Recent arrests of corrupt acts involving people holding positions of trust including high-ranking officials, lawyers, and NGO leaders highlights a significant breach of duty by the very people who are entrusted to safeguard the institutions they were appointed to.
Key arrests include a ministry director-general, former CEOs, and officials involved in multimillion-ringgit fraudulent claims.
The recurring spectacle of high-profile individuals being investigated by law enforcement agencies yet ultimately not charged or instead made prosecution witnesses raises profound questions.
This has been happening fairly frequently specifically to the elite and powerful.
These elite and powerful are individuals who occupy positions of power, influence or prestige and who are alleged to have engaged in unlawful or unethical conduct.
Unlike conventional offenders, their actions are often embedded within organisational structures, financial systems or political networks, making detection, investigation and prosecution inherently more difficult.
While the legal principle of the presumption of innocence remains paramount, the social and institutional implications of such outcomes deserve careful scrutiny.
Probably it is high time that the parliamentarians move and propose for the legislation of deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) for all those caught for corruption.
Introducing a DPA mechanism is increasingly viewed as a viable alternative for addressing corporate corruption, particularly when traditional, long-drawn prosecutions result in high rates of cases being thrown out or failing due to the high burden of proof in criminal law.
DPAs can provide a possibility for a more expedient conclusion to an investigation. Investigating large-scale, cross-jurisdictional and complex cases are time consuming and costly for governments.
DPAs may assist in minimising the financial or economic losses caused by pursuing a prosecution.
As a matter of fact, MACC also proposed in January 2026 for this to be introduced.
Yes, a lot of people will argue the country cannot allow them to get off so easily.
They will argue that DPAs can be seen as a "slap on the wrist" for corporations allowing top executives involved in corruption to escape personal criminal liability – and allowing the corporations to "buy their way out" of criminal liability rather than facing trial and allowing settlements reduces the punitive impact and deterrent effect of anti-corruption laws.
Given the increeasing number of corruption cases being reported and perceived offenders arrested, implementing DPAs in Malaysia offers a viable, efficient alternative to full corporate trials, potentially saving public resources, protecting jobs, and enabling faster financial recovery through fines.
If unsure, we can always follow the example in the UK where a DPA can be proposed only at the discretion of the prosecutor.
A code of practice for prosecutors, to be made public, must be applied when considering whether or not to propose a DPA.
The prosecutor is obligated to apply a two-stage test to determine whether a proposal for a DPA is appropriate in any given case.
Firstly, the prosecutor must first determine whether there is sufficient evidence or reasonable suspicion based on evidence, that an offence has been committed.
Secondly, whether the public interest is properly served by entering into a DPA as opposed to proceeding with the prosecution.
In attempting to determine what constitutes “the public interest”, the prosecutor is obliged to consider several factors, including but not limited to several factors.
After the prosecutor believes that it is appropriate to propose a DPA, the prosecutor will subsequently seek a declaration from the court that the utilization of a DPA in that case would be in the interests of justice and that the proposed terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate.
Cost-efficient methods such as a DPA is now a necessity especially when the ordinary rakyat are reading about the extent and how pervasive is corruption in this country.
DPAs offer an alternative to trials which may be incredibly expensive while being open to scrutiny by the public.
Unlike the time and process it took for the government to even propose the legislation on the separation of the role of the AG and the Public Prosecutir, hopefully, the government and the new Chief Commissioner of MACC would not need such a similar time frame in considering and implementing a transparent, accountable and effective DPA regime to provide regulators more options in dealing with corruption in Malaysia.
FLK (leekhean.foo@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.