Existence of 5 Independent Panels, MACC Shows Its Independence


TODAY’s Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) is monitored by five independent oversight committees, comprising more than 40 members, representing all levels of society. The members include Members of Parliament from both the ruling party and the opposition. This is a clear indication that the anti-corruption agency is more transparent compared to its predecessor, the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA).

special report series

special report series

Since its establishment in 2009, the MACC has been steadily discharging its duties and responsibilities as the primary agency tasked with weeding out corruption in Malaysia. In order to ensure MACC’s independence, transparency and professionalism, five separate and independent oversight bodies were formed to monitor the functions of the MACC an act as a check-and-balance. Members of these panels represent the general public and include senior former government officials, politicians (both from the government and the opposition), professionals, academicians, lawyers and individuals of high standing in society.

The existence of these independent oversight committees is a strong reflection of the MACC’s impartiality and independence, compared with the ACA. In 2009, the then-ACA forwarded a proposed new legislation to transform it into an independent anti-graft agency known as the MACC. The new entity took the bold move of having five independent oversight bodies to monitor, peruse and advise on the different functions of the organisation and to provide a check-and-balance mechanism in helping the MACC perform its function and role.

The legislation not only gave more power to MACC in its fight against corruption but the structural change also ensured that it was an independent anti-graft entity. Three independent oversight bodies were formed by virtue of provisions in the Act, while the other two were formed administratively. The five oversight

Five independent oversight bodies prove that MACC is truly an independent anti-graft entitybodies are the Parliamentary Special Committee on Corruption, the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board, the Complaints Committee, the Operations Review Panel and the Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel.

The MACC presents its annual report to the Special Committee on Corruption, which comprises of members from both the government and the opposition. The Special Committee on Corruption peruses, scrutinises and gets the MACC to explain at length, every investigation that had been carried out in the previous year.

Apart from the approaches and strategies adopted by the MACC management itself, the setting up of these oversight committees contribute directly to the increase in public confidence in the MACC. The roles of these five independent oversight bodies have, to a certain extent, helped generate public awareness on the importance of fighting corruption as a collective. The MACC, to date, has benefitted from the advice and input given by these five external oversight bodies.

“A new chapter in the fight against corruption began when the MACC Act, 2009 came into force on the 1st of January 2009 and the MACC was established as a successor to the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA). The new anti-corruption agency is more transparent, more independent and has added powers of prevention. In addition, five external oversight bodies were formed, making the MACC one of the most scrutinised anti-corruption institutions in the world,” said the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board in its first report – 2009 Annual Review.

The current structure of the MACC, according to the Chairman of the Parliamentary Special Committee on Corruption, Senator Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang, was aimed at making the Commission truly independent, neutral, open, and transparent in investigating corruption. Abu Zahar, who is Dewan Negara Speaker, also stressed that, “We have representatives from the opposition and the government. They are all appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. We are above politics, meaning our main mission is to carry out our duties as stated in the MACC Act.”

“The MACC is also the only anti-corruption commission in the world which is monitored by five different independent panels,” he said.

Among the suggestions were for the formation of an Anti-Corruption Service Commission, matters relating to the appointment of the MACC chief commissioner under the Federal Constitution, changes to strengthen Section 23 and 36 of the MACC Act, provisions for corporate liability and public officer misconduct and political funding. He added that they wanted to see the changes made to ensure that the commission was able to function in freely and unhindered.

The Anti-Corruption Advisory Board, which meets every month, has played an equally important role in advising the MACC. Some of the new approaches adopted by the MACC in its efforts to combat corruption were conveyed during its sitting. For example, in its 2013 annual report, the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board urged the MACC to initiate investigations on large projects with potential improprieties, as tabled in the Auditor General’s Report.

Another important body is the Operations Review Panel. It functions as a check-and-balance for the operational activities carried out by the MACC. Acting as a public watchdog, the panel plays an important role in ensuring that the MACC takes into account the views and opinions of the public when it carries out its duties and responsibilities in enforcing the law when it comes to corruption. The Operations Review Panel ensures that allegations against the MACC or the Deputy Public Prosecutor of closing an investigation without supervision or a directive from an independent mechanism do not arise.

The independence of the supervisory mechanism is provided under the terms of reference of the Operations Review Panel where the MACC management is required to present to the Operations Review Panel all cases under investigation. In turn, the panel has the right to request for an explanation and a review of the cases referred to it. Since 2009, the Operations Review Panel had recommended that 60 cases, initially considered by the Public Prosecutor to have no merit for prosecution, be reviewed. Eight of these were eventually brought to court. This development is concrete proof that the MACC Act, 2009 has enhanced the effectiveness of the Commission.

The establishment of the Operations Review Panel has also been recognised by international bodies such as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

“The establishment of an independent Operations Review Panel that does not influence the independence and discretion of the public prosecution, but which has the possibility to scrutinise the measures taken and to make recommendations, is a noteworthy support mechanism,” the UNODC report said.

“The recognition of this particular panel by the UNODC is a significant achievement,” said Tan Sri Abu Zahar.

The fifth body, the 14-member Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel, has been instrumental in advising the MACC on the implementation of community education programmes and corruption awareness campaigns, as well as building public support towards a corruption-free society. In carrying out its functions, the Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel holds monthly meetings to come up with proposals and recommendations for the MACC.

“I greatly appreciate the work, dedication and commitment of the Special Committee on Corruption, Anti-Corruption Advisory Board, Complaints Committee, the Operations Review Panel and the Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel in continuously providing sound advice to the MACC management in fulfilling its functions effectively. MACC’s top management are always in receipt of constructive and insightful views from all the 460 members of the five independent bodies,” said MACC Chief Commissioner, Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed.



Special Committee on Corruption:

The Special Committee on Corruption was set up by the provision of law under Section 14 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Act, 2009. The members of the SCC are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and are drawn from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and none of whom are members of the administration.

Anti-Corruption Advisory Board:

The Anti-Corruption Advisory Board is set up by the provision of law under Section 13 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2009. The members of ACAB are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong from among individuals who have rendered distinguished public service or have achieved distinction in their professions.

Complaints Committee:

The Complaints Committee was formed by the provision of law under Section 15 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2009 with the members duly appointed by the Minister.

Operations Review Panel:

The Operations Review Panel is appointed by the Prime Minister from among experts in the relevant professions and who embody the integrity and independence of the Commission. The Panel acts as a check-and-balance for ongoing cases handled by the MACC. The ORP may also present its views to the MACC on cases, should clarification be required.

Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel:

The Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel is appointed by the Prime Minister from among individuals who represent various organisations, including academicians, businessmen, religious figures, media experts and social activists who can help the MACC achieve its objective of nurturing a society that does not tolerate corruption.

For more details, please visit www.sprm.gov.my/lembaga-penasihat-panel.html

PDF    Send article as PDF   

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Sempadan Kuasa Dan Realiti Dalam Kes Rasuah

Oleh : Mohamad Tarmize Abdul Manaf

Persoalan yang seringkali dibangkitkan berkaitan dengan tanggapan kuasa pendakwaan di pihak Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM). Masyarakat sering kali tersalah anggap yang SPRM boleh mendakwa mana-mana individu yang terlibat dalam jenayah rasuah.

separation of power 3Hakikatnya, tidak begitu. Seperti kebanyakan negara lain, Malaysia mengamalkan prinsip pengasingan kuasa.

Perlembagaan Persekutuan sendiri menetapkan pembahagian kuasa antara eksekutif, perundangan dan kehakiman. Peranan SPRM adalah menjalankan siasatan manakala keputusan untuk menuduh atau tidak dibuat peguam negara yang turut memainkan peranan sebagai pendakwa raya. Keputusan sama ada tertuduh bersalah atau tidak akan ditentukan mahkamah.

Prinsip Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak membenarkan pihak yang menjalankan siasatan membuat keputusan sendiri untuk menuduh seseorang suspek di mahkamah. Dalam kes SPRM, setelah siasatan selesai, kertas siasatan akan dikemukakan kepada Bahagian Perundangan dan Pendakwaan SPRM dan seterusnya pendakwa raya untuk keputusan.
Kuasa pendakwaan terletak pada peguam negara selaras dengan Perkara 145(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, yang menyebut, “peguam negara hendaklah mempunyai kuasa yang b dijalankan menurut budi bicaranya, untuk memulakan menjalankan atau memberhentikan apa-apa prosiding bagi sesuatu kesalahan, selain prosiding di hadapan Mahkamah Syariah, Mahkamah Anak Negeri atau Mahkamah Tentera.”

Bahagian Perundangan dan Pendakwaan SPRM sentiasa memastikan kualiti kes yang didakwa di mahkamah. Harus diingat yang bukan semua kes yang disiasat akan berakhir dengan pendakwaan di mahkamah.separation of power 2

Sesuatu maklumat akan dibuka kertas siasatan apabila ada asas mengenai sesuatu pelakuan rasuah itu berlaku. Kes yang selesai disiasat, suspek sama ada akan:

a. didakwa di mahkamah;

b. dikemukakan Laporan SPRM kepada jabatan (untuk tindakan tatatertib jabatan); atau

c. tiada tindakan ke atas suspek kerana tiada keterangan/bukti.

Seseorang suspek akan didakwa di mahkamah setelah wujud segala keterangan dan bukti yang mencukupi hasil daripada siasatan yang dijalankan. Pendakwaan tidak akan dibuat akibat tekanan mana-mana pihak atau atas dasar “dendam peribadi” terhadap suspek.

Antara ada kes dan ada keteragan

“Mengapa si polan tidak dituduh di mahkamah? Ada kes tu.” Itu antara kenyataan yang sering kedengaran apabila seseorang yang disiasat SPRM tidak didakwa di mahkamah.

Sebenarnya, terdapat perbezaan yang besar di antara “ada kes” dan “ada keterangan”. Tidak semestinya kes yang kita anggap “ada kes”, individu terbabit mesti dihadapkan ke mahkamah. Tetapi, kes yang mempunyai keterangan yang cukup, sudah pasti akan dituduh dan dibicarakan. Dengan kata lain, pendakwaan terhadap pelaku rasuah hanya akan dibuat apabila “ada keterangan” yang kukuh mengenai jenayah yang dilakukan.

Contohnya, seorang pemandu lori yang memberi rasuah sebanyak RM100 kepada anggota agensi penguat kuasa bagi mengelak disaman, melaporkan perbuatan itu kepada SPRM. Dalam konteks ini, memang jelas “ada kes” rasuah berlaku.

Namun persoalannya, adakah dengan hanya bergantung kepada keterangan pemandu lori itu sudah mencukupi untuk mendakwa anggota terbabit di mahkamah?

Untuk membuat pertuduhan, SPRM memerlukan keterangan dan bukti yang mencukupi.

Keterangan dan bukti yang baik dalam kes rasuah adalah seperti saksi yang melihat transaksi rasuah, rakaman audio video, penemuan wang rasuah pada tertuduh, dokumen berkaitan transaksi rasuah dan sebagainya.

Jika ini semua tiada, sekuat mana pun kita menganggap “ada kes”, amat sukar untuk pertuduhan dibuat, apatah lagi untuk menyabitkan tertuduh.

Keberkesanan kes pendakwaan dapat dilihat menerusi sabitan kes rasuah di mahkamah.

Selepas tahun 2009, kadar sabitan kes rasuah di mahkamah bicara meningkat dan berada pada tahap yang membanggakan. Kadar sabitan bagi tahun 2009 adalah 54% dan pada tahun 2014 78.3%.

Mengambil kira kompleksiti dan kesukaran dalam pendakwaan kes rasuah, kadar sabitan melebihi 75% boleh dianggap amat baik.

Punca kekalahan kes rasuah

Sebagai agensi pencegahan rasuah, SPRM menyasarkan kemenangan memihak kepada SPRM dalam setiap kes yang dicaj. Pun begitu, SPRM tidak boleh memberi jaminan sabitan 100% bagi setiap kes yang dituduh.

Kekalahan kes di mahkamah adalah sesuatu yang tidak dapat dielakkan. Beberapa punca kekalahan dikenal pasti, antaranya:

a. Faktor kes rasuah itu sendiri – saksi kes rasuah berbeza dengan saksi bagi kes jenayah yang lain seperti bunuh, rogol, rompak dan sebagainya. Dalam kes bunuh atau rogol, saksi terdiri daripada mangsa atau keluarga mangsa yang benar-benar marah kepada pesalah. Sebab itu, saksi berkenaan akan memberikan keterangannya yang paling baik di mahkamah bagi memastikan pesalah mendapat hukuman setimpal atas perbuatannya.

Namun bagi kes rasuah, “tiada mangsa” yang benar-benar menjadi mangsa kepada pesalah rasuah. Jenayah rasuah melibatkan 2 pihak yang saling mendapat keuntungan daripada pelakuan rasuah tersebut. Dalam kes permintaan atau penerimaan rasuah, kebanyakan pengadu adalah individu yang mula-mula melakukan perkara yang salah (jenayah) di sisi undang-undang dan seterusnya diminta wang rasuah penjawat awam agensi penguatkuasaan terbabit.

b. Keterangan saksi tidak konsisten – kerana saksi kes rasuah ini berbeza berbanding saksi bagi jenayah yang lain, maka keinginan saksi untuk menghukum penjenayah rasuah juga dilihat tidak begitu bersungguh-sungguh. Faktor ini seterusnya menjejaskan komitmen saksi berkenaan dalam memberikan keterangan semasa perbicaraan. Akibatnya, mereka cenderung memberi keterangan yang tidak konsisten dan seringkali berubah-ubah.

