The case of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) Director-General, Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor is getting curiouser and curiouser – panning out even to raise serious questions about the efficiency, competence and credibility of the Police, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister.
Firstly, the Sun today in its front-page headline story, “Papers with AG — Police resubmit investigation file on ACA chief to Attorney-General” reported the disclosure by the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan that Kuala Lumpur police investigated the complaints on sexual crimes and assault allegedly committed by Zulkipli against a housewife in 1997 and later submitted investigation papers to the AG’s Chambers.
However, as the AG had not reverted to the police on the next course of action, a fresh submission was made yesterday.
The New Straits Times in its front-page report “GRAFT AND SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS – SPEED UP PROBE ON ACA CHIEF — Attorney-general tells IGP” tells quite a different story.
NST quoted the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail that Zulkipli was cleared years ago of a claim of sexually abusing a woman after a thorough investigation into the sexual assault allegation in July 1997. The police investigation papers (IP) were submitted to the AG’s chambers on Oct. 24, 1997, and the AG’s Chambers found there were no grounds to prosecute Zulkipli, and the case was filed as “No Further Action” (NFA) needed.
Secondly, on the serious corruption charges against Zulkipli, the IGP was conspicuously silent but the NST reported Gani as saying that he had told Musa “to speed up the investigations into these allegations”.
Gani said the investigations would include checks against the asset declaration made by Zulkipli — “We compare these asset declarations to how one pays or finances one’s properties”, which would include “checks on the financial position of one’s family members to ascertain their contribution to the household income”.
Here Zulkipli is caught “red-handed” telling a lie that he had been cleared of serious corruption charges made against him, as he told the NST in its report yesterday: “Zulkipli called the charges ‘baseless’ and said prior to his appointment as director-general, he had been vetted and cleared by both the ACA and police.”
Was Zulkipli cleared by the police of the serious corruption charges referred to by former top ACA official Mohamad Ramli Manan in his 4th July 2006 police report against Zulkipli as “a very corrupt senior police officer who had amassed substantial property and assets through corrupt practices”?
Clearly, the police had not cleared him or Gani could not have instructed the IGP to “speed up” the investigations. There is also the question as to why the police had sat on the investigations into the serious corruption allegations against a senior police officer for seven long years, to be instructed by the Attorney-General to re-open the seven-year-old investigations into the serious corruption allegations against Zulkipli.
What is indisputable however is that Gani’s disclosure has exposed Zulkipli as publicly telling a lie that he had been cleared by the police with regard to the serious corruption charges against him.
For this public lie alone, Zulkipli should be immediately sacked as ACA Director-General to restore badly-shattered confidence in the ACA — a decision which the unusual Cabinet meeting tomorrow should take without any more procrastination or indecisiveness. By telling a lie that he had been cleared of serious corruption charges, Zulkipli had lost all authority, credibility and legitimacy to continue as ACA head.
Had the ACA exonerated Zulkipli of the serious corruption charges to clear the way for his appointment as ACA Director-General in 2001, re-appointment in 2004 and further extension of his tenure in 2005? Who is to answer from the ACA?
When the ACA Director-General is accused of serious corruption charges, who and how is he investigated by the ACA when the agency is completely subordinate to him?
There are other questions crying out for answer:
If the police had not been aware that the Attorney-General’s Chambers had decided on NFA on the sexual charges against Zulkipli, how could the police clear Zulkpli of the sexual allegations as alleged by the ACA director-general?
How could Zulkipli be cleared for the important and sensitive appointment of ACA Director-General, and to be repeatedly extended in his term of office, when he is under such a cloud of serious corruption allegations? What has the Cabinet and the Prime Minister got to say?
#1 by teetwoh on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 1:58 pm
This is a joke that has become so putrid. He has had a cloud hanging over him since way back in 1997 and they approved him as the ACA chief anyway? Can the Malaysian government know no new low levels of stupidity and ridiculousness? How can we trust this government to steer Malaysia through such challenging times? The economy, the social imbalances, the crisis in education standards, the ecological challenges brought about by climate change/global warming, the issues arising from a society with ever more access to the media and information…how can THIS government, with this level of stupidity and ridiculousness, cope with all this? Malaysians should be VERY afraid indeed, of their future.
#2 by democrate on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 2:11 pm
When a DG of ACA could go to such an extend then who else in the country can do the job to eliminate corruption? that is what we say ‘ gas is purging out from the same nose ‘ If he is not sacked , is he still entitle to carry out his duty when he himself is sitting on the same boat with those kaki of corruption ! Its a real darkness of Malaysia.
#3 by izrafeil on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 2:39 pm
As i recalled, 1997 was the year when we had the Asian Monetary Crisis, soon afterwards Anwar was framed (becaue the court recently cleared him on sotomi charges), Anwar being No2 kena cukup2 and yet this guy boleh elak?! why? because it involves money corruption, whilst Anwar – framed for political corruption. If you have money, you can do wonders in bolehland
#4 by madmix on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 3:12 pm
It will be a historical first if any senior governement office is sacked. I have never heard of a top official being even reprimanded or demoted, let alone sacked. The standard reasoning is: he has not been convicted by a court of law. If that is the case how come thousands of suspected crimiminals are sent to simppang renggam to rot without trial?
#5 by sotong on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 3:16 pm
The lack of strong and courageous leaders to do what is right for the country and her ordinary people are destroying their future.
#6 by pwcheng on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 7:26 pm
I think the whole government machinery is rotten to the core and having a clown right at the top is only at best form a circus. This funicular team will ultimately absolve this problem by declaring “semua ok” basically to save the face of their own kind and secondly to save their own skin because they are all in the same boat. That is why they have to choose him to be the anti corruption chief because they cannot find someone better than him.
All these will really make you sick because as to them they can only survive through corruption and protection. That is why they need this badly and nobody can shake them to obliterate this core diseases that is affecting the whole country which ultimately will knell.
Very clearly they can learn from Singapore and Hong Kong which obliterated this dreadful disease, but they just refused to do so. They are just determined not to do it for obvious reasons.
#7 by pwcheng on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 7:28 pm
” which ultimately will sound the knell”
#8 by Libra2 on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 7:49 pm
Each time a scandal surfaces, the first thing the government does is to deny, play down the issue and promise an investigation or set up a Commission.
Then it tries to discredit the whistleblower. Finally, it will claim that there is no evidence and unableto persue the matter . The case is closed.
#9 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 8:35 pm
“What is indisputable however is that Gani’s disclosure has exposed Zulkipli as publicly telling a lie that he had been cleared by the police with regard to the serious corruption charges against him.â€Â
What he meant was probably that since he heard nothing more about the matter, he is left to assume and rightly so, that he “has been cleared of the alleged corrupt practicesâ€Â. Unfortunately this is not like when you are facing a charge in court, and at the end of the trial the trier of facts and law has to pronounce you “guilty as charged†or “not guilty†and after which it is res judicata.
#10 by shortie kiasu on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 8:47 pm
The whole episode makes an interesting read but the story is a laughing stock of the government, the government service, the public service etc…
In 1997, it was the Mahathir b Mohamad’s administration, when he was the then Prime Minister. Slowly the dirt is emerging from the carpet now.
How is the current current Prime Minister react to the emerging dirt from below the carpet. There seems to be silence. The less they said the better they are, lest some be dragged into the mess. No one is clean enough to state their stand.
We hope to see some integrity in the public office and the government, and some genuine & thorough investigations be conducted and the result exposed to the public with reservation.
The gulity should be severely dealt with according to law of the land. Although no one would like to prejudge in this case, but there are lots of unanswered queries hanging in the minds of the public.
#11 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 8:50 pm
“When the ACA Director-General is accused of serious corruption charges, who and how is he investigated by the ACA when the agency is completely subordinate to him?â€Â
Is he as DG of the ACA expected to convene a tribunal of sorts and then have his subordinate sit as its chairman to hear deliberations about allegations against him as head of the agency he leads? Or will a special ‘independent’ tribunal be convened – under the chairmanship of the party most likely to succeed him – to hear allegations of misconduct, not necessarily amounting to corruption?
Both obviously would be a breach of natural justice.
#12 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 9:05 pm
“In 1997, it was the Mahathir b Mohamad’s administration, when he was the then Prime Minister. Slowly the dirt is emerging from the carpet now.”
The modus operandi of the then Prime Minister was to put individuals with documented records of known corrupt practices in positions of leadership. This is his way of ensuring that should this individual later proves to be a nuisance to him and his policies, he would have somebody alert this individual as to the dossier that the government has of him.
He has dossiers compiled of all members of his Cabinet.
#13 by shortie kiasu on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 9:06 pm
The law should be reviewed and amended such that the appointment of DG of ACA should be by the King acting on the recommendation of the Parliament.
Only then can the DG of ACA be a man of integrity, trustworthy and clean. He should be answerable only to the King and the Parliament, and not beholden to the Prime Minister or any Minister in charge. These Ministers are public servants and they always have vested interests somehow in the issues of the day.
The appointment of DG of ACA should follow that of Judges. This will eliminate the element of being beholden and subservient to the politicians and the Executive.
If the top is not clean and corrupted, then we cannot not expect the bottomline to be any better. Leadership by example.
