to subsequently ‘confirm’ an appointment made by the Agong, this would place Parliament in the invidious position of second-guessing His Majesty’s choice – would Members of Parliament actually be willing to do this?” Conversely, he questioned the reverse scenario – if Parliament were to confirm a candidate but the Agong declined to appoint that person. “Either way, the idea of Parliament exercising a ‘confirmatory’ power is not compatible with the Agong’s discretionary power, as contained in the current proposal.” Tay also rejected suggestions that Parliament be empowered to initiate a tribunal process to remove a PP, warning that such authority would entangle the office in partisan politics. “Allowing Parliament to initiate a tribunal to remove a PP would cause the office to be

Parliament to debate landmark Reform Bill today PETALING JAYA: Parliament takes up a major constitutional amendment today to create an independent public prosecutor (PP), a reform aimed at separating prosecutorial authority from the attorney-general (AG) and reshaping Malaysia’s justice system. Ten PKR MPs aligned with former deputy president and Pandan MP Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli have indicated they may withhold support unless Parliament is given formal oversight of the new office.

They argue that the draft leaves excessive influence with the prime minister and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC), echoing concerns raised by groups including Bersih 2.0. The MPs are calling for the Bill to be reviewed first by the Special Select Committee on Human Rights, Elections and Institutional Reform, to ensure cross-party scrutiny. They also want PP candidates to undergo a public confirmation hearing before the committee, followed by a Dewan Rakyat vote, before being presented for royal assent. Additionally, they are pushing for Parliament to be able to initiate a motion to remove a sitting

The amendment seeks to grant the PP full authority to prosecute cases independently, while leaving the AG as the government’s legal adviser. Affecting multiple articles of the Federal Constitution, it would establish the PP as a fully independent office, with implementation expected in phases and adjustments to current structures. First read last Monday, the Bill has sparked mixed reactions. Civil society groups and opposition lawmakers have warned that certain provisions could concentrate power in the hands of a few.