Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was a court-like restorative justice[1] body assembled in South Africa after the abolition of apartheid. Witnesses who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations were invited to give statements about their experiences, and some were selected for public hearings. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from both civil and criminal prosecution.
The TRC, the first of the nineteen held internationally to stage public hearings, was seen by many as a crucial component of the transition to full and free democracy in South Africa. Despite some flaws, it is generally (although not universally) thought to have been successful.[2]
Creation and mandate
The TRC was set up in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 of 1995, and was based in Cape Town. The mandate of the commission was to bear witness to, record and in some cases grant amnesty to the perpetrators of crimes relating to human rights violations, as well as reparation and rehabilitation. The TRC had a number of high profile members: Archbishop Desmond Tutu (chairman), Dr. Alex Boraine (Deputy Chairman), Mary Burton, Advocate Chris de Jager, Bongani Finca, Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, Sisi Khampepe, Richard Lyster, Wynand Malan, Reverend Khoza Mgojo, Hlengiwe Mkhize, Dumisa Ntsebeza (head of the Investigative Unit), Dr. Wendy Orr, Advocate Denzil Potgieter, Mapule Ramashala, Dr. Fazel Randera, Yasmin Sooka and Glenda Wildschut.
Committees
The work of the TRC was accomplished through three committees:
- The Human Rights Violations Committee investigated human rights abuses that occurred between 1960 and 1994.
- The Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee was charged with restoring victims’ dignity and formulating proposals to assist with rehabilitation.
- The Amnesty Committee considered applications from individuals who applied for amnesty in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Public hearings of the Human Rights Violations Committee and the Amnesty Committee were held at many venues around South Africa, including Cape Town (at the University of the Western Cape), Johannesburg (at the Central Methodist Mission), and Randburg (at the Rhema Bible Church).
The commission was empowered to grant amnesty to those who committed abuses during the apartheid era, as long as the crimes were politically motivated, proportionate, and there was full disclosure by the person seeking amnesty.
To avoid victor’s justice, no side was exempt from appearing before the commission. The commission heard reports of human rights violations and considered amnesty applications from all sides, from the apartheid state to the liberation forces, including the African National Congress.
A total of 5,392 amnesty applications were refused, granting only 849 out of the 7,112 (which includes the number of additional categories, such as withdrawn).[3]
Impact
The TRC’s emphasis on reconciliation is in sharp contrast to the approach taken by the Nuremberg Trials after World War II and other de-Nazification measures. Because of the perceived success[citation needed] of the reconciliatory approach in dealing with human-rights violations after political change either from internal or external factors, other countries have instituted similar commissions, though not always with the same scope or the allowance for charging those currently in power. The success of the “TRC method” versus the “Nuremberg method” of prosecution is open for debate.
In a survey study by Jay and Erika Vora, the effectiveness of the TRC Commission was measured on a variety of levels, namely its usefulness in terms of bringing out the truth of what had happened during the apartheid regime, the feelings of reconciliation that could be linked to the Commission, and the positive effects both domestically and internationally that the Commission brought about in a variety of ways from the political environment of South Africa to the economic one. The opinions of three ethnic groups were measured in this study: the English, the Afrikaners, and the Xhosa.[4]
The effectiveness of the Commission in bringing out truth can be viewed in the following statement from an article by Jay and Erika Vora:
All participants perceived the TRC to be effective in bringing out the truth, however, in varying degrees. The Afrikaners perceived the TRC to be less effective in bringing out the truth than the English participants and much less effective than did the Xhosa…[4]
The differences in opinions about the effectiveness can be attributed to how each group viewed the proceedings. Some viewed them as not entirely accurate as many people would lie in order to keep themselves out of trouble while receiving amnesty for their crimes, given that the Commission would grant amnesty to some with consideration given to the weight of the crimes committed.
The TRC was viewed as much less effective in bringing about reconciliation by each group, with the two white groups about par and the Xhosa viewing the TRC as less effective than the other two ethnic groups. Some said that the proceedings only helped to remind them of the horrors that had taken place in the past when they had been working to forget such things. Thus, the TRC’s effectiveness in terms of achieving those very things within its title is still debatable.[4]
Media coverage
The hearings were initially set to be heard in camera, but the intervention of 23 non-governmental organisations eventually succeeded in gaining media access to the hearings. On 15 April 1996 the South African National Broadcaster televised the first two hours of the first human rights violation committee hearing live. With funding from the Norwegian government, radio continued to broadcast live throughout. Additional high-profile hearings, such as Winnie Mandela’s testimony, were also televised live. The rest of the hearings were presented on television each Sunday from April 1996 to June 1998 in hour-long episodes of the “Truth Commission Special Report” by progressive Afrikaner journalist Max du Preez, former editor of the Vrye Weekblad.[5] The producers of the program included Anneliese Burgess, Jann Turner, Benedict Motau, Gael Reagon, Rene Schiebe and Bronwyn Nicholson, a production assistant.[6]
Various films have been made about the commission:
- Confronting the Truth by Steve York. 2006, documentary, produced in association with the United States Institute of Peace.
- Facing the Truth (1999) by Bill Moyers. 2-part PBS series.[7]
- Forgiveness (2004) directed by Ian Gabriel. A South African feature film starring South African–born actor Arnold Vosloo as a disgraced ex-cop seeking forgiveness from the family of the activist he killed under the Apartheid regime. With Quanita Adams and Zane Meas.
- In My Country (2004), very loosely based on Country of My Skull, an autobiographical text by Antjie Krog which dealt with her coverage of the hearings, starring Samuel L. Jackson and Juliette Binoche
- Long Night’s Journey into Day (2000) by Frances Reid. Documentary.[8]
- Red Dust (2004), based on the novel of the same title by Gillian Slovo, starring Hilary Swank, Jamie Bartlett and Chiwetel Ejiofor
- Zulu Love Letter (2004) directed by Ramadan Suleman and starring Pamela Nomvete.
Several plays have been produced about the TRC:
- “Truth in Translation” (2006), by Paavo Tom Tammi, in collaboration with American director, Michael Lessac and the company of Colonnades Theatre Lab, South Africa.
- Ubu and the Truth Commission (1997), by Jane Taylor and William Kentridge.
- Nothing but the Truth (2002), by John Kani
- The Story I Am About to Tell, created in collaboration with the Khulumani support group
- The Dead Wait, by Paul Herzberg
Some of Ingrid de Kok’s poetry in Terrestrial Things (2002) deals with the TRC (e.g. The Archbishop Chairs the First Session, The Transcriber Speaks, The Sound Engineer).
Criticisms
A 1998 study by South Africa’s Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation & the Khulumani Support Group,[9][10] which surveyed several hundred victims of human-rights abuse during the Apartheid era, found that most felt that the TRC had failed to achieve reconciliation between the black and white communities. Most believed that justice was a prerequisite for reconciliation rather than an alternative to it, and that the TRC had been weighted in favour of the perpetrators of abuse.[11][12]
Another dilemma facing the TRC was how to do justice to the testimonials of those witnesses for whom translation was necessary. It was believed that, with the great discrepancy between the emotions of the witnesses and those translating them, much of the impact was lost in interlingual rendition. A briefly tried solution was to have the translators mimic the witnesses’ emotions, but this proved disastrous and was quickly scrapped.[13]
While former president F.W. de Klerk appeared before the commission and reiterated his apology for the suffering caused by apartheid, many black South Africans were angered at amnesty being granted for human rights abuses committed by the apartheid government. The BBC described such criticisms as stemming from a “basic misunderstanding” about the TRC’s mandate,[14] which was to uncover the truth about past abuse, using amnesty as a mechanism, rather than to punish past crimes.