Keadaan yang sama berlaku apabila sesuatu kes mengambil masa yang lama untuk dibicarakan. Sehingga pada 1 peringkat, saksi sudah hilang minat terhadap kes tersebut. Saksi juga boleh jadi tidak dapat mengingati dengan baik insiden yang berlaku berkaitan transaksi rasuah dan sebagainya.

Ada juga saksi yang berasa bersalah dan bersimpati kepada orang yang dituduh (tertuduh). Secara sedar atau tidak sedar, mereka membantu tertuduh semasa memberi keterangan di mahkamah.

c. Saksi berpaling tadah – saksi dianggap “berpaling tadah” apabila keterangan yang diberikan semasa di mahkamah adalah bercanggah dengan keterangan awal yang dibuat kepada pegawai SPRM semasa peringkat siasatan.

Selain saksi memberi keterangan yang bercangggah, saksi berpaling tadah atau sering disebut sebagai hostile witness juga bermaksud saksi enggan bekerjasama semasa perbicaraan kes. Contohnya, saksi tidak hadir ke mahkamah, menghilangkan diri apabila dikehendaki memberi keterangan, enggan memberi keterangan dan sebagainya.

Kebanyakan saksi utama dalam kes rasuah adalah individu yang diminta untuk bekerjasama memberikan keterangan dan bukannya tampil secara sukarela. Mereka juga boleh dikategorikan sebagai “rakan sejenayah”.

Ada juga pengadu yang membuat aduan rasuah kerana berasa marah terhadap tertuduh. Contohnya, apabila tertuduh meminta wang rasuah lebih banyak daripada sepatutnya. Ataupun, setelah tertuduh menerima wang rasuah, balasan yang diharapkan tidak diperoleh. Maka aduan dibuat terhadap tindakan tertuduh.

Namun, lama-kelamaan perasaan marah itu semakin pudar dan diganti dengan perasaan kasihan terhadap tertuduh. Tambahan pula, apabila saksi dipujuk rayu keluarga dan rakan tertuduh. Faktor kemanusiaan menyebabkan saksi enggan memberi kerjasama dalam perbicaraan.

Saksi kes rasuah juga kebanyakannya terdiri daripada ahli keluarga dan rakan-rakan yang mempunyai hubungan yang rapat dengan tertuduh. Saksi menjadi pihak yang amat berkepentingan dengan tertuduh. Saksi sebegini mempunyai potensi untuk berpaling tadah atau enggan bekerjasama yang amat tinggi dalam perbicaraan.

Kadang-kadang saksi juga adalah rakan sekerja, pegawai bawahan atau rakan perniagaan kepada tertuduh. Saksi mungkin berasa takut kerana keterangannya boleh mendatangkan implikasi negatif terhadap diri dan mata pencariannya. Ada juga kes saksi memberi keterangan tidak benar di mahkamah akibat dipengaruhi atau diajar penguam bela tertuduh sendiri.

Saksi hilang – terdapat banyak saksi kes rasuah adalah pendatang asing sama ada pendatang dengan izin ataupun PATI. Contohnya, seorang PATI atau pihak ke-3 (mungkin kawannya yang terdiri daripada pendatang yang sah) membuat aduan kepada SPRM mendakwa diminta bayar duit sogokan.

Kes sebegini banyak berlaku di bandar-bandar yang mempunyai ramai pendatang asing yang bekerja di restoran, sektor pembinaan, perladangan atau perkilangan.

Bagi pendatang asing, sudah semestinya mereka akan pulang ke negara masing-masing.

Sekiranya masih menetap di negara ini, selalunya mereka tidak mempunyai penempatan yang tetap di sesuatu tempat.

Ada juga kes di mana saksi warganegara Malaysia sendiri yang menghilangkan diri untuk mengelakkan daripada hadir ke Mahkamah. Contohnya, mereka keluar negara sama ada secara sah atau tidak sah.

Masyarakat memainkan peranan penting dalam memastikan mereka yang melakukan rasuah dihukum. Peranan masyarakat bermula dengan membuat laporan berhubung sesuatu pelakuan rasuah.

Seterusnya membantu dalam siasatan dan semasa kes dibicarakan di mahkamah. Masyarakat juga tidak perlu gentar kerana SPRM akan sedaya upaya melindungi saksi dan pemberi maklumat.

Perlindungan ini adalah seperti diperuntukan dalam Akta Perlindungan Pemberi Maklumat 2010 dan Akta Perlindungan Saksi 2009.

Paling penting, pemberi maklumat dan saksi memaklumkan sebarang ancaman yang mereka terima kepada SPRM.

Anda boleh lakukan perubahan, perangi rasuah! – 29 Disember, 2015.

PDF Creator    Send article as PDF   

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Lidah bekas majistret kelu baca al-Quran kerana rasuah

oleh : Malaysiagazette

Tuhan punya kuasa, Mohd. Firdaus Ramlan, 34, ditahan penguat kuasa Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) pada 11 Oktober 2009 di kediamannya dan ketika itu beliau adalah seorang magistret.

(Gambar) Firdaus Ramlan

(Gambar) Firdaus Ramlan

Pada 3 Oktober 2010, Mahkamah Sesyen Kota Bharu menjatuhkan hukuman penjara tiga tahun dan denda RM15,000 bagi pertuduhan pertama serta penjara tiga tahun dan denda RM25,000 bagi tuduhan kedua dan dia membuat rayuan.

Pada tahun 2012, Mohd. Firdaus kekal menjalani hukuman penjara tiga tahun dan denda berjumlah RM40,000 atas dua kesalahan rasuah selepas rayuannya ditolak oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di Putrajaya. Demikian keputusan sebulat suara panel tiga hakim diketuai oleh Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, Datuk Jeffrey Tan Kok Wha yang bersidang bersama Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail dan Mah Weng Kwai.

“Saya ditahan atas dua kesalahan meminta dan menerima rasuah. Kedua-duannya melibatkan RM5,000 dan RM3,000..nilainya kecil tetapi bahananya besar,” ujarnya. Sebelum ditahan, katanya, Allah sudah memberi peringatan namun dia alpa.

“Tuhan hendak zahirkan ketika itu, keempat-empat tayar kereta yang dibeli dengan duit panadol (terminologinya bagi rasuah dan kononnya untuk menghalalkan cara) dan telefon bimbit hilang. Hubungan suami isteri selalu bergaduh, kita sendiri cari masalah hendak bergaduh,” ujarnya. Semasa ditahan, keadaannya semakin teruk kerana merasakan dirinya terlalu hina menyebabkan kaum keluarganya trauma.

“Kalau buka hijab mata manusia tengok kahak atas kepala ini.. kahak hijau, kuning pekat dan cair semua ada..orang hina kita,” katanya bagi menggambarkan betapa jijiknya pandangan masyarakat kepadanya. Malah kes itu menyebabkan bukan sahaja dirinya dan keluarga terpalit sama namun tempatnya bekerja dan universitinya belajar juga dikutuk orang kerana mendakwa ia juga punca melahirkan pesalah rasuah.

