The widely reported action by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission requiring Datuk Seri M. Saravanan, his family members, including his 12-year-old son to attend MACC headquarters solely to be served with notices under that section, if true, is nothing but an abuse of power and authority. Section 36 of the MACC Act does not empower the commissioner to require attendance for purposes of serving a notice.

This issue must not be confused with other investigative powers available to MACC under the Act. Section 36 is a specific statutory power with its own requirements and must be examined on its own terms independently.

 The statutory obligation is therefore to furnish the information required by the notice.

 Section 36 does not say that the person upon whom the notice is to be served must first present himself physically at MACC headquarters merely so that MACC can hand the notice to him.

 The power to require information by written notice cannot simply be enlarged administratively into a power to compel personal attendance for the purpose of serving that notice.

 This concern is heightened when the individual required to attend is a 12-year-old child.

The notice could have been lawfully served through standard methods, including via a parent or guardian where appropriate.

A statutory power to demand information is not a licence to subject citizens — much less a 12-year-old child — to unnecessary exercises of enforcement authority.

If Saravanan's account is correct and his son was required to attend MACC headquarters solely to receive a section 36 notice, then MACC has exceeded and abused its statutory power.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy

President

Malaysian Advancement Party

28.9.2026