Among the highest-profile of these objections were the criticisms levelled by the family of prominent anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko, who was killed by the security police, and whose story was later featured in the film Cry Freedom.[15] Biko’s family described the TRC as a “vehicle for political expediency”, which “robbed” them of their right to justice.[16] The family opposed amnesty for his killers on these grounds and brought a legal action in South Africa’s highest court, arguing that the TRC was unconstitutional.
On the other side of the spectrum, former apartheid State President P.W. Botha defied a subpoena to appear before the commission, calling it a “circus”. His defiance resulted in a fine and suspended sentence, but these were overturned on appeal.[17]
Playwright Jane Taylor, responsible for the acclaimed Ubu and the Truth Commission, found fault with the Commission’s lopsided influence:
The TRC is unquestionably a monumental process, the consequences of which will take years to unravel. For all its pervasive weight, however, it infiltrates our culture asymmetrically, unevenly across multiple sectors. Its place in small rural communities, for example, when it establishes itself in a local church hall, and absorbs substantial numbers of the population, is very different from its situation in large urban centres, where its presence is marginalised by other social and economic activities.[18]
John Pilger, an internationally significant journalist, castigates the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for allowing the easy transition from white exclusive capitalism to multiracial capitalism, and for failing to cause the trial of criminals, particularly murderers.[19]
Eradicating the culture of corruption need not take decades
MUCH of his life has been spent in fighting corruption. In fact, even after retiring from the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC)—the Hong Kong Corruption Eradication Commission—Professor Tony Kwok Man-wai remains very much involved in the battle against corruption. He is now a consultant in 21 countries, regularly delivering lectures on corruption, including in Indonesia.
Professor Kwok joined the ICAC in 1975, one year after it was founded by the then British government in Hong Kong, with a mandate to battle and prevent corruption, and carry out an anticorruption education campaign. Kwok retired when he was deputy commissioner and operations chief in 2002. That year, he was appointed Director of Corruption Studies Program at Hong Kong University, the first such academic program in the world.
Other countries, including Indonesia, regard the ICAC as a model commission in how to eradicate corruption. Because of the ICAC, Hong Kong succeeded in changing its culture of corruption in all the layers of its society. Once riddled with corruption, Hong Kong became the 13th cleanest state in the world, way ahead of Indonesia, which never seems to go under its 100 or so ranking. “If you want to change the culture, never tolerate bribery, no matter how small,” said Kwok.
During a public lecture on August 11 in Jakarta, Kwok said the battle against corruption need not take decades. The key, he said, was in the right strategy and in the people’s political will, and that there was no single solution to eradicating corruption except to have all economic and social sectors participate. The solution to corruption does not depend on just one institution.
Before the lecture, Kwok spoke at the Integrated Anti-Corruption Workshop in Semarang. Some of the participants were mid-level police officers and under. At the end of the session, one of them came to him and said: “Professor Kwok, I agree with everything you said, but you should be talking with my boss.” Kwok said that ultimately, eradicating corruption depended on the leader. That is why, it is important to have political will, regulations, a proper budget, certainty and independence, so that the anticorruption commission is free from any political interest.
Right after the lecture Kwok flew back to Hong Kong. On the way to the airport, Kwok spoke to Tempo reporters Yandi M. Rofiyandi and Yophiandi Kurniawan. Excerpts of the interview:
You seem quite convinced that eradicating corruption will not take decades.
Hong Kong, which used to be very corrupt, only took more than three years to change the people’s culture of corruption. This is the main message. People always consider the effort of changing the culture of corruption as taking a long time, in fact, generations. Apparently, this is wrong. In three years’ time, we were able to stop the syndication of corruption. Perhaps we still have individual corruption, but for sure there was a change of culture during those three years. Here, however, what is needed is political will.
What was the most evident change in Hong Kong?
Corruption is no longer open. In the past, we could see clearly corruption being committed: by taxi drivers, people asking money at schools or at hospitals, and so forth. After three years, people no longer demanded bribes. That was the clearest evidence, the most significant change in the culture of corruption. People no longer tolerated corruption in their lives and they were willing to report any forms of corruption to the police.
How do you establish an anticorruption culture in the education system?
All countries, including Indonesia, should stress cultivating an anticorruption attitude early on, such as in schools. In Hong Kong, that is what we teach in kindergarten.
In Indonesia, people generally think it would take an entire generation to change the culture of corruption because it has permeated all layers of society.
People think it takes a long time to fight really bad corruption. I disagree. The Hong Kong experience shows what can happen when the right strategy and the political will in fighting corruption are applied.
How bad was corruption in Hong Kong before the ICAC was established?
Let’s take the example of service in one hospital, based on an account given by my own mother. In the past, she had to bring her own drinking glass because the hospital charged her one dollar for it. She even had to pay for her towels. Everyone thought at the time that giving and taking money was normal. After the ICAC began operating, a banner with the words, “Giving and receiving money is a violation of the law because it is a bribe. For complaints, call the hotline number,” was placed over every billing counter. Such signs can change people’s attitude.
Was anyone at the hospital ever punished for bribery?
We arrested one hospital employee who took money, even though it was a small amount. Yet, the media criticized us: Why is the ICAC punishing people over one or two dollars? They should be after the big fish, the big corruptors. We had applied the zero tolerance policy. Big fish and small fish, if it was bribery, it was still illegal. If we want to change the culture, never tolerate bribery, no matter how small. After that one arrest, there was never any case of people asking for money in the hospital.
How did the people react when the ICAC finally went after the big fish?
Of course the people appreciated it very much. The anticorruption institution must go after the big fish so that they can demonstrate seriousness, although they cannot ignore the small cases either. That’s how the culture is changed.
Did the public ever criticize your institution?
Every year we would carry out a public opinion survey, and it would show that 98 percent of the people supported the ICAC. The survey also indicated that 90 percent of people in Hong Kong would not tolerate corruption. To the question, “Would you be willing to report a corruption case?” about 80 percent answered “Yes.”
Do you think the change in culture in Hong Kong happened because of the strong influence of British culture?
It had nothing to do with British culture but with human culture which seeks a clean culture. Corruption is global. There must be a campaign to make corruption a shameful activity. This can be done through campaign advertisements. Hong Kong had many, many anticorruption advertisements. For instance, on television, there would be a scene depicting a happy family having breakfast on their apartment balcony. An ICAC officer arrives and arrests the man in front of his wife and children. He goes to jail. The scene ends with the words: corruption destroys families.
Do you believe the death penalty is needed to eradicate corruption, as in the case of China?
I don’t think so. China applies the death penalty, yet corruption is still rife there. The maximum sentence given to corruptors in Hong Kong is 10 years and a minimum of 12 months, yet we have eliminated corruption. When senior officials are arrested, their reputation and their sense of integrity are lost. They bring shame to their families. And these are enough punishments in themselves.
Should there be some kind of incentive to compensate workers, particularly low-salaried government employees, to prevent bribes?
For low-salary government employees who find it difficult to buy milk for their babies, of course there must be an incentive not to commit corruption. That is why the government must guarantee an adequate minimum wage for its employees.
Bribery often involves more than one person. Can it be eliminated to the very roots?
We should punish both the givers of bribes, as well as the receivers. We cannot just investigate one person, because it is bound to involve many people. We used to investigate many people in one case, so that we can destroy the syndicate at the same time. Crime will go on if we arrest just one person. Everyone who is involved must be investigated at the same time. This is an important strategy.
People here doubt that corruption cases linked to politics will be dealt with.
In Hong Kong, the investigation does not stop [when politics is involved]. We pursue it until we reach the top. Political parties have no impact on us. According to the law, we cannot stop. If we stop, the public will suspect there is something wrong going on. No one is immune from the ICAC. Anyone can be caught by the ICAC dragnet.
