Posts Tagged macc act 2009

MENIPU SAKIT, SATU KESALAHAN RASUAH?

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.

www.pdf24.org    Send article as PDF   

, , ,

7 Comments

YES, MACC MUST PROBE UNUSUALLY RICH, BUT…

By: Walter Sandosam
the writer : Walter Sandosam

Walter Sandosam

Referring to the report entitled “MP: Enough evidence to probe PM’s wealth’ and ‘MACC’s job is to probe the unusually rich’ in Malaysiakini recently, it is noted that many readers opined that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) should have initiated its investigation against anyone based on various information given.

Indeed everyone knows that corruption is one the most potent hindrance to the economic development of a country; it undermines the rule of law, weakens trust in public institutions and challenges democratic principles. This is a universal reality.

Nevertheless, one of the constraints the MACC faces is to continue to investigate the financial and property ownership of an individual who has excessive wealth suspected of corruption.

The MACC does not have any legal provision at present to compel a person with excessive wealth which does not match the income on their job position to declare his or her assets without reasonable grounds to believe, based on investigations carried out by an officer of the Commission. This is clearly stated in Section 36(3) of the MACC Act 2009.

Though Section 36(3) of the Act seeks to secure an explanation of an apparent affluence of a public official, this section is unlike the provisions of Section 10 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance of Hong Kong.

Section 36(3) does not operate independently but must be read in conjunction with  Section 36(1) of the said Act. Section 36(1) reads as follows:

Notwithstanding any written law or rule of law to the contrary, an officer of the Commission of the rank of commissioner and above, if he has reasonable ground to believe, based on the investigation carried out by an officer of the Commission, that any property is held or acquired by any person as a result of or in connection with an offence under this Act.

An ‘offence under the Act’ is defined as:

…owns, possesses, controls or holds any interest in any property which is excessive, having regard to his present or past emoluments and all other relevant circumstances…liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years; and a fine which is not less than five times the value of the excess, if the excess is capable of being valued, or ten thousand ringgit, whichever is the higher

Section 36(3) reads as follows:

Where the officer of the Commission of the rank of commissioner and above has reasonable grounds to believe that any officer of a public body who has been served with the written notice referred to in subsection (1), such officer of the Commission may by written direction require him to furnish a statement on oath or affirmation explaining how he was able to own, possess, control or hold such excess and if he fails to explain satisfactorily such excess, he commits an offence…

From the above, it is clear that there must be reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under the Act has been committed, before investigators from the Commission can embark on investigations, in respect of excess wealth of public official. Thus far, there is no evidence proffered by anyone of any offence that has been committed by the individuals concerned under the MACC Act 2009 in order to trigger any kind of investigations, for excess wealth against them.

It is the intention of the Legislature that claims of excess wealth, is not in itself an offence that warrants investigation.

In this regard, it is imperative to ensure that section 36 of the MACC Act 2009 is amended to enable the Commission to compel individuals to declare their assets. Currently, there is no such provision. It is therefore important for members of Parliament to support the amendment to the law and the Federal Constitution to increase the Commission’s independence and effectiveness in fighting graft.

www.pdf24.org    Send article as PDF   

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments