Posts Tagged Corruption
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zahrain Mohd Hashim
Ahli Parlimen Bayan Baru
|ihsan : mindasuper.com|
Muhammad Hisyam bin Mohamad (Fellow), 29 November 2006 | Berita Harian: Rasuah adalah penghalang kepada pembangunan negara dan ia sering dikaitkan dengan amalan tadbir urus yang tidak cekap. Masalah ini bukan sahaja wujud di dalam sektor awam malah di dalam sektor swasta juga.
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 dari segi peratusan mata yang dicatatkan iaitu 4.9 peratus, merosot jika dibandingkan 5.1 peratus untuk 2005; 5.0 peratus (2004) atau 5.2 peratus (2003).
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. 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.
The general election XII in 2008 saw a landscape change in politics. The opposition won and formed state governments in Penang, Selangor, Kedah and Perak while maintaining the Kelantan State. The voice of change became louder in Parliament with many representatives from the opposition coalition. There were voices in Parliament and the streets that corruption is a menace in the country. Hence, issues of corruption became the main political agenda both in the ruling coalition and the opposition. The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) was perceived to be none independent in the fight against corruption. Everyone wanted a more independent and effective anti-graft entity.
The change in political scenario also contributed to the transformation of the then Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA). Thus, in 2009 the then ACA forwarded a proposed new legislation to transform ACA to an independent structure for anti-graft known as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). The legislation not only gave more powers to MACC in the fight against corruption but also structural change with check and balance mechanisms to ensure an independent anti-graft entity.
The proposed Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 was then passed in Parliament and came into force. There were three independent oversight bodies formed by virtue of provisions in the Act and another two formed administratively. The MACC took a bold move to have five independent oversight bodies to monitor, peruse and advice the different functions of the anti-graft entity. The five oversight bodies were namely the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board (ACAB), Special Committee on Corruption (SCC), Complaints Committee, the Operations Review Panel (ORP), and the Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel (CCPP). The formation of the five independent oversight bodies showed that the MACC is truly an independent anti-graft entity. The MACC has to present its annual report to the Special Committee on Corruption which comprises of members from both the government and opposition coalition. The Committee peruses, scrutinizes and gets the MACC to explain in length every function that had been carried out in the previous year.
While the MACC had geared up in the fight against corruption as being wished for by the nation, there were some quarters that politicized issues of corruption. The MACC was blamed to be selective in its investigations when many issues of corruption were not revealed to the public and there seems no immediate action that the public wanted. The public perceived that the MACC will just nab and prosecute the person merely on complaints. Time became the accent and test for effectiveness of MACC. The public wanted swift and fast action.
When the MACC moved in to investigate corruption in illegal sand mining and export across the country, it was said to be a tool to the Federal Government to bring down certain states under the PR government, especially Selangor. When there were not many politicians especially those who fell out in the election were not arrested for perceived corruption, the issue of “big fish and small fish” became the talk of the street.
MACC was made to do lots of public relation job rather then focusing on investigations of corruption cases. The public were not patient enough. The politicians took advantage of their bigger share of voice to politicize corruption for their own political agenda. MACC was made to be their black sheep. While MACC was moving in the right direction in changing the perception, suddenly and unfortunately incident after incident occurred within its environment. The incidents were the demised of a witness, who was then a political aide for an Executive Councilor in Selangor and later the death of an accused person, who was an assistant director of Customs. Both the incidents took place within the premises of MACC.
The first incident brought serious implications to MACC. Public confidence eroded, politicians took advantage of the incident and made it a political agenda for their own political mileage. The issue was never allowed to rest even after the inquest and the recently concluded Royal Commission of Inquiry. The transformation process of ACA to MACC were perceived a failure
While, all this happened, the year 2010 show cased a change in leadership of MACC. Abu Kassim Mohamed took over the helm of MACC as its new Chief Commissioner. The government developed the Government Transformation Programme with the formulation of National Key Result Areas (NKRA). Corruption is one of the NKRA. The NKRA on Corruption focuses on three elements namely the grand corruption, procurement and enforcement.
The new leadership of MACC then immediately made an environmental scanning which showed that image and credibility of MACC badly ruined, public confidence towards MACC were low, the public could not feel the effectiveness of the transformation of MACC, political parties took advantage and politicized the transformation of MACC, and last but not least, the morale and enthusiasm of MACC officers hit rock bottom. MACC was left on their own to deal with perceptions and fighting corruption was derailed.
The farsighted leadership immediately formulated and introduced the MACC aspiration. The aspiration focused on specific initiatives to reverse the negative perception and reposition the public confidence on MACC and the fight against corruption. Internally, it focused to enhance the morale and confidence within the organization. The aspiration thus focused on three main elements of independency, transparency and professionalism.
