Proposed GEG Bill: Probe allegations of attempted bribery and ‘policy capture’

In an op-ed for Malaysia Gazette, G Sivamalar, an aide to former health minister Dr Zaliha Mustafa, alleged that Zaliha was offered a RM50m bribe to scrap the proposed Generational End Game (GEG) Bill, which would have completely banned smoking for Malaysians born after 2007.

Sivamalar stated in the op-ed and later clarified to medical news portal CodeBlue that Zaliha rejected the bribes without hesitation.

While full details of this incident remain unclear, the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center) strongly urges all civil servants to act in accordance with Section 25 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption (MACC) Act, which requires that bribe offers are reported to the MACC or police.

According to Sivamalar, these offers were made to Zaliha during the latter’s tenure as health minister from December 2022 to December 2023 and had come through various avenues, including phone calls and possibly even in-person.

When contacted by CodeBlue, Sivamalar provided few additional details, stating it had been a long time since the events alleged.

Nonetheless, the GEG Bill was dropped in favour of the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024, which prohibits tobacco and vapes for minors below 18 – a move that some MPs have attributed to pressure from the tobacco industry.

The veracity of Sivamalar’s claims remains to be verified, and it falls upon the MACC to probe the matter further due to the seriousness of the allegations.

That private parties are (allegedly) attempting to influence national legislation to meet their interests – termed policy capture – must be investigated seriously by the MACC to dismantle such possible coordinated efforts by entities who put profit over the wellbeing of the nation and its people.

Section 28 stipulates that it is an offence to even attempt bribery, and therefore it is immaterial that Zaliha may not have accepted the bribe for the perpetrator to be found liable for an offence.

Furthermore, this instance could also represent a failure to comply with provisions of the MACC Act. Section 25 of the MACC Act clearly stipulates that it is an offence not to report offers of gratification; it is insufficient to simply ignore a bribe attempt.

Sivamalar should have also reported these instances at the time they arose in the spirit of transparency and good governance, especially seeing that she eventually found it acceptable to publicly describe these instances anyways.

While Zaliha may have assumed she acted sufficiently in rejecting bribe offers as per Sivamalar’s account, the statutory provisions place a clear duty on every person to whom bribes are offered to make an official report.

These provisions exist within a greater anti-corruption framework that must be upheld, ensuring that anti-corruption measures are not merely reactive, but (are part of) an all-encompassing system in which every party plays an active role.

The “Madani” (trustworthy) government must take this as an opportunity to reassert and reaffirm its commitment to taking anti-corruption seriously, especially in the eyes of the ordinary people, many of whom have lost confidence in the government to tackle these issues adequately.

Hence, C4 Center strongly urges for:

• Investigations by the MACC to clarify the events alleged by G Sivamalar
• The findings of such investigations to be shared to the public to ensure transparency and accountability
• Action to be taken against those individuals or entities that have been found to be in violation of the provisions of the MACC Act

– C4 Center

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: