KUALA LUMPUR — Former Human Resources Minister Datuk Seri M. Saravanan has questioned the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) over the involvement of his 12-year-old son in the asset declaration process, saying no child should have to bear the burden of an investigation involving a parent.
Saravanan said he arrived at the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya on Monday holding his son’s hand because his family understood from the commission’s public statements that the boy was required to attend to receive an asset declaration notice.
However, after they arrived, Saravanan said they were told his son did not need to sign anything and could leave.
“That is the absurdity at the heart of this episode,” Saravanan said in a statement today.
The controversy arose after MACC chief commissioner Datuk Seri Abd Halim Aman said on Sept 25 that asset declaration notices would be issued to Saravanan, his wife and their three children.
Abd Halim said Saravanan, his wife and two children would attend the MACC headquarters for the delivery of the notices, while another child studying in London would receive the notice in November.
Saravanan said that, with one child overseas, it was reasonable for the family to understand that the child attending the headquarters would include his 12-year-old son.
“I had already told MACC officers that he is a minor and has no property in his name.
“Yet it was only after he walked through the doors of MACC headquarters that we were told he did not need to sign anything and could go home,” he said.
The Tapah MP questioned why the matter was not clarified before his son was brought to the anti-graft agency’s headquarters.
“If he did not need to be there, why was this not clarified before a 12-year-old was brought to an anti-corruption headquarters?” he asked.
MACC, however, has denied serving any asset declaration notice on Saravanan’s youngest son and said the boy was not required to attend the agency’s headquarters.
Abd Halim said MACC had exercised discretion in deciding not to serve the 12-year-old, adding that the law did not specifically state an age category for the terms “relative” or “associate”.
He also rejected suggestions that MACC had instructed the boy to attend physically, saying the parents had brought their children to the headquarters.
Saravanan described that explanation as “ludicrous”, saying the family brought his son because they understood MACC’s public statement to mean that he was required to attend.
More fundamentally, Saravanan questioned MACC’s position that the law does not prescribe a specific age limit for such notices.
He said the issue should not simply be reduced to whether the relevant legislation contained the words “18” or “12”, arguing that authorities must also consider whether applying an adult investigative mechanism to a 12-year-old would produce an absurd or disproportionate outcome.
Saravanan referred to Section 133A of the Evidence Act 1950, which provides for a child of tender years who does not understand the nature of an oath to give evidence without being sworn, provided the court is satisfied that the child has sufficient intelligence and understands the duty to speak the truth.
He said this showed that Malaysian law recognised that children may not have the same capacity as adults to understand the significance and consequences of formal legal processes.
Saravanan also cited Section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, which provides that a statutory provision should be construed in a manner that promotes the purpose or object underlying the legislation.
“The question cannot simply be whether Section 36 contains the words ‘18’ or ‘12’. It must also be whether applying an adult investigative mechanism to a 12-year-old produces an absurd and disproportionate result,” he said.
Saravanan stressed that his objection was not to cooperating with the investigation, but to the manner in which his young son became involved in the process.
He had previously said he was prepared to comply with the asset declaration process and had nothing to hide, while questioning why his son could not simply be represented by him as the child’s father and legal guardian.
The latest dispute comes as Saravanan faces three corruption charges at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court involving the alleged receipt of nearly RM1.09 million in bribes linked to the approval of quotas for 1,000 foreign workers.
MACC has said the asset declaration notices were issued under Section 36 of the MACC Act 2009, with recipients generally given 30 days to make their declarations, while extensions may be considered where there are reasonable grounds.
For Saravanan, however, the central issue remains his son’s involvement in the process.
“No child should carry the burden of his parent’s investigation,” he said. — October 2, 2026