“Selepas ditangkap dan didakwa ke mahkamah ada satu tahap saya bangun jual nasi lemak demi mencari sesuap nasi..orang tidak peduli dan tanya ada duit hendak beli lampin dan susu anak pun,” katanya.

Malah rakan yang dahulu baik pun mula menjauhkan diri. Selepas itu, satu demi satu dugaan menimpa Mohd. Firdaus apabila dua minggu sebelum keputusan kes rasuahnya, ibu dan adiknya terbunuh dalam satu kemalangan.

“Semasa berdiri dalam liang lahad angkat jenazah ibu dan adik saya..saya cukup sedih kerana tidak sempat betul-betul minta maaf kepada ibu saya..saya bimbang dia ‘termakan’ sekali duit rasuah,” katanya.

Walaupun ketika cuba mengasingkan wang rasuah dengan wang hasil titik peluh sendiri untuk diberinya kepada ibunya namun siapa tahu kemungkinan ia bercampur dengan wang haram.

Lebih parah, Tuhan sekali lagi membuktikan kuasanya apabila lidah Mohd. Firdaus ‘keras’ ketika mahu membaca al-Quran sedangkan mengaji merupakan amalannya sebelum itu kerana beliau merupakan bekas pelajar sekolah agama sebelum itu. “Saya baca al Fatihah okay tetapi bila baca ayat awal surah Al Baqarah iaitu Alif Lam Mim lidah saya tidak boleh sebut, jadi keras.

Lidah saya jadi kaku, keras. Bayangkanlah betapa hinanya pandangan Tuhan kepada saya..benda semudah A, B, C pun tidak boleh sebut. “Berpuluh-puluh air kolah masjid saya minum dan beratus kali sujud (solat taubat) di Masjid Muhammadi (di Kota Bharu). Seminggu selepas itu baru Allah beri semula saya kemampuan membaca al Quran,” jelasnya.

Tidak cukup dengan itu, Tuhan, katanya sekali lagi menunjukkan kuasanya pada harta yang dibeli daripada wang rasuah.

“Allah hendak tunjuk kepada saya lagi selepas itu. Saya ada 50 pasang kasut dan saya balut dan isi dalam bekas plastik dan yang kata rasuah dicemuh isi bumi apabila anai-anai memakan 48 pasang kasut saya. Hanya tinggal dua pasang kasut yang tinggal dan saya ingat satu pasang saya beli semasa gaji pertama saya dan kasut kedua ialah barang hantaran perkahwinan. Dua sahaja yang ‘tidak disentuh’ anai-anai,” jelasnya.

Seterusnya beliau mengakui fasa di tirai besi juga menjadi pemangkin kepada dirinya untuk bangkit semula mengubah nasib.

“Mula-mula masuk penjara memang buntu kerana tengok tembok tetapi saya kena sendiri kena cari ubatnya,” katanya yang menganggap penjara merupakan azab dunia kerana penghuninya menjalani kehidupan dalam keadaan tidak selesa.

“Apabila menyedari ada banduan lain yang dipenjara selama 47 tahun dan tiga tahun kerana kesalahan rasuah membuatkannya bersyukur kerana hanya dipenjara selama dua tahun. Seksa saya lebih ringan berbanding mereka,” ujarnya.

Dalam tirai besi juga Mohd. Firdaus belajar sesuatu iaitu bekas banduan yang keluar dari penjara tidak akan disambut dengan karpet merah tetapi cop banduan akan kekal sebagai stigma. Kehidupan di Penjara Kajang juga memberinya idea menulis buku bertajuk Tersugung Dek Rasuah apabila dibebaskan dan mula berjinak-jinak menjadi penceramah anti rasuah kepada masyarakat.

Sebagai penceramah motivasi bebas mengenai bahaya rasuah kepada masyarakat sejak tahun lepas atas bantuan rakannya daripada SPRM sendiri beliau kini semakin dikenali malah diiktiraf oleh pemimpin kerajaan.

Ahli Parlimen Kuala Selangor, Datuk Irmohizam Ibrahim sendiri menganggap pengalaman Mohd. Firdaus wajar dijadikan teladan kerana beliau mengalami sendiri kesan bahaya rasuah dan bukan sekadar bercakap sahaja mengenainya.

Ditanya bagaimana mahu memastikan masyarakat dapat mengurangkan amalan rasuah yang bukan sahaja merosakkan individu, masyarakat dan peradaban, Mohd. Firdaus berkata: “Kalau ada kesedaran agama dan sedar adanya kehidupan selepas mati (akhirat) baru saya rasa rasuah ini dapat dibendung dan dibasmikan sepenuhnya,” ujarnya jujur.–MalaysiaGazette


Create PDF    Send article as PDF   

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Special Report: UNODC recognition gives MACC more bite


THE United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has recognised the MACC as an independent entity in weeding out corruption. In May 2013, the Review of the UNODC on Malaysia’s compliance of the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) recognised Malaysia’s successful efforts to combat corruption, and Malaysia fared well in its first UNCAC review on anti-corruption compliance. In its report, UNCAC commended Malaysia for its 23 successes and best practices in its fight against corruption.

special report series

special report series

These practices include Section 25 of the MACC Act 2009, which establishes a duty to report any bribery or attempt and criminalises non-compliance; the absence of statute limitations which helps maximise the possibility of prosecutions; and the establishment of 14 specialised anti-corruption courts, where judges are instructed to hear cases within a year and can be held accountable for noncompliance.

The UNCAC requires that state parties implement several anti-corruption measures to prevent corruption, criminalise certain conducts, strengthen international law enforcement and judicial cooperation, provide effective legal mechanisms for asset recovery, technical

assistance and mechanisms for the implementation of the convention, among others.

Malaysian Parliamentary Special Committee on Corruption Chairman Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang said the United Nations has deemed the MACC as one of the five bodies internationally recognised for its check and balance capabilities.

The current structure of the MACC, according to Abu Zahar, was aimed towards being truly independent, neutral, open, and transparent in investigating any case involving corruption. Abu Zahar, who is Dewan Negara speaker, headed the

parliamentary committee, whose members consisted of members of Parliament from both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat.

“We have representatives from the opposition and the government. They are all appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong

(the King). We are above politics, meaning our main mission is to carry out our duties as stated in the MACC Act. The MACC is also the only anti-corruption commission in the world which is monitored by five different independent panels,” he said.

Besides the parliamentary committee, the other four bodies monitoring the MACC were the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board, Operation Evaluation Panel, Complaints Committee, and Anti-Corruption and Consultation Panel. All bodies collectively

comprise 46 members.

“One of our duties is to spread awareness on the existence of these independent bodies, and of the effectiveness and direction of the MACC, towards being truly independent and neutral in the war against corruption,” he said.

