What the PM said now is just that a full investigation should be investigated, a typical response from him. “We will decide after the investigation” will be another reponse later.

It is a mockery of the whole anti corruption campaign in this country, never ending episodes of mocking and shameful annecdotes in the annal of this country’s administration.

Cemerlang,Terbilang dan Gemilang Pak Lah and kuncu kuncu!!!

A senior police officer with the rank of SAC 1 (I am of course assuming for the sake of argument) earning RM7,000 or more a month may be hard pressed to explain how he came to own landed properties valued at many millions of ringgit. But ownership of landed properties worth many millions of ringgit or ownership of substantial stocks in public listed companies is not prima facie evidence of the abuse of power. It is at best a presumption which can be rebutted.

A serious allegation has been made by a subordinate against his superior. The party who has been accused is entitled to a hearing before a properly constituted tribunal; and perhaps even allowed to face his accuser if he is still serving. We certainly do not want to see a repeat of the mockery made of the English common law and Natural Justice (as we saw in the case involving the country’s Lord President not too long ago) by allowing a party who stands to benefit from the forced resignation by the accused, to chair the tribunal. The purpose of this disciplinary tribunal should be limited to finding if there has been a breach of the oath of office taken by Zulkipli after he assumed the office of head of the ACA. If there is a breach then he must be disciplined or made to resign.

As to whether there is any crime or crimes committed whilst in office and when he was a senior police officer, that is a matter for police investigation. Since a police report has been lodged, we can assume that there has been some sort of police investigation and the investigation file may or may not have been forwarded to the AG for his decision. If the decision has been made to prosecute then we would like to know why the matter has been kept in cold storage, or otherwise held in abeyance awaiting a decision from a higher power.

The party “on trial” is not just Zulkipli but the criteria used and the process followed when selecting the country’s ‘most powerful’ head of the ACA.

ACA, the unit tasked to tackle corruption, is not only ineffective and inefficient, it does not even have a leader who is responsive or responsible enough to such serious allegations

Maybe for this case, PM will again set up another “special task force” to look into it. This ACA head is not alone if he is guilty. I am sure his subordinates are also in it. One man cant do so many things. I am sure now many of them are already peeing in their pants.

But I dont foresee a miracle in this case. Even a small fry like Jasin MP also cant find any dirt (are the scumbags getting smarter) dont expect the blind ACA workers to find anything on this head.

OOHhh, wasnt it just lately that the PM said 300 men have been added to the agency? The more the merrier? Dont forget, the more the lesser each gets.

Corruption in Hong Kong, especially in the police force, in the 60’s and early 70’s was stuff of legend and has been depicted time and again in the movies. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) website describes it as follows:

Hong Kong was in a state of rapid change in the sixties and seventies. The massive growth in population and the fast expansion of the manufacturing industry accelerated the pace of social and economic development. The Government, while maintaining social order and delivering the bare essentials in housing and other services, was unable to satisfy the insatiable needs of the exploding population. This provided a fertile environment for the unscrupulous. In order to earn a living and secure the services which they needed the public was forced to adopt the “backdoor route” “Tea money” “black money” “hell money” - whatever the phrase - became not only well-known to many Hong Kong people, but accepted with resignation as a necessary evil.

The victims

At that time, the problem of corruption was very serious in the public sector. Vivid examples included ambulance attendants demanding tea money before picking up a sick person and firemen soliciting water money before they would turn on the hoses to put out a fire. Even hospital amahs asked for tips before they gave patients a bedpan or a glass of water. Offering bribes to the right officials was also necessary for application of public housing, schooling and other public services. Corruption was particularly serious in the Police Force. Corrupt police officers covered up vice, gambling and drug activities. Social law and order was under threat. Many in the community had fallen victims to corruption. And yet, they swallowed their anger.

