In response to the Malaysiakini report Asset declaration: 'Include past records'.

I disagree with yearly declaration of assets by elected officials. The reasons against frequent declarations are the potential risks of confusing data, distraction from duties, privacy, and disincentive to enter politics. Two declarations - at the beginning and end of terms - by the top public executives, their spouses, and non-adult children, should suffice for now. The government should also reimburse a standard amount to pay for the accounting costs.

There are other means to reinforce the positive effects of public declaration of assets. These include empowering the ACA by placing it under Parliament, freeing up the media for dirt-digging, enacting a Freedom of Information Act, and reforming the judiciary to be more efficient and independent, all which will be sufficient - and, in fact, necessary - to prevent any specific problem of under declaration of assets.

A seldom-mentioned legislative improvement is to limit any legal penalty for libel committed by the media against public personalities. This is a necessary reform that is highlighted by the recent Malaysiakini report Raja Petra hit with libel payout

Financial assets can fluctuate by 30% easily in any given year. Not only will sudden jumps in a portfolio of small cap stocks create false alerts, any sudden drop will also mask an act of corruption. Investments in property and businesses are notoriously hard to value and prone to subjective errors, even on a yearly basis. Any demand for yearly valuations, their related expenses and attention, and any explanations required about fluctuation and unintended errors, dogged on by a vindictive opposition, will only distract from public duties.

Better to have a set of well-prepared declarations at the beginning of term and again at the end of term (including resignations, reelections, or reappointments) rather than to have many error-prone, costly declarations. More frequent declarations can still be considered in the future as the procedure, reporting system, and financial institution mature.

The demand for the previous-year tax forms is acceptable, although it can be circumvented, pre-planned for and may not show hidden corrupted incomes, and - being an income-based statement - does not reflect large asset holdings.

While public figures have implicitly agreed to give up much of their privacy, we should still protect the privacy of their siblings and parents, who are full-grown adults with their own rights to protect. Too frequent asset declarations, or demands to declare the assets of the extended family will also discourage potentially good people from taking up office.