On doubts by certain parties towards MACC, Abu Zahar said it was undeniable.

“I feel it is because society has not really understood or even been made aware about MACC and its function, which is

totally different from the pre-2009 era. It is time that we need to spread more awareness at various sectors, including community, NGO and political parties, We must let the rakyat know what is the present role of MACC,” he said.

“Corruption should be battled by every party. If it is not done, then it will become a plague that will destroy society,” said Abu

Zahar, who has headed the committee since last year.

He also urged those who have alleged that MACC practised selective investigation to come forward and lodge a complaint with

the independent monitoring bodies.

“My message to them is simple: please come forward without fear or favour, you don’t have to go to the same officers. We have five panels. If the committee (panel) is satisfied that the complaint has merit, we will advise the MACC to re-evaluate the case. We once had a situation, where the Operations Review Panel ordered a case to be re-opened after the DPP had deemed the case was not sufficient to be prosecuted. This particular panel is also recognised by the UNODC.”

Since 2009, the Operations Review Panel has recommended for 52 cases to be re-opened and eight of those were

successfully brought to the court.

Abu Zahar hoped society as a whole could change their perception towards MACC. “Only with the cooperation of all will we be able to achieve a harmonious Malaysia which is free of corruption for future generations,” he said.

In the spirit to ensure that the independence and transparency continues, Abu Zahar called for current laws to be amended. Abu Zahar revealed that the MACC has more handled more than 50 high-profile cases in the past five years.

While the MACC indeed investigated the cases, Abu Zahar said the perception of the people was otherwise. “Any case needs solid evidence… this is required by the law.”

United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) Regional Anti-Corruption advisor Shervin Majlessi said that while it’s important to have good strategies and policies to tackle corruption, as Malaysia does, what’s more important is the implementation and monitoring of those policies.

“Confidence in the system can be built by having the right approach and rhetoric, but more than that, by actions that go with it – such as having strong and independent anti-corruption institutions to show that a government’s actions match its words… there is indiscriminate and consistent application of the law, where no one has immunity and it is not affected by political influences,” Mr Majlessi said.

“I have been exposed to many countries where they have very interesting systems in place, but there is no follow up,” he added.

“I think that’s where many countries fail. There has to be political will to do so.”


  • Operations Review Panel in MACC reviews delayed cases or cases which were transferred to Deputy Public Prosecutor, but did not result in a charge.

  • Specialized anti-corruption courts have been in existence since 2011. Judges are instructed to hear cases within one year and can be held accountable for non-compliance.

  • Institutional set-up of MACC, The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Academy (MACA) and the anti-corruption courts were deemed to constitute exemplary practices.

  • Inter-agency collaboration takes place regularly at different levels. One example is the National Coordinating Committee to Counter Money Laundering (NCC), which is responsible for the development of the anti-money laundering policy and action plan.

  • Malaysia had developed a solid system to provide and request international cooperation, which profiles the country be a provider of technical assistance.

  • Malaysia had concluded bilateral and multilateral treaties and cooperates widely in international and regional organizations and initiatives.

  • Malaysian authorities have taken proactive steps to sensitize all relevant stakeholders, especially judicial officers, to the applicable laws, procedures and timeframes to be followed.

  • Malaysia has taken necessary steps to expediting extradition procedures and simplifying evidentiary requirements.

  • Use of joint investigations and an operational working group with Brunei Darrusalam are good examples of law enforcement cooperation among countries at the policy and operational level.

PDF Printer    Send article as PDF   

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Special Report: MACC’s continued improvements in combatting corruption


“FOR my organisation, I’m trying my best. There are a lot of changes. Our success rate is 85%, which is of course a great improvement from 64%. But fighting corruption is not one organisation’s duty alone.”

The above response was given by Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner, when asked about the journey of the MACC since it was established in 2009.

special report series

special report series

By 2014, the MACC had surpassed international standards in combatting corruption by successfully completing 85% of its investigations within one year, which was also due to the implementation of more than 30 initiatives introduced under the Transformation Programme. The MACC had managed to complete 75% of its investigations within one year by 2012, and continue to improve on that today.

“Apart from that, the conviction rate of corruption cases have surpassed the eyes of other anti-corruption authorities including international bodies like the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA). MACC has also received requests from many countries to learn and have a first-hand look at the transformation process.

Apart from an improvement in the Corruption Perception Index (CPI), Malaysia’s ranking in the Global Competitiveness Report 2014-2015 has improved to 20th position out of 144 economies, the report also recognised that Malaysia has been “relatively successful at tackling corruption and red tape.” Malaysia was ranked at 24th position out of 148 countries in 2013. According to the report, released in September 2014, Malaysia, which introduced major transformation strategy since 2009, stands out as one of the few countries which has successfully tackled both corruption and red tape.

In 2008, in order to ensure transparency and independence in corruption investigations, the government formed the MACC to replace the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), by having a new anti-corruption law. The formation of the MACC also accompanied by establishment of five independent panels. MACC’s numerous achievements and successes in the last few years is proof that the Commission is heading in the right direction.

In sharing his view on the question how the MACC is different from the ACA in its effectiveness, Abu Kassim said that it was important to understand why the ACA was changed to the MACC. “We must look at the underlying reasons, then we will understand the whole process. The ACA was transformed into the MACC due to one reason: transparency,” he said.

“We have the same structure as the ICAC Hong Kong, but Hong Kong has better public support. I went there and looked at our performance and discovered we need the public to participate in our work. Also, we need to be transparent so the public understands how we work.”

He added, “Did we achieve the objective of moving from the ACA to the MACC? I can say yes, there are changes in public perception. We have five committees and their members are varied. We have a former Bar Council president, the Malaysian Human Right Commission’s former commissioners, professors, a former Transparency International president, and so on. But of course, there is still room for improvement.

“They look at our work and most importantly, come out with a report yearly. They ask if we are doing the right thing and progressing in our work,” Abu Kassim said further, adding that the MACC has always been independent and transparent, and adopted a professional approach in carrying out its investigations as empowered under the MACC Act.

All accused persons under investigation must go through the process where their statement must be made in a video interview in the video interview room (VIR) where all the movement will be recorded. This is crucial for many reasons, primarily because it reduces the opportunity for any allegations that might be otherwise made against MACC officers.

“After we have gone through the new process and implemented the VIR, the number of complaints has been reduced tremendously.

From January 2013 until today [2015], there were no complaints that MACC had used force or coerced people to get confessions,” Abu Kassim said.

This further increases the transparency and professionalism of the MACC’s investigative process, which ultimately increases public confidence in the Commission’s ability to effectively combat corruption. As Transparency International’s co-founder Michael Herschman stated, “Malaysia is doing the right things to improve conditions and secure its economic future, and we feel that the MACC’s efforts to address and fight corruption are sincere, genuine, and effective.

