KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 11 — When those tasked with upholding the law break it themselves, who ensures they are brought to justice?
As enforcement agencies operate with increasing autonomy and authority, the line between protector and perpetrator blurs in the face of misconduct.
Thankfully, we have the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) — a federal statutory body — established in 2011 to hold enforcement officers accountable for their transgression.
But first, what is the definition of misconduct of enforcement officers and enforcement agencies?
According to subsection 24(1) of the EAIC Act or Act 700, it is defined as any act by an enforcement officer contrary to existing laws, unreasonable, irrelevant or improperly discriminatory; inaction or non-compliant of existing standard operating procedure or criminal in nature.
Per Act 700, the jurisdiction of the EAIC in carrying out its primary functions among others, are namely:
- Receiving and investigating any public complaints of misconduct
- Referring any complaints of a disciplinary nature to the relevant Disciplinary Authority or of a criminal nature to the Public Prosecutor
- Carrying out full investigations on valid complaints of misconduct to verify the existence of such misconduct
The supervised federal enforcement agencies as stipulated in Act 700 are:
- National Anti-Drugs Agency
- Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency
- Department of Environment
- Immigration Department of Malaysia
- Royal Customs Department of Malaysia
- Department of Occupational Safety & Health
- National Registration Department
- Road Transport Department
- Department of Industrial Relations Malaysia
- Fisheries Department
- Department of Wildlife and National Parks
- Volunteers Department of Malaysia (Rela)
- Department of Labour
- Health Ministry (Enforcement Division)
- Tourism, Arts and Culture Ministry (Tourism Licensing Division)
- Domestic Trade and Costs of Living Ministry (Enforcement Division)
- Housing and Local Government Ministry (Enforcement Division)
- Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board (Sabah)
- Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board (Sarawak)
- Registrar of Business
- Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia (CAAM)
Note: The Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) was removed from the list after the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC) came into force in 2023.
According to the latest published data, the EAIC recorded a total of 289 complaints as of July this year.
For 2023 and 2024, a total of 600 and 408 complaints were lodged respectively.
Yet despite the hundreds of complaints lodged each year, only a handful have had an investigation conducted by the EAIC.
“We must be clear that most of the misconduct complaints we received are not substantiated or incomplete and were therefore dismissed or referred to another agency after reviewing them.
For comparison, the number of investigation papers opened were 12 (2023), 32 (2024) and 89 (July 2025).
“It could also be a case where the complainant assumed a misconduct had taken place but when we investigated further, we discovered otherwise; or it could be a case where disciplinary action had already been taken but the complainant was not informed of it,” EAIC commissioner Datuk Seri Razali Ab Malik told Malay Mail in an interview recently.
The same data also showed the Immigration Department recording the highest number of misconduct complaints received in consecutive years at 45 (2023), 58 (2024) and 37 (July 2025).
On the department’s ‘high number’ of complaints, Razali attributed the figures to the overall department size and scope of enforcement authority that made it more susceptible to incidents of misconduct.
“When you include a large federal department and its number of personnel nationwide, the likelihood of misconduct taking place is higher as well.
“All of us are aware that the Immigration Department’s overall function involves enforcement in regards to border control and foreign workers, of which complaints seemed more commonplace.
Some of the common complaints against the Immigration Department include inaction against illegal immigrants in a particular area, unsatisfactory counter and passport services; and weaknesses in migrant systems and immigration processes.
But what happens to complaints which fall outside the EAIC’s investigative jurisdiction, such as corruption, criminal or administrative decisions?
For such cases, Razali said these were referred to the relevant authorities such as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), the Attorney General Chambers (AGC) or the respective government department head for further action.
Nevertheless, Razali said the commission welcomed all complaints, irrespective of whether there has been misconduct committed or not.
“We want to encourage them to lodge complaints even if they have doubts because it is our collective responsibility to curb any form of misconduct by enforcement officers,” he said.
