PETALING JAYA: The Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) needs greater “bite” to operate more effectively in tackling corruption and abuse of power, say experts.
Universiti Sains Malaysia criminologist Datuk Dr P. Sundramoorthy said the EAIC represents an important institutional reform but it still faces key structural limitations.
“Its establishment acknowledged that internal disciplinary systems alone are insufficient to address corruption and abuse of power. However, effectiveness depends not merely on its existence, but also on its authority, independence, resources and political backing.
“A key structural limitation is that the EAIC largely performs a recommendatory function. When findings only result in recommendations to the relevant agency or the Attorney General’s Chambers, implementation may be delayed or diluted. This weakens both deterrent impact and public confidence,” he said.
Sundramoorthy said legislative amendments could be considered to grant the EAIC clearer powers, including binding disciplinary directives in defined circumstances, mandatory timelines for agency responses and statutory obligations for agencies to report back on action taken.
“Institutional independence must also be reinforced operationally. Comparative oversight models show that appointment processes, budgetary autonomy and transparent reporting directly affect credibility,” he said.
“A more transparent, multi- stakeholder appointment mechanism, secure tenure for commissioners and a ring-fenced, Parliament-approved budget would strengthen insulation from political pressure.
“Independence is not only legal but also perceptual; public trust depends on visible impartiality.”
Sundramoorthy also stressed that transparency is a key factor in strengthening the commission’s effectiveness.
“Publishing anonymised data on complaints received, investigation duration, outcomes and rates of compliance would enhance accountability. A publicly accessible compliance-tracking mechanism requiring agencies to update progress on implementing EAIC recommendations would further strengthen follow-through,” he said.
He said coordination with other bodies, particularly the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, must be streamlined.
“Clear statutory delineation of responsibilities and formalised information-sharing protocols would help prevent duplication and jurisdictional friction,” he said.
Sundramoorthy also highlighted the importance of stronger whistleblower protection, noting that improved safeguards would enhance the EAIC’s intelligence-gathering capabilities.
“In summary, enhancing the EAIC’s effectiveness does not require turning it into an all-powerful prosecutorial body.
“Rather, it requires calibrated legal reforms to strengthen binding authority, independence, transparency, preventive oversight, inter-agency coordination and whistleblower protection.
“Combined with sustained political will and adequate resources, these measures would significantly improve its deterrent and systemic impact,” he said.
Retired Senior Police Officers Association president Datuk Meor Chek Hussien Mahayuddin agreed that the EAIC’s role may also overlap with the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC) on matters involving the police force.
“The EAIC’s scope is very broad, covering multiple agencies, and in some cases, it overlaps with existing systems such as the IPCC.
“Moreover, its ability to operate effectively is also tied to its workforce, as it requires officers to look into matters involving multiple bodies,” he said.
Meor Chek Hussien added that the EAIC’s limited enforcement authority could further constrain its effectiveness.
“It needs executive powers, such as the authority to impose punishments,” he said.