Malaysia has laid out a clear plan to fight corruption and ultimately transform the mindset of business and government in the country. Such sweeping change, of course, takes time, and progress can’t always be easily seen. However, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has recorded many improvements and there is evidence that the steps being taken are having a positive impact.

Implemented in 2011, the MACC Transformation Programme involved strengthening the anti-corruption enforcement agency’s operations strategies, effective management of human capital, and enhancing corruption prevention.

These measures serve to improve the MACC’s performance and effectiveness in its operations and consequently enhance public perception and confidence in that the MACC is independent, transparent and professional in carrying out its investigations.

The MACC has introduced more than 30 initiatives covering both operations and human capital and has now entered into its third stage, focusing on the implementation of the actions plans on prevention. The MACC human capital development programme involves upgrading the skills, knowledge, integrity, competencies, and technical expertise of its officers. It also involves updating its organisational structure. The human capital transformation targets to enhance the public confidence towards the MACC and transform the Commission into a high-performance organisation. The prevention transformation is implemented through six service lines comprising Task Force Based Inspection, Corruption Prevention in the Private Sector, Content Development, Political Engagement, Civil Society Engagement, and Media and Communication.


  • MACC PEACE interviewing technique
  • Video Interviewing Room to record statements
  • Investigation Operation Room to improve investigation procedures
  • Team-based investigation method
  • Procedures for private sector investigation
  • Applying proactive investigation procedure
  • Complaints Management System
  • Forensic accounting division
  • Reviewing the standard operating procedures
  • Enhancing the qualifications and training of MACC officers
  • Enhancing security at MACC officesinternational standards set at 80%,” the Chief Commissioner added. “The MACC success rate in solving cases proves that the MACC Transformation Programme has begun to yield positive results.”
PDF Download    Send article as PDF   

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Special Report: MACC Free to Conduct Probes


Investigative agencies in Malaysia are free to conduct probes into any alleged wrongdoings without the consent of the country’s leaders, said the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Paul Low Seng Kuan.

special report series

special report series

He said agencies like the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), the police or Bank Negara Malaysia should be independent bodies as enshrined in the Constitution. “If they were to investigate a crisis, they do not need the permission of the Prime Minister or anyone else.

“They are not instructed by the Prime Minister or Cabinet members. They will automatically carry out investigations themselves,” Paul Low said at the 16th International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre on September 2, 2015. IACC ended on September 4.

He also said the public must wait for investigations to be concluded, as only then can those who are guilty of a crime, be prosecuted. “Integrity is not only about fighting bribery but also in ensuring that you do not falsely accuse anyone,” he said.

In his opening ceremony speech, Paul Low said that the MACC will be further empowered in combating graft and abuse of power as it will be given more bite. He added the country’s graft-fighting body would be strengthened by forming a separate service commission for the MACC. This, he said, would allow the commission to not only improve its capacity and staff professionalism, but allow it to better control the terms and conditions of their employment. The government, he said, was also committed to make the appointment and tenure of the Chief Commissioner more secure and to reflect the independence of the MACC.

The 16th edition of the IACC, themed, ‘Ending Impunity: People, Integrity, Action’, was organised jointly by the Government of Malaysia, MACC and the IACC consultative council, Transparency International and Transparency International Malaysia. More than 1,000 participants from over 130 countries attended the conference.

Under the National Key Results Area (NKRA) for Corruption, Malaysia had set for itself the target of achieving a Corruption Perception Index score of 70, from the current 52. Malaysia also aims to move up the ranks of countries surveyed, from the current 50, to be in the top 30 by 2020.

Paul Low told delegates at the conference that one of the hallmarks of a society with high integrity was the upholding of social justice, where the rights of the citizens are safeguarded and where wealth distribution is equitable and inclusive.

He also cautioned against an unhealthy relationship between politics and business as this would form a strong hindrance to reform towards a government that is more transparent and accountable.

Paul Low said the government recently launched the National Consultative Committee for Political Financing, which would act as a forum for the people to recommend best practices and the required legislation, regulations and institutional support.

The minister also called for a more extensive public engagement that would forge stronger collaboration with the relevant interest groups or non-government organisations at all levels of society. He said the responsibility of defending MACC shouldn’t just rest on the government or on his shoulders, but on society as well.

A similar assurance was also given by another Minister the Prime Minister’s Department, Senator Dato’ Sri Abdul Wahid Omar during his closing address of the 16th IACC. He said that MACC had always been operating independently and without fear or favour in executing its role as the nation’s premier graft-busting agency. Abdul Wahid said his objective and informed assessment was based on his personal experience when he was called in by the agency to give a statement in connection with a case when he was in the private sector.

“The MACC has never been one-sided or shown fear when carrying out investigations into cases of corruption,” said Dato’ Sri Abdul Wahid, who was appointed into the Cabinet in 2013. “This agency has the moxie to question any individual, no matter what his station is in society or how well connected he is,” he added.

As such, he said MACC should continue to receive the backing and support in its efforts in fighting graft. He reminded MACC that its focus should not be solely on those who receive bribes, but should also include the “enablers” of the act, those who give bribes.

“Corruption will stop automatically when the giving stops,” he said.

Meanwhile, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Dr Chandra Muzaffar said institutions that are standing up to impunity, even though faced with challenges, must be lauded.

In his speech on Ending Impunity: People, Integrity and Action, he said Malaysian institutions like the MACC, Bank Negara Malaysia, police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers have an unshakeable commitment to integrity and are prepared to be guided by their conscience and stand by their principles.

“They are willing to stand up and be counted during critical moments, as what is happening in our country today. In MACC, there are people in the police, people in the AG’s Chambers and people in Bank Negara who are prepared to stand up and be counted. This is the most significant development in our country today.

“These people, my friends, need to be applauded for what they do. They put their lives at risk, their families at risk but they are not giving up,” said Chandra.

Free PDF    Send article as PDF   

, , , ,

No Comments

Special Report: “ACT without fear or favour.”


This was the message from the Chief Commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed at the 16th International Anti-Corruption Conference at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre, recently.

special report series

special report series

In the special message read by Deputy Chief Commissioner (Prevention) Datuk Haji Mustafar Ali, Tan Sri Abu Kassim said he had always reminded MACC officers to carry out their duties without fear or favour. “I have always reminded MACC officers to act without fear or favour.

We do not practice impunity in our investigations. For that reason, the MACC officers are ready to make sacrifices in upholding public interest. We believe that to stop impunity, all institutions in the criminal justice system must act according to the merits of the case.

“As for the MACC, we must uphold the importance of independence in our investigations. For civil society and the public, they must be the protector and our conscience to defend the anti-corruption institution from any interference which will affect its independence. For the lawmakers, regardless of their political differences, they must be united in helping us to create a truly independent anticorruption institution.

“Last but not least, the prosecutors in Malaysia who play a role in taking charge of prosecution, shall be purely nonselective in executing their duty,” he read.