The challenge of corruption eradication in Indonesia is the police and the prosecutor, which often refuse to cooperate with the KPK.
You must start from the very top. The KPK chairman, the police chief and the attorney general must meet and try to resolve their problems jointly. They must meet officially, to identify the next steps. So, everything begins with cooperation among the leaders. This is where the president should step in: make the chiefs of related institutions to work together.
So, the president should be involved?
If necessary, yes. Generally, he is not needed because the leaders of the institutions should be aware of their respective tasks, so there should be no need for infighting.
Should the KPK have its own investigators?
The problem is how to apportion assignments. The police cannot investigate corruption cases. If both the police and the KPK investigate simultaneously, there would be a conflict because the law is unclear about this. The police should focus on criminal cases, like murder, kidnapping, theft and other crimes. Corruption must be managed only by the KPK. In every country, the anticorruption commission is the only institution authorized to investigate corruption cases. The police should not be allowed to be involved in corruption cases. The KPK must hold the sole mandate in anticorruption efforts. If two institutions are given the same authority, conflict is bound to happen.
But the KPK is a temporary institution.
This is why the KPK needs a legal umbrella. In many countries, their anticorruption institutions are embedded in their constitutions. In Hon Kong, the anticorruption institution is independent, regulated by laws. In Mongolia, the anticorruption budget cannot be rejected by parliament. So, parliament cannot reduce their functions nor their authority by cutting its budget. The KPK must be embedded in the constitution. And they must be given the guarantee to be the sole investigator of corruption cases, to ensure there is no conflict with the police. Even the Corruption Court must be embedded in the constitution.
The recruitment of KPK officials in Indonesia must be approved by parliament. Can this reduce its independence?
The process of recruitment is acquiring the right people for the right job. The objective is to get the best candidates to be members of an independent anticorruption commission, such as the KPK. This must not be mixed with political interests.
So the selection process in parliament is not needed?
There is no need for that. The public can and should monitor the selection process. If the president appoints Professor Tony Kwok, and the people support this, but parliament disapproves, there is bound to be critical reaction from the media and from public opinion.
Some people in Indonesia, including the president, once complained that the KPK’s authority was excessive.
This institution must have power. Otherwise, it cannot function. Of course, there must be consideration towards possible abuse of power. So, a mechanism to prevent such an abuse is necessary. In Hong Kong, we have an oversight unit that consists of people outside the institutions. They are community leaders whose task is to monitor the activities of the ICAC.
In fighting corruption, did the ICAC employees face physical threats or pressure?
Many physical threats, but we are professional agents. Investigating corruption is not the business of one person, but a team. If you killed me, it would be pointless, because someone else would be picking up the investigation. What is more important in fighting corruption is a witness protection policy, because the corruptors can easily threaten weak witnesses. We even had one case in which the witness was killed. So, a good witness protection program is definitely needed. The anticorruption institution must also convince everyone concerned that all its reports must be kept secret.
How to convince the public of the need for secrecy while supporting the whistle blower?
We must maintain secrecy. No one must know who the whistleblower is. If someone at the ICAC leaks such information, the person goes to jail. We have strict laws with regard to maintaining the secrecy of the whistleblower.
What if the whistleblower is part of the problem?
Although he may be involved in the crime, his identity can only be exposed through a court order with strong evidence. If the identity cannot be kept secret, the witness should enter a witness protection program.
There’s a film called I Corrupt All Cops, which tells the story of corruption inside the Hong Kong police force and the ICAC. Is this movie based on facts?
Everything in the film is true. The police force was very corrupt at one time. One joke went that one policeman couldn’t find a bed to sleep in because all the rooms in his home were full of money, covering all the beds.
Tony Kwok Man-wai
No fish too small, says Greiner in defence of ICAC
December 9, 2010
NICK GREINER, the former premier who set up the Independent Commission Against Corruption only to become its biggest scalp, has defended the watchdog against claims it is wasting its time and taxpayers’ money on petty matters.
Government MPs, including the chairman of the parliamentary oversight committee on the ICAC, Richard Amery, have criticised the commission’s investigation of the Drummoyne MP Angela D’Amore, who it found acted corruptly in claiming $4500 in entitlements for two staff.
The ICAC has asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider charges of misconduct in public office against Ms D’Amore for authorising claims she knew were false. She is considering an appeal.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Mr Amery described holding public hearings into the matter as ”a significant waste of resources” at a time when the commission was seeking a $5 million increase in its $20 million budget.
”What serious or systematic cases of corruption were left on the shelf to investigate what I call a low-scale event?” he asked.
However, Mr Greiner told the Herald it was impractical to look at restricting what the ICAC investigates. ”I think it’s a bit easy to say that they shouldn’t investigate small things. It’s about trying to change culture and attitude. It’s not whether this is a venal or mortal sin.”
Mr Greiner drew a parallel between the commission’s need to publicly pursue relatively minor matters with the ”zero tolerance” approach to crime in New York under the city’s former mayor, Rudy Giuliani.
”If you want to change the culture in State Rail, there’s no point waiting around until you get someone who is making $5 million from some rort.”
In 1992, as premier, Mr Greiner was found to have acted corruptly within the definition of the ICAC Act by the then commissioner Ian Temby over the appointment of the former Liberal MP Terry Metherell to a senior public service job.
Mr Greiner resigned as premier over the affair, but later had the finding of corrupt conduct overturned in the Court of Appeal.
In a statement after the ICAC’s findings in her matter, Ms D’Amore said she was seeking legal advice on an appeal to quash the findings”.
Ms D’Amore has been sacked as a parliamentary secretary to the ministers for police and the environment over the findings. Her party membership has also been suspended.
She has confirmed she will not resign from Parliament but will not stand for preselection in Drummoyne at next year’s state election.
Labor had delayed preselection for Drummoyne until the ICAC handed down its findings on Ms D’Amore and is now expected to call for nominations within days.
If he nominates, the mayor of Canada Bay, Angelo Tsirekas, is favoured to become Labor’s candidate for the seat, which is held by 7.6 per cent.
Greater Scrutiny On Business Corruption
By Fadzli Ramli
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 9 (Bernama) — Corruption is perhaps among the oldest ethical problem in the history of humankind, it is the reflection of a society’s impaired integrity and in the bigger picture a society that is morally corrupt.
Malaysians in particular are concerned with the country’s unenviable position in the corruption perception index despite the unwavering efforts of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and his government to eradicate the menace.
In 2011, Malaysia’s ranking in the Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index declined to 60 out of 183 nations compared with 56th position out of 178 nations in 2010.
So far the public sector bore the brunt of the blame for corrupt practices but if the recent series of graft cases published in the media are anything to go by, graft is rampant in the business world too.
The latest, rampant corrupt practices among employees of Iskandar Investment Berhad were discovered following an audit on the corporation entrusted with the task of developing the southern economic region, Iskandar Malaysia.
CORRUPTION IN THE BUSINESS WORLD
Malaysian Society for Transparency and Integrity secretary-general Josie M. Fernandez noted that corruption in the corporate world has dire consequences on the nation.
Business corruption can occur in two conditions, namely involving individuals of a company or involving the company itself.
Fernandez said such practice leads to increase in the cost of doing business in the country and therefore future investors will shy away from doing business here.
“Companies will not invest if they do not see good profit margin in a business deal, so if you add corruption cost the profit margin shrinks.
“Moreover, big investors look for countries with good business ethics that will ensure their businesses bloom. So business corruption can bring down our country’s economy,” she told Bernama.
Fernandez is glad to note that the Malaysian goverment through the Performance Management & Delivery Unit (Pemandu) has taken bold steps like introducing the corporate integrity pledge to fight business corruption.
BUSINESS CORRUPTION ANY ENTERPRENEUR’S NIGHTMARE
By and large, corruption in the business world happens in all sectors with far reaching implications.
The Malay Traders and Entrepreneurs’s Association President Datuk Moehamad Izat Emir shed some light on the implication from the corrupt practices of the business world.
“Corrupt business practices could affect the growth of entrepreneurs with potential in the country. Take for example, if only certain enterpreneurs get tenders from a company through corrupt manner others have no chance to introduce their offerings that could be better.
“The worse thing is that when the bidder who gets the tender by corrupt means has no ability to carry out work,” he said.
Moehamad Izat commended the efforts made by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commision (MACC) for extending its anti corruption crusade to the business world.
MACC’s relentless effort to take on anyone involved in corruption regardless of their position would also help improve public perception on the organisation.
“I suggest that the government increases MACC’s budget so that it can have a lot more officers and facilities to fight corruption in Malaysia.
“But we cannot depend on MACC alone to fight corruption, change in public perception is important. We must see corruption as something really evil for our society, not just another ‘handshake’ in concluding a transaction,” he said.
BUSINESS AFFECTED
The president of Malaysian Association of Tour and Travel Agents Datuk Mohd Khalid Harun said corrupt business practices spares no industry.
“Even the tourism business is not spared,” he said adding that with corrupt practice there would not be transparency in business transactions and this will affect planning, management and others in the industry.
“Corruption can deny valuable opportunities for tourism players with expertise, capability and commitment. I also fear that the tourism product in this country will also be affected,” he said.
Meanwhile, Pan Malaysian Bus Operators Association President Datuk Mohamad Ashfar Ali said; “When people without expertise and experience get permits or any transport projects, the quality of service will be affected.
“We must remember transport is an important facility for people in this country. People will lament if there is no quality in the transport service ,” he said.
While Malaysians have yet to see iconic anti graft crusaders like India’s Anna Hazare, they can still count on the government that is committed in doing its level best to eradicate the malaise.
However, the success of this undertaking depends on every citizen’s contribution and not dependent on the government alone.
– BERNAMA
Anti-Corruption Stories 01/2012
by: anticorruption January 9. 2012
In some parts of the world speaking out against corruption can be met with threats, intimidation and physical harm, even death. Courageous individuals work at great personal risk to make their voices heard in places where dissent can meet with harsh repercussions. The beginning of January saw the brutal murder of one such individual, Sri Lankan newspaper editor Lasantha Wickramatunga.
On 8 January, Wickramatunga was shot by unidentified gunmen on motorcycles on his way to work. He was rushed to hospital but died after three hours of emergency surgery.
Wickramatunga received “numerous death threats through his career and was detained on several occasions because of the controversial nature of his stories,” notes the BBC. The Sunday Leader newspaper is renowned for being critical of the government, and Wickramatunga, a qualified lawyer, had “often fought defamation cases brought by senior politicians,” reports AFP. In 1998 gunmen shot at his home and the paper’s printing presses have come under repeated arson attacks.
“Lasantha was a symbol of dissent whose motto was “unbowed and unafraid”. His life was full of challenges all revolving around exposing of corruption. Many took to investigative journalism due to his leadership and guidance. When the media was attacked with impunity, he stood strong exposing those responsible. His death has exposed the danger of being a corruption fighter but, let us hope, thousands of Sri Lankans will come forward to stand by his motto,” said J.C. Weliamuna, Executive Director of TI Sri Lanka.
Hundreds of Sri Lankan journalists took to the streets of Colombo to protest Wickramatunga’s murder and the suppression of the media. The US, European Union, India and the World Bank also joined in condemning the shooting as “the government came under local and foreign pressure to protect freedom of expression,” writes AFP.
Wickramatunga had been highly critical of the government’s policy and the war with the Tamil Tigers. In his final editorial, he wrote, “Winning the war? Then there must be elections around the corner. It is no secret that the war has become Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse’s recipe for electoral success.”
Rajapakse has publicly condemned the killing and ordered a police investigation into the murder. “This heinous crime points to the grave dangers faced by the democratic social order of our country, and the existence of forces that will go to the furthest extremes in using terror and criminality to damage our social fabric and bring disrepute to the country,” said Rajapakse in a statement.
However, Amnesty’s Sri Lankan country specialist questions the likelihood of the perpetrators being brought to justice. “At least 14 journalists or other media workers have been killed in Sri Lanka over the past three years. More than 20 journalists have left the country due to death threats…the police have yet to find the killers of any of the other murdered journalists,” he writes. “
Journalists face murder, harassment, abduction and arbitrary detention in Sri Lanka,” reports Reuters. Sri Lanka was ranked 165th out of 173 countries in media rights group Reporters Without Border’s 2008 Press Freedom Index – the lowest ranking of any democratic country. The group criticised Rajapaksa and the government media saying they had, “incited hatred against him and allowed an outrageous level of impunity to develop as regards violence against the press.”
The murder of Wickramatunga is one more tragic example of a worrying pattern of violence and intimidation against the media and civil society in Sri Lanka. In September 2008, the home of TI Sri Lanka’s Executive Director J.C. Weliamuna came under a grenade attack, which has yet to be fully investigated, and the MTV/MBC television studios near Colombo were stormed by 15 masked gunmen on 6 January.
In 2000, Wickramatunga was awarded Transparency International’s first Integrity Award to underscore his commitment to unearthing corruption and in recognition of the difficult and dangerous circumstances he faced as The Sunday Leader editor. “Lasantha Wickramatunga’s assassination is a grim reminder to us all that some activists still have to pay the highest of prices for their dogged pursuit of accountability and transparency. I feel privileged to have met Lasantha Wickramatunga and I hope that his memory will stand as a symbol of perseverance and courage for all anti-corruption activists,” said Susan Côté-Freeman, who handled TI’s 2000 Integrity Awards programme and is now TI’s Private Sector Programme Manager.
Rasuah dan Sandiwara Pembangkang-
ehsan : http://zahrainmp.blogspot.com/2012/01/rasuah-dan-sandiwara-pembangkang.html
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Assalamualaikum dan Salam Sejahtera.
Sekali lagi saya ingin mengucapkan Selamat Tahun Baru 2012 kepada seluruh rakyat Malaysia, khususnya mereka yang mengikuti perkembangan semasa.
Sejak kebelakangan ini laungan suara sumbang anti-kerajaan semakin lantang didalam negara kita ini.
Walaupun suara-suara sumbang ini bukan lah baru tetapi isu dan cara sesuatu isu itu digembar-gemburkan ternampak pelik, lucu dan amat terdesak.
Usaha pihak tertentu untuk memperbodoh serta mengapi-apikan sentimen rakyat semakin kerap dan ketara mutakhir ini.
Mereka yang terdesak sanggup melakukan apa saja demi kelangsungan agenda mereka.
Agenda golongan ini, termasuk yang terdesak untuk membelakangkan undang-undang demi nafsu politik, adalah amat nyata.
Saya khuathir jika putar-belit golongan ini tidak di dedahkan, rakyat mungkin terpedaya.
Salah satu isu yang sering di perbesarkan tanpa henti ialah isu rasuah. Rasuah memang wujud dalam negara kita, malah tidak ada satu pun negara dalam dunia ini yang bebas rasuah secara mutlak.
Seperti gejala penyalahgunaan dadah, pelacuran, sumbang mahram, liwat serta jenayah jijik yang lain, rasuah masih menjadi salah satu musuh utama negara.
Laporan Transparency International baru-baru ini, walaupun tidak 100% sempurna laporan tersebut, jelas menunjukan bahawa tidak ada satu pun negara dalam dunia ini yang bebas dari gejala rasuah.
