[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]

![ksampoh Avatar](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:24/cr:twitter::1423556976554909697.png) ksampoh@MyOwn Inc [@ksampoh](/creator/twitter/ksampoh) on x XXX followers
Created: 2025-07-23 17:44:06 UTC

@takiyuddin61 - RESPONSE TO YB TAKIYUDDIN HASSAN ON THE VALIDITY OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL’S APPOINTMENT
I refer to the recent statement by YB Takiyuddin Hassan in the Dewan Rakyat questioning the constitutionality of Datuk Wan Suraya Wan Mohd Radzi’s appointment as Auditor-General. With due respect, this assertion is legally flawed, constitutionally unsupported, & raises more questions about timing than substance.

- X. Lawful Appointment Under Article 105(1)
Datuk Wan Suraya was appointed as Auditor-General on XX June 2023, by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister, in full accordance with Article 105(1) of the Federal Constitution-

“There shall be an Auditor-General, who shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister.”

There is no provision barring serving civil servants from being appointed. She was a senior officer with decades of public service, including as Secretary-General of the Ministry of Rural and Regional Development.

- X. Article 105(4) Misinterpreted
YB Takiyuddin cites Article 105(4) to question her eligibility. But that clause concerns salary protection - ensuring that the Auditor-General’s remuneration, once appointed, cannot be diminished & must be charged on the Consolidated Fund.

This is a safeguard for independence, not a restriction on who may be appointed. In Datuk Wan Suraya’s case, her salary has been duly charged to the Consolidated Fund — meeting constitutional requirements.

- X. Legal Consistency with the Audit Act 1957
The Audit Act 1957 imposes no bar on the appointment of a serving public officer. In fact, there is precedent: prior Auditor-Generals have been appointed from among senior civil servants without legal challenge. The law & practice are both clear.

- X. Why Raise This Now?
Datuk Wan Suraya has held the post for over XX months, during which she has tabled multiple audit reports - including three prior to this. No constitutional objection was raised during those sessions.

Which begs the question-
 Was YB Takiyuddin unaware, unconcerned — or simply silent until now?
 Was he asleep during the past year, or only waking up now that serious governance issues are being spotlighted?
If this was truly a constitutional concern, it should have been raised at the time of appointment, not suddenly during debate of a report that may have made some parties uncomfortable.
- X. If There’s a Dispute, Take It to Court

If YB Takiyuddin believes there is a constitutional breach, the proper recourse is not political innuendo in Parliament — it is a judicial review in the courts. That is the correct & credible channel under our legal system.

The appointment of Datuk Wan Suraya Wan Mohd Radzi is legally valid, constitutionally sound, & made in accordance with precedent. Her professionalism & integrity are not in question.

Instead of casting doubt on the Auditor-General’s appointment after more than a year, let us focus on what truly matters-
-Upholding transparency,

-Acting on audit findings, 

-Holding public institutions accountable.

Political deflection cannot replace institutional responsibility.

Auditor-general’s appointment not valid, claims Takiyuddin



XX engagements

![Engagements Line Chart](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:600/p:tweet::1948076672001216672/c:line.svg)

[Post Link](https://x.com/ksampoh/status/1948076672001216672)