Mustafar added that the global fight to end graft requires firming up systems and procedures, and creating and promoting cultures that detest all forms of corruption, abuse of power and malpractice. He said central to this struggle was to have leadership by integrity, responsibility, accountability and transparency.

“Ending impunity is where we aspire to establish, restore, implement and execute the principles of integrity and governance,” said Mustafar. He said MACC had, in the past five years, made progress in being an independent, transparent and professional ‘MACC Will Defend the Interest of the Public’ anti-corruption agency. (MACC was formed in January 2009 to replace the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA).)

“Much has been achieved but more needs to be done. The MACC is committed to continuously improving and strengthening itself as a renowned, world-class anticorruption agency,” he said.

Mustafar said IACC had developed into a conducive gathering which brings together anti-corruption activists, experts from government agencies, the private sector, civil society organisations and individuals from all over the globe. The aim is to share and expand on ground-breaking and cutting-edge initiatives in fighting corruption.

PDF    Send article as PDF   

, , , , , ,

No Comments


Oleh: Mohamad Tarmize bin Abdul Manaf

Manifesto atau janji yang dilaung-laungkan sepanjang pilihan raya berlangsung dibuat untuk mempengaruhi, mendorong individu atau pengikut supaya memberikan kepercayaan dan sokongan kepada si pembuat janji atau parti yang bertanding.

Kuala Lumpur, 24.02.2008, Para Penyokong yang hadir untuk memberi sokong kepada calon-calon mereka untuk kawasan Gombak. Gambar Oleh : Zunnur Al-Shafiq Nomination day... Supporters of the various political parties came out in full force at the nomination centre at SM Sungai Pusu in Gombak, Selangor. NST pix by Zunnur Al-Shafiq.

Janji-janji ini merupakan salah satu faktor penting yang menjadi kayu pengukur kepada pengundi untuk membuat keputusan.

Adakah manifesto atau janji pilihan raya yang dibuat oleh parti kerajaan atau pembangkang kepada pengundi-pengundi ditakrifkan sebagai rasuah dan menjadi kesalahan di bawah Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Pilihan Raya dan Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009?

Untuk menjawab soalan tersebut, keputusan kes Teoh Teik Huat lawan Lim Kean Siew & Anor tahun 1981 wajar direnungi. Kes ini berhubung kenyataan YB Tengku Razaleigh selaku Menteri Kewangan untuk memberikan peruntukan kewangan yang besar sekiranya BN menang bagi pilihan raya kawasan Pengkalan Kota. Dalam kes tersebut Hakim telah memutuskan bahawa janji-janji pilihan raya seperti itu tidak menjadi suatu kesalahan rasuah.

Antara intipati penghakiman dalam kes ini adalah seperti berikut:

The corrupt intention and corrupt inducement to the electors or voters to vote or refrain from voting must exist. The corrupt practice of bribery which is criminal offence by statue must be strictly proved beyond all reasonable doubt by clear and unequivocal evidence, and the inducement to vote or refrain from voting must be exercised upon one or more electors or voters who must be identified as the objects to whom it was made or addressed. There is no such specific or identifiable particularity in this case but only an allegation of an address to a faceless and amorphous crowd of somewhat unanalyzed fluidity of over 1,500 people said to have been largely compromised of electors or voters and people of the constituency.

Tengku Razaleigh was not himself the Barisan Nasional candidate in the election and there is no reason why he should pledge his personal fortune.

 “Moreover a promise of public action made by Tengku Razaleigh is in his capacity as a Minister in Charge of the country fiscal portfolio.”


Disimpulkan kepada penghakiman di atas, janji-janji politik yang dibuat oleh seseorang calon itu tidak diklasifikasikan sebagai rasuah atas fakta-fakta berikut:

  • Janji yang dibuat oleh YB Tengku Razaleigh dibuat atas kapasitinya sebagai Menteri yang bertanggungjawab dalam soal kewangan negara;
  • Majlis tersebut tidak hanya mengumpulkan pengundi dari kawasan yang dijanjikan pembangunan itu sahaja. Sebaliknya dihadiri ribuan penyokong termasuk penduduk tempatan, orang luar dan rakyat dari daerah- daerah yang lain;
  • YB Tengku Razaleigh bukan juga merupakan calon yang bertanding;
  • Kepentingan peruntukan yang diberikan adalah untuk rakyat keseluruhannya dan bukannya untuk kepentingan individu tertentu terutamanya pengundi;
  • Tiada unsur paksaan dalam mengundi mana-mana calon; dan
  • Peruntukan yang dijanjikan bukan wang peribadinya tetapi adalah peruntukan Kerajaan Pusat.

Diharap penjelasan dan fakta ini boleh menjadi panduan kepada semua pembaca. SPRM tidak pernah menyebelahi mana-mana parti politik dalam membanteras gejala rasuah. Siasatan SPRM berdasarkan peruntukan undang-undang yang ada. Sekiranya menemui bukti kukuh dalam siasatan terhadap mana-mana individu sama ada dari parti pemerintah atau pembangkang, individu tersebut tetap akan dibawa ke muka pengadilan.

PDF Creator    Send article as PDF   

, , , , , ,

No Comments


Oleh: Mohamad Tarmize bin Abdul Manaf

Salah satu kesalahan di bawah Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 (Akta SPRM 2009) adalah mengemukakan dokumen tuntutan palsu. Seksyen 18 akta itu menyatakan bahawa menjadi satu kesalahan apabila mana-mana orang mengemukakan dokumen tuntutan (contohnya, pesanan kerajaan, resit dan invoice) yang mempunyai butiran palsu dengan niat untuk menipu prinsipalnya (pejabat/majikan).

Contoh kepada kesalahan ini adalah, seorang kontraktor menuntut bayaran bagi projek yang sebenarnya tidak dibuat atau belum siap. Contoh kedua, seorang pembekal membuat tuntutan bagi 20 kamera DSLR yang kononnya telah dibekalkan. Hakikatnya, beliau hanya membekalkan 20 kamera digital yang harganya jauh lebih rendah.

Selain daripada itu, tahukah anda bahawa mengemukakan sijil saksi atau MC boleh menjadi kesalahan rasuah? Ia merupakan kesalahan di bawah kategori mengemukakan tuntutan palsu.

cuti sakit palsu

cuti sakit palsu

Mungkin anda tertanya-tanya bagaimana ia boleh termasuk dalam kesalahan tersebut? Ada juga yang secara sinis berkata, “Adakah terdapat kes sebenar yang berlaku? Atau sekadar teori akademik?”

Untuk menjawab soalan-soalan tersebut, mari kita bersama-sama menghayati satu kes otoriti yang melibatkan sijil sakit palsu iaitu Nadimuthu v. Public prosecutor (1972) 1 LNS 96.


Dalam kes ini, Nadimuthu yang bekerja di Malayan Railways (nama lama bagi Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad) telah mengemukakan dua sijil sakit yang diperoleh daripada Lum Dispensary seperti berikut:

  1. Sijil sakit bertarikh 5 Ogos 1968 yang memberi beliau cuti sakit sebanyak sehari; dan
  2. Sijil sakit bertarikh 7 Ogos 1968 yang memberi beliau cuti sakit sebanyak sehari;

Dalam kedua-dua sijil sakit tersebut, beliau dikatakan telah diperiksa oleh Dr. Lum Weng Song (MBBS Hong Kong) yang mengesahkan beliau tidak sihat dan tidak berupaya (unfit) untuk menjalankan tugas pada tarikh berkenaan. Beliau diberikan cuti sakit yang melayakkan beliau menerima gaji penuh.

Kedua-dua sijil sakit berkenaan didapati tidak benar kerana beliau tidak sakit pada tarikh-tarikh berkenaan. Nadimuthu dituduh di mahkamah di bawah seksyen 4(c) Akta Pencegahan Rasuah 1961. Peruntukan lama ini bolehlah disamakan dengan seksyen 18 Akta SPRM 2009.

Akhirnya, mahkamah mendapati Nadimuthu bersalah dan didenda $25 bagi setiap pertuduhan. Gaji dua hari yang dibayar semasa beliau ‘cuti sakit’ dibayar balik kepada Malayan Railways. Alasannya beliau telah ponteng kerja tanpa alasan.

Nadimuthu merayu dengan alasan sijil sakit tidak termasuk dalam maksud dalam 4(c) Akta Pencegahan Rasuah 1961.

Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi, Y.A Hakim Abdul Hamid telah mengekalkan sabitan dengan alasan berikut:

  1. Dokumen sijil sakit termasuk dalam tafsiran ’other document’ seksyen 4(c) Akta Pencegahan Rasuah 1961.
  2. Apabila Nadimuthu tidak hadir kerja dengan mengemukakan dua sijil sakit tersebut, sijil tersebut melayakkan beliau diberi dua hari cuti bergaji penuh.
  3. Sijil tersebut juga melayakkan beliau dibayar dua hari gaji oleh Malayan Railways.
  4. Faktor itu menjadikan sijil sakit adalah dokumen yang mempunyai nilai kewangan.

Diharap kes ini dapat memberi iktibar kepada masyarakat agar tidak memandang mudah kepada cuti sakit. Doktor dan pegawai perubatan juga perlu berwaspada agar tidak terlibat sekiranya ada ’pesakit’ yang tidak sakit memohon MC daripada anda.

Akhir sekali, laporkan sebarang jenayah rasuah. Anda boleh lakukan perubahan, perangi rasuah.

Create PDF    Send article as PDF   

, , ,


JKMR: Syor SIAP selia SPRM tidak wajar

SUKACITA saya sebagai Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Khas Mengenai Rasuah ingin memberi respons kepada Kenyataan Media bertarikh 28 November 2015 bertajuk, “EAIC Mahu SPRM di bawah seliaannya,” yang dibuat oleh Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Integriti Agensi Penguatkuasaan (SIAP), Datuk Yaacob Md. Sam.


Setelah membuat kajian teliti dan terperinci, berkenaan kedua-dua Akta iaitu: (i) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 (SPRM) (Akta 694); yang diwartakan pada 8 Januari 2009 dan (ii) Akta Suruhanjaya Integriti Agensi Penguatkuasaan 2009 (SIAP) (Akta 700) yang diwartakan pada 3 September 2009, saya dengan sesungguhnya berpendapat bahawa cadangan Pengerusi SIAP adalah tidak wajar dan tidak perlu dipertimbangkan, dengan sebab-sebab seperti berikut:

(a) Akta SPRM 2009 (Akta 694)

Mengikut Seksyen 1 Akta SPRM permulaan kuat kuasa pada 1 Januari 2009. Bagi keseluruhannya Akta ini menumpukan kepada fungsi-fungsi dan kebertanggungjawaban lebih fokus dan spesifik kepada gejala-gejala Jenayah Rasuah. Setelah 1 Januari 2009 SPRM adalah sebuah Suruhanjaya bebas, yang betul-betul bebas dan tidak terikat kepada mana-mana agensi lain. Ini adalah selaras dengan kehendak Artikel 36, United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), yang mana menghendaki suatu entiti pencegahan rasuah bebas dilaksanakan selaras dengan Seksyen 14(5) Akta SPRM 2009; saya selaku Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Khas Mengenai Rasuah, dianggotai oleh tujuh orang yang dilantik oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong, yang terdiri dari kalangan Ahli Dewan Negara dan Dewan Rakyat termasuk wakil-wakil Ahli Parti Pembangkang..

(i) Mengikut Akta SPRM 2009 juga, pada masa ini, selain JKMR, SPRM juga dipantau oleh empat lagi Panel Bebas, yang terdiri daripada tokoh-tokoh profesional seperti bekas-bekas Hakim, Peguam Akauntan, Pegawai-Pegawai Tinggi Kerajaan, tokoh akademik, dan NGO-NGO.

(ii) Akta SIAP 2009 (Akta 700) diwartakan pada 3 September 2009. Ini bermakna Akta SIAP (Akta 700) diluluskan oleh Parlimen selepas Akta SPRM 2009 (Akta 694). Dengan jelas didapati bahawa mengikut Seksyen 1(4) Akta SIAP (Akta 700) ini menyatakan bahawa “Akta ini hendaklah terpakai bagi Agensi Penguatkuasaan yang ditetapkan oleh Perdana Menteri dalam Jadual”. Seterusnya, dengan jelas juga Seksyen 1(5), menyatakan “walau apa pun subseksyen (4), Akta ini TIDAK TERPAKAI bagi SPRM (Akta 694).

Saya berpendapat bahawa dengan jelas bahawa Akta SIAP (Akta 700) ini mempunyai TUJUAN dan fungsi-fungsinya bertumpu khas kepada peruntukan-peruntukan yang termaktub dalam Akta tersebut sahaja dan tidak sekali-sekali patut dikaitkan dengan Akta SPRM 2009 (Akta 694).

Justeru, Jawatankuasa Khas Mengenai Rasuah berpendapat tidak perlu meletakkan SPRM di bawah seliaan SIAP.

Saya selaku Pengerusi JKMR, dan juga Pengerusi keempat-empat Panel Bebas yang ditubuhkan di bawah peruntukan Akta SPRM 2009 ini, tentu sekali sedia mendengar pandangan untuk tujuan memperbaiki lagi perjalanan SPRM, tetapi bukannya bertujuan meletakkan SPRM di bawah SIAP. Malah saya sendiri bersama-sama Ahli Jawatankuasa JKMR dan lain-lain pemimpin-pemimpin, jika perlu bersedia untuk memberi penjelasan atau taklimat kepada pemimpin-pemimpin dan pegawai-pegawai SIAP mengenai perjalanan dan kedudukan SPRM sejak tujuh tahun yang lalu.


PDF Printer    Send article as PDF   

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments