In his post-Kuala Terengganu by-election interview with New Sunday Times (January 25, 2009), “Upping the ante on anti-graft enforcement”, the Chief Commissioner of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan declared categorically that money politics is corruption. This came in the concluding part of the Q and A:
Q: Do you see any difference between money politics and corruption?
A: When you pay people to vote for you, that is corruption. People call it money politics but not us. Under the law, anybody who sells or buys votes is guilty of corruption, so we go on that basis.
Q: Is the MACC focused on cleaning up Umno?
A: Not just Umno, please be clear about that. We will take action against any political party involved in corruption. It seems that way only because it is now Umno season. The party itself asked us for help.
Q: Why then are we hearing about corruption only in Umno?
A: Others do not report. They get the money and keep their mouths shut. Umno members on the other hand are factional and report against each other.
Today’s New Straits Times reported on two other Perak Umno State Assemblymen “rumoured to be on the verge of leaving the party” expressing their frustration and saying that “more defection to the Pakatan Rakyat could not be discounted”.
This was the immediate follow-up to the former Umno Bota Assemblyman Datuk Nasarudin Hasham’s quitting Umno for Pakatan Rakyat on Sunday.
This is from the New Straits Times report “2 more express frustration”:
Two assemblymen told the New Straits Times they were mulling over their options if the situation in Umno did not change.
Lintang state assemblyman Datuk Ahamad Pakeh Adam and Pengkalan Baharu’s Datuk Hamdi Abu Bakar said Umno had to stabilise itself in Perak and show that it cared and respected senior members serving as elected representatives.
Both Ahamad and Hamdi, who were Sungai Siput and Beruas Umno division chiefs respectively, lost their posts at divisional elections last year.
Ahamad said he was “frustrated” when told by Perak Umno liaison chief Datuk Seri Mohd Tajol Rosli Ghazali that he should not contest the Sungai Siput division chief’s post.
“How can Tajol Rosli tell me not to contest the division chief’s post? I am the only Barisan Nasional rep in the Sungai Siput constituency. Even Nasarudin was instructed not to contest the Parit division chief’s post.
“Yes, I admit I met state PR leaders recently to discuss my deep frustration with Umno leaders’ behaviour since the last general election.
“While I have not expressed my desire yet to join the PR, I may do so if things do not change for the better in Umno.
“People with money but who are not wakil rakyat have been elected as division chiefs because they were sanctioned to contest against incumbents who are elected reps,” he alleged.
Hamdi, reported as denying that he had met state PR leaders, “admitted that, like Ahamad, he was frustrated”.
Hamdi also claimed that money had been used to win division positions in the state.
I do not want to comment on Umno internal politics or the frustrations of Ahamad and Hamdi with UMNO. These are internal Umno matters.
However, Ahamad and Hamdi’s complaints about the use of money to defeat them as Sungai Siput and Beruas Umno division chiefs are not just internal UMNO matters but constitute corruption as clearly stated by the Chief Commissioner of MACC in the Sunday Times interview.
As Ahamad and Hamid would have ample evidence of the crime of corruption in the Umno divisional elections which caused their defeat as Umno chiefs in their respective divisions, so that those guilty of money politics in Umno division elections in Sungai Siput, Bruas and other Perak divisions could be arrested, charged and convicted for corruption, what is the MACC waiting for?
#1 by cemerlang on Friday, 30 January 2009 - 7:16 am
Remember once when the gomen said that anything above RM 500 is considered corruption ? Then what about between 1 sen to RM 499.99 ? That is the mentality of what some people think of corruption. Then, what sort of standard do Malaysians want ? Totally completely zero sen corruption or somehow you allow some tiny hanky panky business to continue ?
#2 by Godfather on Friday, 30 January 2009 - 8:51 am
“Guan Eng is reported to have said that there should be a byelection to allow those who want to defect to another party to first resign and re-contest the same seat.”
LGE is absolutely right. It is not about the principle of crossovers. It is all about bankrupting BN through a series of by-elections where everyone – the voters, the constituency, the Opposition – wins but the corrupt BN.
#3 by Jeffrey on Friday, 30 January 2009 - 10:58 am
There are two constitutional provisons presently arrayed against the proposed anti-hopping law.
The first provision is Article 10(1)(c) on Freedom of Association. In 1992, when a PAS MP hopped over to BN, the High Court declared the anti-hop law unconstitutional as it went against the Freedom of Association.
Any attempt to resign as MP in order to re–contest by-election on the other side’s ticket confronts the second obstacle in Article 48(6) which provides that a person who resigns his membership of the House of Representatives shall, for a period of five years beginning with the date on which his resignation takes effect, be disqualified from being a member of the House of Representatives…
For so long as these two provisions are not amended, the anti-hopping law can neither be legislated nor will it work!
So, without such anti hopping law, and by reason of Article 48(6), prevailing practice of political defector is not to resign as MP (even though he won this ticket under the auspices of the party that he is leaving) but just cross over to the other side, without having to seek fresh mandate from voters of that constitutency in a by- election as suggested by DAP’s Lim Guan Eng.
What should be noted is that Anwar Ibrahim’s current to canvass cross-overs & defections to topple the BN is based on this prevailing deplorable practice stated in preceding paragraph.
DAP national vice chairman Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim has criticized Anwar’s methods/ strategy that goes against the grain of what Lim Guan Eng said.
This is because such political defections actively canvassed by him are contrary to democratic precepts requiring the defector to first resign to re-seek fresh mandate from a by – election (which admittedly is presently not possible without constitutional amendment/anti hopping law in place).
It is not as if Anwar is pushing for constitutional amendments and antihopping law to be passed before he em barks on canvassing for defections. He is doing well before constitutional amendments and antihopping law – which makes current defections canvassed by him indefensible !
I criticise Anwar not only because his strategy of toppling BN by prevailing practice of political crossovers is undemocratic.
I question whether he knew what he was doing because the MACC newly enacted (esp section 16(b)) changes the whole complexion of elements within such political defections from the undemocratic to (arguably) the criminal/corrupt. He neither serves the cause of his own family, Pakatan Rakyat or the Country if, in the rush to topple the other side and secure power fast, he is unconcerned about the risks of being entrapped under the draconian provisions of MACC.
I don’t understand why some of you would so quickly defend him from criticisms in this respect.
#4 by Godfather on Friday, 30 January 2009 - 3:19 pm
Anwar’s answer to Jeffrey would be short and simple: I have a full coterie of lawyers to advise me, so you better start assuming that I know what I am doing, rather than assuming that I don’t know what I am doing.
#5 by Godfather on Friday, 30 January 2009 - 3:33 pm
Anwar also wants Jeffrey to talk to BN component parties about democracy. Talk to Ong Ta Kut about why he is sidelining a democratically elected deputy. Talk to Semi value about his “democratic” elections. Talk to UMNO too about their use of MACC and the Police for their own ends.
“undemocratic” is a word for people who doesn’t know which side they are on.
#6 by Loh on Saturday, 31 January 2009 - 3:58 am
///Can we trust PDRM and MACC?
Who is safe in this country?///— bho-liao
The powers-that-be and those under their protection.