Hence, MACC took a bold step to create the post of Deputy Chief Commissioner of Management and Professionalism in addition to the other two namely Deputy Chief Commissioner (Operations) and Deputy Chief Commissioner (Preventions). The establishment of a special division called Excellence and Professionalism to maintain and enhance professionalism in and within the human capital of MACC, Corporate Communication Unit to disseminate information and liaise with internal and external key communicators especially the media, Special Operations Division to focus on high profile and public interest cases, and Transformation Unit to study, evaluate and formulate comprehensive strategic plan pertaining to organization, structure, processes, human resource and work culture within MACC.
The MACC’s transformational leadership outlined specific vision to realize the aspiration through formulations of big wins focusing on high profile and public interest cases, enhance public confidence, and the shift from output to outcome base performance that could be seen, felt and which will derive intended impact in the fight against corruption. Thus, the transformation strategic planning outlined comprehensive focus points on four matters namely effective investigation management, effective prevention and community education, sustaining public confidence, and capacity and capability building.
The leadership did not immediately implement all the strategic plans that were formulated by the Transformation Unit but instead formed an Executive Committee on Transformation to peruse and advice the management on the implementation of the strategic plans. The Committee is lead by the Chief Commissioner himself with members comprising the three Deputy Chief Commissioner, members from the oversight committee and panel, and two experts in law i.e. a former appellate court judge who is also the chairperson of the Complaints Committee and a former federal court judge, who was a panel member of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the death of Teoh Beng Hock.
The MACC leadership practices transparency and wanted to precisely sure the effectiveness on the implementation of all strategic plans on transformation. The inclusions of experts in various fields are to advice, implement and ensure the success in implementation of the strategic plans on transformation. A number of the transformations that have been outlined and even immediately implemented were the Video Interviewing Room for recording of statement from accused person, potential accused person or witnesses with potential hostility.
The Chief Commissioner hence had advised the Directors of all state branches to be prepared for changes. They were advised to equip themselves with knowledge and understandings on financial investigations, private sector investigations and proactive investigations. All functions were to be carried out with the objectives of outcome base. All actions must have high impact and felt by the public. Investigations were not only being focused on all corruption but must also give emphasize on high profile and public interest cases. Investigations must be conducted and completed swiftly, accurately and professionally.
The Directors were also advised to make a drastic move from reactive to proactive investigations. They were now expected not only to initiate investigations based on information or reports received from complainants but to also initiate proactive investigation through intelligence based investigations.
The Directors were also expected to plan, lead, organize and control their officers to the changes. They were expected to ensure high motivation and drive within their work force to compliment and realize the initiative on transformation. Officers are expected to be knowledgeable and professional in all the functions of MACC. A highly motivated, knowledgeable and skilled human capital with good sets of attitude for transformation will be the driving factor in the proposed transformation of MACC. Thus, the transformation is a way forward to creating a new landscape in the fight against corruption.
(The article was written by Muhammad Salim Sundar, Head of Corporate Communication MACC, based on the recent presentation by the Chief Commissioner to Division and State Directors on “MACC transformation and expectations” at MACA on 18 August 2011)
International companies are becoming large and growing proportion of the world’s total business due to globalization, which has forced western capitalists to interact with their counterparts in lower-income and developing countries, in the course of expanding business horizons and opportunities. Malaysia realizes that companies do not operate within national boundaries but in multiple countries, each with its own set of norms and rules. In the competition to secure supplies from foreign countries and compete against products and services, companies tend to violate laws and rules especially pertaining to corruption.
Domestic bribery has long been recognized as a crime in almost all countries including Malaysia. However, bribery of foreign officials is of a relatively recent occurrence. The tendency to commit foreign bribery has risen dramatically due to globalization, which has let to a significant increase in international economic activities.
In responding to the growing tendency and in relation to article 16 of the United Nation Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which makes explicit reference to the bribery of not only foreign public officials but also officials of public international organizations. Malaysia responded well to offences of bribery by foreign public officials by taking the necessary steps to incorporate a new specific provision for bribery of foreign public officials into the domestic legislation.
Section 22 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 represents Malaysia’s legislative contribution to the international effort to criminalize such conduct. The provision stipulates that any person who by himself, or by or in conjunction with any other person gives, promises or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to any foreign public official, or being a foreign public official, solicits, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, whether for the benefit of that foreign public official or of another person, any gratification as an inducement or reward for, or otherwise on account of:
- the foreign public official using his position to influence any act or decision of the foreign state or public international organization for which the official performs any official duties;
- the foreign public official performing, having done or forbone to do, or abstaining from performing or aiding in procuring, expediting, delaying, hindering or preventing the performance of, any of his official duties; or
- the foreign public official aiding in procuring or preventing the granting of any contract for the benefit of any person,
commits an offence, notwithstanding that the foreign public official did not have the power, right or opportunity so to do, show or forbear, or accepted the gratification without intending so to do, show or forbear, or did not infact so do, show or forbear, or that the inducement or reward was not in relation to the scope of his official duties. Shall on conviction be liable to an imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years and a fine of not less than five times the sum or value of the gratification or ten thousand ringgit, whichever is the higher.
For the purpose of the offence, foreign public official defined as includes any person who holds a legislative, executive, administrative or judicial office of a foreign country whether appointed or elected. Apart from that it also includes a person who exercises a public function for a foreign country and any person who is authorized by a public international organization to act on behalf of that organization.
In addition, the provision covers any act of aiding and abetting in the commission of the offence, conspiring to commit the offence or attempting to commit the offence. Some countries will argue that it is their culture in giving gifts which on their own way may denote respect, appreciation or gratitude, without specifying large and small gifts or the value of the gifts. Thus, in Malaysian, we have within our legislation, that evidence of custom is inadmissible as a defence to an offence of bribery of a foreign public official.
Lobbying by a foreign public official in order to persuade a local public official to act in the supplicant’s is another area that is open to abuse. Lobbying, per se, that does not require a payment and which does not persuade a political figure from violating the social trust of his constituents and his parliamentary code of ethics, is legitimate. However, when lobbying is done with a payment for the same purpose and for the political figure to breach any social trust that he has with his constituents, then it constitutes an offence domestically. The giver and receiver of bribe in such cases commit an offence and would be prosecuted in Malaysia.
Facilitation payments also known as ‘grease payments’ has been described by the OECD as low level payments designed to expedite performance of a ‘routine government action’. It is corrosive in its nature towards sustainable development of a country and the rule of law. Malaysia too has recognized facilitation payments as a form of corruption within the domestic anti-corruption legislation.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 provides that the evidence of an accomplice and agent provocateur could be used as admissible evidence in the prosecution of offences of bribery of foreign public officials. This provision would be of invaluable, as one is only to aware that corruption is sometimes regarded as ‘silent crime’ between consenting adults. Hence, if there is any other compelling independent and corroborative evidence, then the giver and receiver of the bribe could be prosecuted, respectively. Plea bargaining is being introduced into the Criminal Procedure Code in Malaysia, which would again enable the cooperation of co-offenders in the prosecution of bribery offences.
Apart from that, there is also within the scheme of the Act, a provision that there is a duty to report all forms of attempted bribery transactions and failure to do so is an offence, which on conviction be liable to a fine of not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or both. If bribery is being solicited or obtained, or an attempt has been made to obtain then failure to report such act, will on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both. Thus, it is the duty of either the potential giver or receiver to report bribery and failure to do so may land them to a criminal charge.
Tools of investigation for the offence of bribery of foreign public officials are enshrined in the Act. A glimpse of these powers would indicate that there are explicit provisions overriding banking secrecy laws and professional legal privilege. Further, the Act provides that officers of the Commission have the power to obtain information in the course of investigation for an offence under the Act, including bribery of a foreign public official, about property that reasonably believed to have been acquired through proceeds of bribery. The information may be secured from the suspect himself, his relatives or associates, or any other person whom the anti-graft officer has reasonable ground to believe can assist in the investigations. Failure by any party to provide the information required is a criminal offence, and may face a criminal charge. On conviction may liable to imprisonment and fine.
If it is established that the suspect against whom the information is sought is an officer of a public body in Malaysia and is in excess of wealth against his present and past emoluments and all other relevant circumstances, then the said officer of a public body, can be prosecuted for the excess wealth. The officer of the public body shall on conviction be liable to an imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years and a fine which is not less than five times the value of the excess or ten thousand ringgit, whichever is the higher.
The Act also provides well defined powers to freeze the assets of a suspect and subsequent forfeiture. Where the offence is proved against the accused person, but the property cannot be traced or is disposed, the court can order the accused to pay a penalty, the sum of which is equivalent to the amount of the gratification. The penalty is over and above the punishments provided for under the Act.
The officers of the anti-graft Commission in Malaysia are constantly required to attend capability-building programmes in order to enhance their investigative skills and to network informally with counterparts of theirs from other jurisdictions. Such networking would invariably facilitate cross-border investigations. The investigative programmes are organised domestically under the auspicious of the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Academy, or internationally.
Corruption, as we all know is a crime without boundaries. Hence, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has also beefed up international investigation unit to cope with this new phenomenon, bribery of foreign public officials.
Last and not least, Malaysia is committed in taking important steps to facilitate rightful recoveries of proceeds of bribery and is prepared to set aside the obstacles of differing legal regimes, political chauvinism, suspicions and cultural differences, and adopt a common stand on the eradication of this new phenomenon, the offence of bribery of foreign public officials.
(The article was adopted from presentation by Mr Anthony Kevin Morais, Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor attached to the MACC, who made the presentation at an international conference – Shaping a New World: Combating Foreign Bribery in International Business Transactions which was held at Hyatt Hotel, Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, organized by Corruption Eradication Commission (CEC), Indonesia in collaboration with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Written by: SAC Muhammad Salim Sundar, Head of Corporate Communication, MACC.
Oleh : Ps Yip Ai Tsin dan PPs Maizatul
KUALA LUMPUR – Panel Perundingan dan Pencegahan Rasuah Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (PPPR) akan mencadangkan supaya diwujudkan konsep
”Jabatan Angkat SPRM” dalam usaha mendekati dan membantu agensi yang mempunyai masalah berkaitan prosedur.
Pengerusi PPPR, Datuk Johan Jaafar berkata, bagi melaksanakan tujuan itu PPPR bercadang untuk mengadakan beberapa sesi dialog dengan agensi atau jabatan kerajaan untuk mendapatkan maklumat secara komprehensif tentang realiti yang dihadapi pihak tersebut.
Katanya, PPPR mahu berlaku adil pada agensi dan jabatan kerajaan supaya perspektif mereka turut di ambil kira dalam melihat isu membabitkan rasuah, penyelewengan dan salah guna kuasa ini.
” Kita rasakan bahawa Untuk menangani korupsi, kita harus pastikan semua tindakan dan semua operasi yang dijalankan itu bukan sahaja pada peringkat pendakwaan tetapi juga pada peringkat kesedaran perlu dipastikan berjalan pd semua peringkat.”
”Kita putuskan utk cadangkan kepada SPRM supaya mengambil mana-mana agensi yang dilihat bermasalah sebagai ‘jabatan angkat” dan ini tidak semestinya jabatan kerajaan, mungkin bahagian tertentu atau unit tertentu dalam organisasi.”
Turut dibincangkan dalam mesyuarat bulanan PPPR kali kelima itu ialah masalah berkaitan amalan rasuah oleh kakitangan barisan hadapan (Frontline Corruption Practices) yang diutarakan oleh ahli panel, Syed Akhbar Ali.
Johan memaklumkan bahawa pemantauan kemungkinan wujudnya amalan rasuah pada kakitangan barisan hadapan adalah perlu bagi melihat gambaran di peringkat masyarakat.
”Ia bertujuan untuk melihat gambaran dan pandangan menyeluruh mengenai rasuah yang kita lihat berlaku diperingkat bawahan yang mebabitkan peniaga kecil, penjual dan sebagainya kerana golongan ini yang berhadapan dengan masalah salahlaku dan salah guna kuasa pada peringkat pegawai yang babitkan agensi-agensi atau pihak berkuasa tempatan.
”Walaupun ia dilihat sbg perkara kecil ,tetapi apabila berlaku dlm jangka masa panjang, ianya menjejaskan kerajaan.Lebih penting lagi ia melibatkan rakyat jelata.
” Jadi PPPPR beranggapan bahawa isu rasuah ini harus dilihat sama rata walaupun babitkan peniaga kecil /kumpulan kecil mahupun peringkat tinggi iaitu pada tahap pimpinan politik,” katanya.
PPPR dianggotai oleh Dato’ Sri Azman Ujang, Prof Dr Engr Chin Yew Sin, Datuk Prof Dr Ishak Tambi Kechik, Prof Emeritus Dato’ Dr. Abdul Rahman Hj. Embong, Datuk David Chua, dan Dr.Zainal Abidin Abdul Majid.
Mesyuarat yang dihadiri Ketua Pesuruhjaya SPRM, Dato’ Sri Abu Kassim Mohammed itu diadakan di Akademi Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (MACA)
Johan turut menyatakan bahawa konsep ini juga relevan untuk digunapakai dalam memberikan maklumat sebenar kepada parti politik dengan mengambil contoh isu dana yang disalurkan pada parti-parti politik.
Katanya maklumat sebenar harus diberikan kepada parti politik bahawa bukan sokongan kewangan kepada parti yang ditentang tetapi kaedah atau cara yang perlu dipantau supaya transparents dan tidak disalahgunakan.
”Ini adalah sesuatu yang merugikan parti politik sendiri kalau peruntukan atau sumbangan kepada parti politik itu yang bernilai tidak sampai.
“ Untuk tujuan ini parti tidak perlu khuatir kalau prosedurnya betul dan tindakan yang kita akan cadangkan ini adalah supaya parti politik itu akan dapat manfaat dan orang yang mengamalkan slhguna kuasa dan kedudukan serta menyeleweng sumbangan itu akan terima kesan, bukan parti itu ,” katanya ketika ditemui selepas mempengerusikan mesyuarat.