National security, judicial picks discussed at rulers' meeting
The Keeper of the Rulers' Seal, Syed Danial Syed Ahmad, in a statement, said the meeting was presided over by the Selangor ruler, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah.
'Today, the conference received...
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
2 days ago
- Malay Mail
When integrity gets twisted into accusation — Mohd Said Bani CM Din
JULY 24 — It is both disappointing and ironic that, in a time when we should be celebrating the institutional strength of independent audit and accountability, the appointment of Auditor-General Wan Suraya Wan Radzi has come under fire from some politicians, not for failing in her duties, but for excelling at them while refusing to play political cheerleader. 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.
New Straits Times
2 days ago
- New Straits Times
Beyond political theatre: Recognising the Auditor General's competence
LETTERS: It is both disappointing and ironic that, in a time when we should be celebrating the institutional strength of independent audit and accountability, the appointment of Auditor General Wan Suraya Wan Radzi has come under fire from some politicians, not for failing in her duties, but for excelling at them while refusing to play political cheerleader. 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. 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.
New Straits Times
3 days ago
- New Straits Times
Wan Suraya's AG appointment complies with law, says Kulasegaran
KUALA LUMPUR: The appointment of Datuk Wan Suraya Wan Mohd Radzi as Auditor General (AG) is legitimate and in line with the Federal Constitution and Audit Act 1957, said Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) M. Kulasegaran. During the ministry's winding-up session on the AG Report 2/2025, Kulasegaran said there was no arising issue regarding Wan Suraya's appointment and that legal provisions governing the appointment process were clear. "Article 105 of the Constitution provides that the AG shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Conference of Rulers. "Meanwhile, Section 4 of the First Schedule of the Audit Act allows the AG to be appointed from among members of the public services itself," he said. He also said the act provides that if the AG is appointed from among the public services, the position is pensionable and the remuneration is set at RM27,758 per month, with allowances and privileges under the Second Schedule. However, if the appointee is not from the public services, the remuneration remains the same but would not be pensionable. Both scenarios, he said, are legally accounted for under Article 105(5) of the Constitution. Earlier today, opposition lawmaker Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan questioned the legitimacy of Wan Suraya's appointment as AG and whether it complies with the Constitution. The Kota Bharu member of parliament argued in the Dewan Rakyat today that Article 105(4) of the Constitution implies that the AG must not be a serving member of the civil service, stressing the importance of independence in the role. He claimed that Wan Suraya was a serving civil servant and last held a position at the Malaysian Institute of Integrity.
