"If you work harder, you will get luckier" per Anita Sarawak dictum.

it made the final call when the Bills were tabled.

compliment or critics? yet too early to ground the conclusion. ordinary birdies like me (bird brained homo) need more times as compare to bright person to fully construing the real drama. i have a few dubiety which need some smarties to enlighten me:

(i) the first among equals will appoints the members, no doubt he hath the discretion to appoint any creature in rerum natura, but the question arises when it comes to impartiality. can the appointee execute their role without any interference, as a professional?

(ii) who will be the members? will they be Parliamentarian from back benches, oppositions, or will the first person invite non-government organization veteran or academician?

(iii) if the appointees were to be from the same gene pool, then who can tell in certain that there will not be "politically bias"?

(iv) where is the position of the office? will it be under Parliament roof, to stand as an independence body, or will it one of the Home Office, or one of the ministry department? if so, where is the "independence" imply?

(v) as a democratic country, we suppose to practice separation of powers, that is to mean judiciary, executive and legislature should be standing alone and no interference or overlapping of jurisdiction. same question, where this office should be? if they can prosecute, then they will be under executive, if they can legislate and self -regulate, then it is sort of legislature, so where is it?

(vi) what kind of power are they vested inside constitution? what and where is the limitation?

(vii) is there any check and balance remedy?

(viii) is there any enacted Act of Parliament clearly stated the function and power encompass to the office? is there any Statute that clearly stated the defense?

(ix) is there any channel or body to handle the complain against the misuse or abuse of powers?

(x) According to "Investigative Powers":
--> an officer of the rank of Commissioner of higher can inspect and make copies of the bank accounts of any individual, inspect the safe deposit boxes in banks and to seize any document or item inspected; and
--> if an officer has reason to believe that a person has property beyond his means, the officer can order the person to give a satisfactory explanation about the excess, and a failure to do so is an offense.
even as if the police were to seize any document or anything, a warrant from court must first be obtained, then how about this office? what kind of reason can be defined as a "reason to believe"? is there any evidential proof needed to adduce before court in order to grant a sanction? or can they bypass the court and issue their own "warrant"?

(xi) what are the possible charges under Statutory Provisions that one may face? which Statute? if they were to charge under ACA, then is there any reform of the Act? are the Acts still contemporary and fit to today's need?

(xii) is there any provision stipulated to protect those who tip off the information?

(xiii) is there any rewards for those who tipped off the authority and successfully sentence the culprit?

(xiv) how is the government to ensure / guarantee transparency, integrity, impartiality and professionalism of the office and regain public confidence?

there are too many dubiety in my little bird brain and this blog is definitely not to offense but merely to discuss and with the hope to generate more ideas.

what we can do is just wait and see, but anyway, it is a good move and a good start. it is definitely a wisest Bills to table.