Community backlash

Corruption had no doubt become a major social problem in Hong Kong. But the Government seemed powerless to deal with it. The community’s patience was running thin and more and more people began to express their anger at the Government’s lukewarm attitude towards tackling the problem. In the early seventies, a new and potent force of public opinion emerged. People pressed incessantly for the Government to take decisive action to fight graft. Public resentment escalated to new heights when a corrupt expatriate police officer under investigation succeeded in fleeing Hong Kong. The case provided the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Last straw

Controlling assets of over HK$4.3 million, Peter Godber, a Chief Police Superintendent, was under investigation in 1973. It was suspected that his unearned wealth had been obtained from corrupt means. But Godber managed to slip out of the territory undetected during the week given to him by the Attorney General to explain the source of his assets. Godber’s escape unleashed a public outcry. Students spearheaded a mass rally in Victoria Park, protesting and condemning the Government for failing to tackle the corruption problem. Demanding prompt government action, protesters with slogans like “Fight Corruption, Arrest Godber” insisted that Godber be extradited to stand trial.

Answering the Call

The Government had to respond. Following Godber’s escape on June 8, 1973, Sir Alastair Blair-Kerr, a Senior Puisne Judge, was appointed to form a Commission of Inquiry to look into Godber escape. He compiled two reports. The first on the circumstances of Godber’s escape. And in his Second Report, Sir Alastair pointed out clearly that “responsible bodies generally feel that the public will never be convinced that Government really intends to fight corruption unless the Anti-Corruption Office is separated from the Police….”

Following fast on the heels of the Blair-Kerr Report, the then Governor, Sir Murray MacLehose (later Lord), argued for an independent anti-corruption organization in a speech delivered to the Legislative Council in October 1973.

Decisive Action

Sir Murray said, “I think the situation calls for an organization, led by men of high rank and status, which can devote its whole time to the eradication of this evil; a further and conclusive argument is that public confidence is very much involved. Clearly the public would have more confidence in a unit that is entirely independent, and separate from any department of the Government, including the Police.”

Many in the community would say that they felt the wind of change at this time. They started to see the Government setting the stage for fighting corruption.

The Birth of ICAC

The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) was established in February 1974. Since its inception, the Commission has been committed to fighting corruption with the three-pronged approach of investigation, prevention and education. The first important task of the Commission was to bring Godber to justice. In early 1975, Godber was extradicted from England to stand trial. The charges were a conspiracy offence and one of accepting bribes. Godber was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to four years imprisonment. Godber’s extradition and prosecution were demonstrative of the ICAC’s determination and resolution to eradicate corruption. It was this landmark case that kicked off a quiet revolution - a new start against corruption.

Hong Kong today is one of the least corrupt societies in the world. Political and Economic Risk Consultancy in a report “Corruption in Asia” on 6th March, 2002 said:

Corruption is not an accepted feature of Hong Kong. People do not like it and they have little tolerance for it.

The Hong Kong government in its website says:

Pro-active and resolute action by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has continued to be a major force in providing a cherished level playing field for business in Hong Kong.

Concerns over the effectiveness of the ICAC after 1997 have long dissipated through continued and vigorous enforcement action. The public support rate hovers at 99%. There is no doubt that a culture of intolerance of corruption has firmly taken root in Hong Kong.

Established in 1974, the ICAC has evolved into one of the world’s most effective anti-corruption agencies. It has been described as a ‘model anti-corruption agency’ in the Transparency International Global Corruption Report (October 2001).

The ICAC investigates corruption cases in both the public and private sectors. A ‘zero tolerance’ stance against corruption has rendered Hong Kong one of the world’s cleanest administrations. Systemic corruption does not exist in the civil service.

The ICAC helps government departments and public bodies to rid their systems of corruption opportunities while assisting private companies to strengthen internal controls.
To maintain and enhance public support and vigilance against corruption, the ICAC produces educational and media programmes for all strata of the community. In addition, the Internet is also becoming a medium of choice
for reaching the mass market.

So why can’t we learn from Hong Kong?

This statement was made – “There are a lot of challenges in our line of work. Some (people) may be happy, some, of course, may not. The bottom line is justice must be done. In this context, certainly I do not want to get involved in matters, issues or allegations that have the tendency to belittle or tarnish the good image of an individual.”

The gist of this statement implies that it is not necessary for him to dignify allegations arising from malice by any serious response.

He does not even hint that he will consider instituting a defamatory suit against those who published the allegations.

Indirectly he is implying the allegations are so spurious and incredible that they convince no reasonable person and therefore inflict no real harm to his reputation and standing for him to take remedial action.