Perang menentang rasuah adalah sesuatu yang berterusan dan kini usaha ini telah di-lipat gandakan menerusi pelan Transformasi Kerajaan yang diperkenalkan kerajaan pimpinan Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
Kita sedar gejala rasuah tidak dapat dihapuskan dalam sekelip mata. Negara yang mengamalkan hukuman mati untuk pesalah rasuah seperti Republik Rakyat China sekalipun masih berhadapan dengan gejala jijik ini.
Apa yang pelik dalam negara kita ialah kewujudan segelintir ahli politik pembangkang yang begitu licik mengaburi mata rakyat konon-nya mereka lah pejuang menentang rasuah.
Kita wajib menyokong mereka yang menentang rasuah, malah seluruh rakyat harus berdiri teguh dibelakang kerajaan yang tegas memerangi rasuah, tetapi yang harus kita tentang juga adalah golongan ahli politik hipokrit.
Golongan yang tidak mengenal erti malu ini ini sebenarnya cuba mengaburi mata rakyat dengan sandiwara dan tipu muslihat mereka untuk memperdayakan rakyat, terutamanya golongan muda.
Perbuatan segelintir ahli politik pembangkang ini adalah sama jika tidak lebih jijik daripada rasuah itu sendiri kerana apa yang mereka lakukan ialah cuba menutup pekung mereka dengan menuduh orang lain.
Kita akui bahawa gejala rasuah memang wujud tetapi apakah tahap rasuah kita begitu teruk sehingga segala-galanya lumpuh seperti yang sering dibayangkan oleh puak pembangkang di Malaysia ini?
Rakyat harus berfikir sejenak dan bertanya “Apakah puak pembangkang yang saban hari berteriak tentang rasuah ini benar-benar ingin menghapuskan rasuah atau mereka semata-mata ingin mencari modal politik untuk memburukkkan kerajaan?
Jika benar DAP anti-rasuah kenapa pemimpin mereka yang terlibat secara langsung/tidak langsung dalam gejala rasuah dan penyalahgunaan kuasa masih digelar pemimpin DAP?
Jika benar DAP anti-rasuah, kenapa luahan Timbalan Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang tentang kewujudan rasuah dalam DAP tidak di-siasat sehingga kini?
Jika DAP anti-rasuah, kenapa pemimpin mereka yang, secara tidak langsung, menyebabkan kematian saudara Teoh Beng Hock masih bergelar pemimpin DAP?
Ya, kita akui Teoh Beng Hock didapati membunuh diri tetapi mengapa dan kenapa Teoh Beng Hock di-siasat pihak Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia pada ketika itu?
Bukan kah beliau disiasat berhubung siasatan rasuah/salah guna kuasa pemimpin DAP Selangor?
Bila suami seorang pemimpin wanita didapati bermasalah dengan pinjaman kerajaan, pemimpin tersebut diminta meletak kan jawatan tetapi kenapa pemimpin DAP yang jelas memberi kontrak kepada syarikat isteri nya sendiri tidak didesak sedemikian rupa?
Apakah pimpinan PKR di-Selangor dan Menteri Besar yang gemar berkereta besar di negeri jajahan Pas di utara tanahair bebas rasuah?
Apa kesudahan kes kecurian pasir dan rumah urut serta pelacuran yang berleluasa di negeri Selangor?
Saya berharap seluruh rakyat Malaysia akan berdiri teguh dibelakang SPRM dan pelan transformasi kerajaan untuk menghapuskan gejala rasuah dikalangan anggota masyarakat kita.
Saya juga ingin menyeru agar ahli politik yang muflis modal politik tidak melacurkan diri dengan menonjolkan diri sebagai pejuang anti-rasuah.
Jika benar ada dikalangan ahli politik pembangkang yang benar-benar anti-rasuah, maka mereka ini harus keluar mendesak diadakan satu siasatan ke atas perlakuan rasuah serta salahguna kuasa di kalangan ahli politik pembangkang.
Jika benar ada diantara ahli politik pembangkang dalam negara ini benar-benar ikhlas, maka mereka ini harus tampil menyokong SPRM dan bukan-nya menanti ditepi untuk mempolitik-kan setiap isu, seperti anjing menanti tulang.
Saya terkilan sehingga ke hari ini kenapa tidak ada satu pun pemimpin pembangkang yang menghargai kejayaan SPRM dalam membenteras gejala rasuah.
Apakah SPRM tidak layak di-hargai apabila mereka membongkar kes-kes besar seperti sindiket di Jabatan Kastam dan baru-baru ini di Iskandar Investment Berhad di Johor?
Kejayaan – kejayaan SPRM tersebut telah menyelamatkan berbillion ringgit duit rakyat.
Rakyat harus sedar bahawa suara-suara pemimpin serta ahli politik pembangkang yang konon nya anti-rasuah adalah tidak lebih dari sandiwara politik.
Jika bukan sandiwara, masakan mereka ini dapat tidur sebantal dengan seorang bekas Menteri Kewangan yang sungguh jijik perilakunya, di dalam dan di luar kamar tidur.
Terima Kasih,
Zahrain Mohd Hashim
Ahli Parlimen Bayan Baru
Response to comments post CPI ranking by Transparency International — Pemandu
by : Malaysian Insider
December 03, 2011
DEC 3 — The GTP is Delivering!
In reference to the recent survey release by Transparency International on the Corruption Perception Index and the Corruption Barometer on 1 December and Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s recent statement.
Firstly, let’s put some factual perspective on the surveys, outline the positives and the learning gained from the surveys.
The Government Transformation Programme (GTP)
Here, we would like to perhaps be a little more reflective of the work done thus far instead of taking a myopic view that the success of the programme has derailed. The Corruption NKRA is but one of the 7 NKRAs identified by the Government.
In the course of the last 24 months since the GTP was implemented, Malaysia has recorded outcomes that has impacted the rakyat very positively across the NKRAs of reducing crime, improving urban public transport, rural basic infrastructure, improving student outcomes and rural basic infrastructure. The results of these were evidently published in the Annual Report in March this year. The Annual Report clearly detailed what was achieved, what was not and some of the challenges the Government needed to tackle moving forward.
In July this year, the Government had also announced a new NKRA to manage the cost of living, with cash aid and book vouchers as initial initiatives being made available to families with school going children.
We are under no illusion that the Corruption NKRA is a challenge but it is a challenge we are not backing down from.
We should be mindful that the CPI is only reflective of one area of corruption occurring in Malaysia, in this case Grand Corruption. It is not a measure of the entire Corruption NKRA and definitely not of the GTP on the whole.
Improvement in Corruption Barometer survey
A large focus of the media and of your publication has been on the Corruption Perception Index in which Malaysia’s score suffered a slight dip from 4.4 in 2010 to 4.3 in 2011. However, little has been said about the Corruption Barometer, a public survey that was announced on the same day by Transparency International.
The Corruption Barometer (CB) measures the perception of the public on the Government’s efforts to fight corruption. 49% percent answered that they felt that the Government’s efforts were effective. This clearly shows there has been increase from 48 per cent in the previous year when the Corruption NKRA was introduced. In that sense the momentum was not only maintained but showed that the Corruption NKRA proved effective, as the CB was only rated at 28% in 2009. This also shows that public perception towards petty corruption, efforts and initiatives implemented throughout 2010 and 2011 are being felt and acknowledged by the public.
Some of the deterrent measures such as the Name and Shame Database, the Whistleblower Protection Act and the establishment of compliance units within the 5 key enforcement agencies are building blocks that have contributed to the positive sway. These initiatives have also hit the right chord with foreign embassies expressing their desire to use the name and shame Database as a reference point when processing visa applications, making the burden on corruption offenders even heavier. As with the Whistleblower Protection Act, enforcement agencies have begun to receive reports and compliance units run integrity testing on all their officers to ensure the highest standards of ethics and integrity.
The CPI Score & Ranking
The total score of 4.3 in 2011 is accumulated from 12 surveys, which is 3 more surveys done in comparison to the 9 done in 2010. The 3 are the Political Risk Services Country Guide, the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index and Transparency International’s Bribe Payer Index (BPI).
Benchmarking against the 9 original surveys conducted in 2010, Malaysia has in 2011 increased its scores in 5 of the key surveys. Amongst which, the PERC Asian Intelligence Survey, Malaysia increased from 3.5 in 2010 to 4.5 in 2011. There was also an increase from 4.7 in 2010 to 5.7 in 2011 in the WEF Executive Opinion Survey. The Bertelsmann Transformation Index also saw an increase from 4.5 in 2010 to 4.6 in 2011.
Of the new surveys, the BPI is a survey introduced in 2011 and conducted to measure the propensity of Malaysians to paying bribe to other parties outside of Malaysia. It is also the only one conducted amongst 28 countries instead of all the countries that has been ranked in the CPI. Given that the CPI ranking is made up of an average score across all surveys conducted, the 28 countries in which had the BPI would naturally be impacted either positively or negatively.
The component that was used in the overall CPI was the perception of the businessmen surveyed of corruption in this country. Therefore, we do understand why TI has chosen the BPI and we accept their decision but we also have to examine all the other surveys individually, in order to gauge our progress further in this area.
Moving forward
Throughout 2010 and 2011, we have been able to put in place basic building blocks to effectively address the issue of petty corruption. As evidenced by the Corruption Barometer (CB) released by TI, there has seen a slight increase over last year’s rating.
We realise however a lot more focus is needed on the initiatives to combat grand corruption. If anything, the CPI has clearly shown that we need to address Grand Corruption as it impedes our overall CPI scoring.
This issue requires institutional and structural reforms. The Government recognizes this. In fact the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) is doing just that under Dato’ Sri Abu Kassim, the Chief Commissioner of the MACC. Efforts have already been initiated to combat grand corruption, with the MACC putting in place a transformation programme, which among other things aim to strengthen their forensic investigative capabilities.
We plan to also put more effort on delivering initiatives such as introducing a transparent consultation process for new laws as well as political financing.
We are studying the details of the CPI report and we will continue to work with TI, MACC and all other relevant agencies to drive towards making required improvements.
A point to note is that the TI’s Bribe Payer Index (BPI) is an interesting survey as it focuses on the giver, instead of the receiver. This clearly highlights the fact that we need to have greater focus on integrity and the Corruption NKRA will seek to drive the Corporate Integrity Pledge with greater resolve in 2012.
The scoring of the BPI is a clear indication that only when the giving stops, the taking stops. This is the systemic issue which requires all Malaysians to play a part in addressing.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.
MENGAPA CPI KITA SEMAKIN MERUDUM?
oleh :Virus
Nilai Indeks Persepsi Rasuah Malaysia yang turun dari tangga 56 ke tangga 60 dengan kekurangan skor sebanyak 0.1 mata memang sudah dijangka sejak awal-awal lagi. Ini bukan suatu perkara yang mengejutkan kerana berdasarkan prestasi dan pelaporan isu rasuah sepanjang tahun 2011 masih menunjukkan tahap kesedaran masyarakat terhadap rasuah bukan pada yang sepatutnya.
Pengaruh Politik Semasa
Tidak sukar untuk menyatakan bahawa di negara yang mana terdapatnya perubahan politik semasa, yakni sokongan kepada pembangkang semakin meningkat akan mempengaruhi penurunan CPI.
Ambil saja contoh negara jiran, Singapura, walaupun berada pada tangga kelima tahun ini dengan skor sebanyak 9.2, tetapi ia juga mengalami penurunan sebanyak 0.1 mata dan merupakan antara skor terendah negara berkenaan sepanjang tujuh tahun kebelakangan ini.
Perkara yang sama juga berlaku kepada negara jiran Thailand, dimana dengan perubahan politik sekitar awal tahun ini turut menjadikan isu rasuah sebagai salah satu isu dalam pilihanraya negara berkenaan. Skor Thailand turun daripada 3.5 kepada 3.4 tahun ini.
Peranan Ahli Politik
Melihat kepada perkara ini, tidak hairanlah bahawa ahli politik memainkan peranan penting dalam memperkatakan isu rasuah.
Ahli Politik sepatutnya bersama-sama agensi anti rasuah dalam memerangi rasuah dan penyelewengan, tetapi sebaliknya ahli politik di negara ini dilihat lebih gemar mengambil kesempatan dalam menggunakan isu rasuah untuk menjatuhkan pihak lawan.
Tanpa disedari, mereka juga sebenarnya telah turut mempengaruhi persepsi masyarakat terhadap isu rasuah di negara ini.
Ironinya memang sukar untuk mencari ahli politik yang benar-benar komited memperkatakan isu rasuah di negara ini bukan?, selain menunding jari kepada lawan, dan membuat tohmahan, mereka juga sering dilihat mengambil kesempatan memperbesarkan isu berkaitan agensi anti rasuah tempatan.
Ambil contoh isu Teoh Beng Hock yang ditemui mati ketika membantu siasatan Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM), lihat berapa ramai ahli politik pembangkang yang tampil memohon simpati masyarakat dengan tujuan memeperlihatkan kegagalan parti pemerintah?
Isu berkenaan diperbesarkan dan ditokok tambah, sedangkan ketika Suruhanjaya Siasatan Diraja (RCI) berlangsung awal tahun ini, tidak kelihatan pula kelibat keluarga TBH mahupun ahli politik yang memperjuangkan kematiannya.
Soal penyelewengan yang disyakki mungkin terdapat dalam pemberian tender oleh kerajaan pembangkang bagi projek-projek kecil kerajaan negeri dan sistem amalan ’ali baba’ yang dikeluarkan dalam perbicaraan Suruhanjata Siasatan Diraja tersebut tidak pula dijadikan isu dan salah satu faktor yang patut diambil kira. Tidakkah ganjil disitu?
Akibat terlalu banyak menggunakan isu rasuah dalam urusan politik, maka masyarakat yang dilihat hari ini adalah masyrakat yang mempunyai persepsi pelbagai terhadap isu rasuah, mengikut fahaman politik yang dipegang mereka.
SPRM pula dijadikan tempat pembuangan tohmahan setiap kesalahan yang cuba diperlihatkan oleh parti-parti politik ini, sedangkan agensi ini juga terikat dengan peruntukan undang-undang dibawah bidang kuasa tertentu sahaja.
Kegagalan Kerajaan Mendidik Masyarakat
Tidak dinafikan, telah banyak usaha yang di buat oleh kerajaan sekarang dalam usaha mengurangkan kadar rasuah dinegara ini. Tetapi sejauh mana ia berkesan, sekiranya semua pihak hanya mengambil kesempatan dan tidak membantu menyokong inisiatif tersebut.
Penubuhan NKRA Rasuah dan SPRM dilihat sebagai satu usaha yang patut diangkat oleh semua pihak dalam usaha membenteras rasuah. Namun ia dilihat tidak kemana kerana usaha ini tidak dapat dirasai dan dilihat oleh masyarakat.
Beban memberi pendidikan pencegahan rasuah dan menguatkuasakan undang-undang berkaitan rasuah seolah-olah hanya perlu ditanggung oleh dua entiti ini sahaja.
Sebagai contoh, dalam sistem perolehan kerajaan, telah banyak inisiatif dan cadangan yang dikemukakan dua entiti ini bagi menjamin ketelusan dan pengurangan ruang penyelewengan. Tetapi adakah ianya diikuti oleh semua agensi kerajaan? Atau hanya mendengar dan mengangguk semata?
Memang usaha menandatangani ikrar integriti untuk meningkatkan ketelusan dan sistem dan prosedur giat dilakukan, malah, seperti paparan semasa, badan-badan korporat, kelompok perniagaan dan agensi penguatkuasaan juga dilihat mahu bekerjasama dalam perkara ini. Tetapi sejauh manakan tahap keseriusan mereka?, sekadar tandatangan sahaja dengan tiada insiatif susulan atau berharap tindakan susulan daripada pihak SPRM sahaja?
Masyarakat sendiri tidak dapat melihat dan merasai usaha-usaha yang dilakukan oleh kerajaan ini, kerana mereka lebih mengutamakan diri dan kepentingan sendiri. Dalam erti kata lain masyarakat kita gagal dididik membenci rasuah.
Buktinya setelah lebih setahun Kempen Perangi Pemberi Rasuah (satu inisiatif SPRM) dilaksanakan, masih terdapat sejumlah 316 aduan (sehingga 15 November tahun ini) yang diberikan berkaitan pemberian rasuah.
Kebolehterimaan CPI
CPI dikeluarkan sejak tahun 1995 oleh Transparency International (TI), sebuah badan bukan Kerajaan (NGO) yang berpangkalan di Berlin, Jerman. Indeks ini hanya mengkhususkan kepada isu persepsi tahap rasuah sesebuah negara di mana kedudukan sesebuah negara akan disenaraikan mengikut skor yang diperoleh dan bukannya berdasarkan realiti sebenar tahap rasuah di negara terbabit. CPI dikeluarkan berdasarkan pengumpulan kajian-kajian oleh pelbagai pihak, terutamanya berdasarkan soal selidik yang dijalankan ke atas ahli-ahli perniagaan luar negara dengan penekanan diberi kepada elemen rasuah.
Seperti tahun ini, CPI Malaysia dikira berdasarkan 12 kajian antarabangsa yang telah dijalankan oleh NGO lain. Oleh itu, CPI Malaysia hanya dikira berdasarkan 12 kajian ini sahaja, bukan kajian yang dibuat sendiri oleh TI. Jadi ianya boleh dikatakan mengambil kira pandangan orang luar terhadap situasi semasa dan isu rasuah di dalam negara ini.
Sumber-sumber kajian tersebut juga tidak dinyatakan secara terperinci, sampel yang digunakan mahupun metadologi kajian, tidak pernah dinyatakan. Jadi adakah ini benar-benar persepsi rasuah di negara ini atau hanya pendapat asing?
Malaysia negara yang korup?
Penurunan CPI setiap tahun sejak tahun 2009 menunjukkan Malaysia seolah negara dimana tahap rasuahnya semakin parah. Sedangkan realitinya tidak sebegitu.
Mungkin kerana, isu ’ikan jerung, ikan bilis’ yang sering diperkatakan menyebabkan masyarakat antarabangsa melihat negara ini kurang komited memerangi jenayah rasuah berskala besar kerana tiada tangkapan melibatkan kes-kes berprofil tinggi.
Walaupun banyak usaha yang telah dilakukan oleh SPRM sejak berdiri sebagai sebuah Suruhanjaya pada 2009, tetapi ia dilihat seolah tidak terkesan dihati masyarakat. Berbuih-buih juga mantan Ketua Pesuruhjaya SPRM yang dahulu dan yang sekarang menyeru masyarakat memerangi rasuah. Tetapi nampaknya suara mereka tenggelam dek kerana suara ahli politik yang lebih kebal.
Untung juga SPRM dapat membawa beberapa kes berprofil tinggi seperti kes bekas Menteri Besar Selangor , Khir Toyo, Alcaltel dan beberapa kes lain ke mahkamah. Tetapi berapakah peratus kemungkinan untuk mereka ini disabitkan bersalah, jika bukti dan saksi sendiri kurang bekerjasama?.
Selebihnya, SPRM terpaksa membuat inisiatif sendiri dengan melancarkan beberapa operasi-operasi berskala besar seperti Ops Pasir, Ops Balak, Ops 3B dan kes membabitkan pendatang tanpa izin di Pulau Ketam. Tetapi bila operasi ini hanya menangkap mereka yang berada di peringkat bawah sahaja, SPRM dikatakan hanya menangkap ikan bilis sahaja. Sedangkan masyarakat sendiri sedia maklum, rasuah itu seharusnya diperangi dari peringkat akar umbi.
Sebenarnya CPI bukanlah kayu pengukur tahap rasuah di negara ini. Dimana jika dilihat paparan kes-kes rasuah yang dipertuduh dan jumlah sabitan yang dijatuhkan mahkamah keatas pesalah rasuah, tahap rasuah di Malaysia sebenarnya telah berkurang. Cuma tiada kajian dari pihak dalaman sendiri untuk mengukur tahap persepsi masyarakat dan hanya bergantung kepada laporan antarabangsa semata.
Kewujudan Mahkamah Sesyen Khas Rasuah juga adalah bukti bahawa usaha pembenterasan rasuah di negara ini semakin baik tetapi sokongan itu yang masih kurang.
HABIS.
nukilan : virus
Rasuah Menghalang Kemajuan Negara
| ihsan : mindasuper.com |  |
 |
 |
|
Rasuah yang berleluasa merupakan cerminan terhadap mutu pentadbiran negara. Kebanyakan kajian tentang kesan rasuah menunjukkan bahawa ia boleh menyebabkan kadar pertumbuhan ekonomi yang rendah. Ini kerana unsur rasuah menghalang penyertaan pelaburan tempatan dan menyekat kemasukan pelaburan asing ke sesebuah negara. Selain daripada itu, banyak bukti menunjukkan bahawa negara yang dibebani masalah rasuah mempunyai pasaran saham yang tidak menentu, pengawasan sistem perbankan yang tidak cekap dan pasaran modal yang kecil. Dengan kata lain negara yang mengamalkan rasuah membayar pada harga yang mahal untuk program pembangunannya terutamanya dalam pembangunan ekonomi. Justeru itu tidak hairanlah mengapa agenda pembasmian rasuah menjadi salah satu daripada beberapa agenda penting yang diberi perhatian utama oleh kepimpinan Dato’ Seri Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi. Bukti kesungguhan beliau untuk memerangi masalah ini dapat dilihat melalui penubuhan Institut Integriti Malaysia (IIM) dan pelancaran Pelan Integriti Nasional (PIN) pada April 2004 iaitu selepas hanya beberapa bulan dilantik memegang jawatan Perdana Menteri. Seterusnya agenda ini terus dinyatakan secara berterusan di dalam kebanyakan ucapan-ucapan rasmi beliau. Bagaimanapun Laporan Indeks Persepsi Rasuah (CPI) 2006 yang dikeluarkan oleh Transparency International (TI) baru-baru ini telah menimbulkan sedikit tanda tanya di kalangan masyarakat terhadap keberkesanan usaha-usaha yang dijalankan oleh kerajaan Malaysia untuk memerangi gejala tersebut. Secara kasarnya, kajian yang melibatkan tanggapan masyarakat peniaga dan penganalisis negara terhadap suasana rasuah di Malaysia telah menunjukkan bahawa berlaku sedikit kemerosotan berbanding keputusan laporan tahun 2005 dan 2004 mahupun 2003. Berdasarkan kepada CPI 2006, Malaysia menduduki tangga ke-44 dunia berbanding tangga ke 39 untuk tahun 2005 dan 2004; serta tangga ke 37 untuk 2003. Begitu juga Persoalannya di sini ialah mengapa masyarakat peniaga dan para penganalisis menganggap suasana rasuah semakin meningkat di Malaysia? Adakah mereka menganggap tadbir urus di sektor awam dan swasta tidak berada pada tahap yang sewajarnya? Apakah tahap integriti sektor perniagaan dan pentadbiran negara tidak begitu bagus sehingga mereka menganggap rasuah yang juga ada kaitan dengan masalah tadbir urus ini begitu meruncing di negara kita? Lebih menarik lagi jika kita dapat kaitkan laporan TI ini dengan satu laporan kajian persepsi yang dibuat oleh The Business Ethics Of Malaysia (BEIM) dengan kerjasama University of Nottingham Malaysia dan Kolej Universiti Binary terhadap kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap mereka yang terlibat dalam 15 bidang kerjaya yang terpilih. Antara kerjaya yang dikaji ialah doktor, guru, profesor, menteri, pemimpin perniagaan dan ahli politik. Keputusannya, tahap kepercayaan responden terhadap ahli politik, pemimpin perniagaan dan menteri adalah rendah sekali. Masing-masing meraih 11%, 16% dan 20% kepercayaan responden dan berada di senarai tiga terbawah berbanding doktor (72%); guru (67%) dan profesor (58%) yang berada pada senarai tiga teratas. Kaitan antara kedua-duanya ialah tentang wujudnya persamaan tentang perkara utama yang diukur iaitu tentang soal integriti terutamanya yang melibatkan soal kepimpinan dan tadbir urus di dalam negara. Dalam CPI, masyarakat peniaga dan penganalisis merasakan rasuah di Malaysia meningkat. Peningkatan ini tentu saja berdasarkan pemerhatian mereka kepada dunia politik dan dunia perniagaan Malaysia. Pada masa yang sama juga responden soal selidik BEIM merasakan mereka tidak boleh mempercayai ahli politik dan tokoh korporat. Secara tidak langsung kita boleh katakan di sini, permasalahan utama yang membawa kepada isu integriti sebenarnya lebih tertumpu kepada soal kepimpinan dan tadbir urus di dalam sektor awam mahu pun swasta. Dengan kata lain, jika ahli politik dan tokoh korporat mengamalkan nilai-nilai mulia dalam amalan harian mereka, sudah tentu CPI Malaysia adalah setaraf dengan beberapa negara Scandinavia yang sering mencatat 9.6 – 9.7 peratusan mata untuk beberapa tahun kebelakangan ini. Setidak-tidaknya pun kita dapat menyaingi Singapura yang berjaya mengekalkan kedudukannya di tangga ke-5 senarai negara yang paling baik keputusan persepsi rasuah dengan purata 9.4 peratusan mata untuk tempoh 2002-2006. Walaupun CPI dan kajian BEIM ini merupakan kajian berbentuk tanggapan, ia sebenarnya boleh dijadikan sebagai petunjuk atau panduan untuk menilai tahap rasuah di Malaysia. Kita tidak seharusnya melihat hasil kajian ini dari sudut yang negatif kerana kita boleh katakan bahawa peningkatan persepsi rasuah yang ditunjukkan oleh CPI tadi terutamanya menunjukkan tahap kesedaran masyarakat tentang bahayanya rasuah dan kepentingan unsur integriti juga meningkat seiring dengan iltizam kerajaan untuk memerangi masalah ini. Bagaimanapun, untuk mencapai kejayaan dalam usaha pembasmian rasuah, usaha perlu dilakukan secara berterusan dan menyeluruh. Walaupun ada kalanya kejayaan tidak dapat dicapai sebagaimana yang diinginkan, ia sekurang-kurangnya dapat mengurangkan kesan kepada masalah yang dihadapi. Sehubungan dengan itu usaha-usaha untuk meningkatkan tahap integriti dan memperkukuhkan sistem tadbir urus mesti dipergiatkan. Begitu juga usaha-usaha memupuk nilai-nilai murni di kalangan anggota masyarakat, baik yang muda mahupun yang tua. Usaha-usaha sebegini sememangnya memakan masa. Akan tetapi, ia perlu dimulakan dari sekarang jika kita mahu melihat Malaysia menjadi negara maju menjelang 2020 nanti. Dimuat dalam http://www.ikim.gov.my/ Diedit untuk mindasuper.com oleh Dr Danial ZA |
Rasuah membawa kesengsaraan
ihsan : http://news.faisunan.com/search/jejak-rasuah/
RASUAH membawa kesengsaraan. Kesengsaraan pula datangnya bermacam-macam bentuk. Ditimpa musibah seperti kemalangan atau bencana alam, perceraian, kehinaan, kehilangan keluarga dan rakan-rakan, muflis, sakit dan sebagainya.
Seseorang yang memilih terlibat dalam rasuah sama ada sedar atau tidak, mereka mungkin ditimpa kesengsaraan sebagai pengajaran yang mana tempoh dan bentuknya hanya Tuhan menentukannya.
Malangnya, bagi mereka yang mengamalkan rasuah sebagai cara hidup dan mahu cepat senang tidak sedar kesan perbuatannya terhadap keluarga, masyarakat dan negara.
Tidak hairanlah, bagi sesetengah negara yang ‘menghalalkan’ perbuatan rasuah bermaharajalela sering ditimpa bencana alam seperti gempa bumi dan tsunami. Kata orang, walaupun terlepas hukuman dunia belum tentu lepas hukuman akhirat.
Satu kisah benar membuka siri Jejak Rasuah minggu ini, boleh dijadikan teladan dan sempadan bagaimana rasuah itu boleh membawa kesengsaraan, bukan sahaja pada diri sendiri, malah memberi kesan kepada orang yang paling rapat seperti anak.
Kegiatan rasuah seorang bapa terbongkar ketika anaknya, Sari (bukan nama sebenar) ditangkap khalwat bersama kekasih di sebuah kondominium di ibu negara.
Maklumat yang diberi oleh orang awam yang tidak tahan melihat perlakuan sepasang kekasih berlagak suami isteri itu telah membawa kepada risikan pihak Jabatan Agama Islam sehingga tangkapan berjaya dibuat kira-kira pukul 2 pagi hari kejadian.
Pihak penguat kuasa terpaksa merempuh pintu kondo itu setelah hampir 20 minit menunggu untuk dibuka.
Ketika tangkapan, pasangan kekasih itu menunjukkan ‘sijil nikah’ kepada penguat kuasa, bagaimanapun penipuan mereka berjaya dikesan selepas salah seorang penguat kuasa mendapati sijil nikah itu palsu.
Sari menangis dan merayu agar dilepaskan dengan alasan dirinya berbadan dua. Bukan sahaja dosanya berzina dan cuba menipu, malah dia juga mengandung anak luar nikah.
Sijil nikah palsu yang dirampas telah membawa kepada tangkapan seorang pemilik Pusat Kursus Perkahwinan, Ahmad (bukan nama sebenar) yang bersubahat dengan seorang penguat kuasa sambilan di Jabatan Agama Islam, Amir (bukan nama sebenar).
Risikan dan tangkapan dilakukan oleh SPRM hasil maklumat dan kerjasama pihak Jabatan Agama Islam.
Hasil siasatan mendapati Ahmad dan Amir meminta rasuah RM3,000 daripada pasangan kekasih yang mahu sijil nikah palsu serta sijil kursus perkahwinan palsu.
Apa yang mengejutkan, Amir merupakan bapa kandung kepada Sari bagaimanapun tanpa pengetahuan kedua-dua pihak, kekasih Sari telah mendapat sijil nikah palsu itu daripada Ahmad.
Amir terkejut dan sedih setelah dimaklumkan keterlanjuran yang dilakukan anak sulungnya itu tetapi bak kata pepatah, nasi sudah menjadi bubur.