The government of the day should be brave enough and muster political will to emulate such clean and efficient countries like Singapore, and for that matter, the SAR Hong Kong of China.
They were once having the similar problems of corruption permeating the government service, from the very tops to the very bottoms; yet within a few decades, they are able to near-completely root out corruption in their civil service, in their society.
Here, Malaysia, after 50 years of independence, the country only continues to witness the mushrooming of corruption in the government service, from the very tops to the very bottoms; then it looks like the country is doomed; and vision 2020 will turn from perfect vision into complete blindness.
#14 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 9:07 pm
How else could he ensure their ‘loyalty’?
#15 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 9:15 pm
“The law should be reviewed and amended such that the appointment of DG of ACA should be by the King acting on the recommendation of the Parliament.â€Â
Malaysia follows the Westminster model of Parliamentary democracy, with its emphasis on ‘overlapping’ powers rather than ‘separation’ of powers as followed in countries like the United States. The U.S. is a republic with the President as its chief executive who is directly elected and he does not sit in Congress, whereas Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy with the head of the political party which wins the general elections automatically becoming its Prime Minister who sits in Parliament. You’re asking that we now abandon the model we have been following ever since our political independence.
That’s too drastic a measure.
#16 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 9:19 pm
Even in the United States the President personally makes the appointments – admittedly these appointments need to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. If the President’s nominee is not confirmed then the President nominates another candidate until the U.S. Senate confirms.
#17 by shortie kiasu on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 9:23 pm
The accusations against DG of ACA are serious and well sunstantiated, although pending decision of AG Chamber, Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor should either take leave of duty on his own accord, or be suspended from duty until investigation into allegations in complete, and if there is a case, the completion of legal process against him in the court of laws.
With him, Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor, continue to sit in the chair of DG of ACA while investigation into the allegations continues, the investigation will never be effective and complete because he will be a stumbling blocks in whatever investigation, especially allegation of corruptions and abuse of power and privileges against him.
There is no way that a complete & thorough investigation on serious allegations of corruption can be conducted by ACA officers against DG of ACA himself, unless the DG, Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor, steps aside to let the law take its due course.
Can the power that be take action fast and convincingly on this??
#18 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 9:48 pm
You know that this person would not even qualify to be lowly clerk or security guard in Singapore government.
#19 by Richard Teo on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 9:50 pm
There seems to be a shortage of clean, credible leaders in Malaysia. That is why our P.M has to retain corrupt and tainted people to head important civil service and cabinet posts.Otherwise how do you explain appointments of the A.C.A D.G and also cabinet Ministers like Samy Vellu, Rafidah Aziz?No wonder for the past few years there were no big fish being caught for corruption.How could there be when the Head of A.C.A himself is tainted?
#20 by Godfather on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 10:11 pm
If you sack the DG for telling lies, then there will be no senior civil servants left. The politicians are the ones setting the examples – if they can get away with being economical with the truth, why can’t the heads of departments of the civil service behave in the same way ? It’s all in the rotten fish head theory.
#21 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 10:32 pm
“There is no way that a complete & thorough investigation on serious allegations of corruption can be conducted by ACA officers against DG of ACA himself, unless the DG, Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor, steps aside to let the law take its due course.†Kiasu
Even if Zulkipli were to “step aside†he could still interfere with due process – by way of ‘remote’ control, a new form of technology which allows you to track the events, freeze the frames so you could go and make the necessary changes.
The question here is who investigates the investigator?
Even if he were to “step aside†and be asked to take leave and investigation is “complete and thorough†and subsequently he is exonerated from any wrongdoing, should he be allowed to head an agency such as the Anti-Corruption Agency? The individual to lead the Agency should never be under a cloud of suspicion in the first place. He must be squeaky clean to lead an agency like the ACA.
To rewind a bit, Mahathir handpicked Zulkipli for the job. Zulkipli was a ‘perfect’ man for the job as there was already a dossier on him which records his ‘extracurricular’ activities. What better way can there be than to make the person you handpick for an important job or for promotion feel that you are also his ‘saviour’ and that he is indebted to him personally. This kind of personal loyalty more than being thicker than blood is without question and is total.
#22 by Godfather on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 10:45 pm
There is something here that I don’t quite understand. If TDM handpicked Zulkipli for the job as TDM had “a dossier which records his (Zulkipli’s) extracurricular activities”, and that therefore Zulkipli was beholden to TDM, why didn’t AAB simply reopen the case during his spat with TDM? AAB could have been elevated on moral high ground if he had done that, but instead he chose to keep Zulkipli in his present position, and even extended his tenure. What does this tell us ?
#23 by k1980 on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 10:49 pm
Be realistic of the way of life in this corrupt country– ACA Director-General Zulkipli will definitely NOT be sacked by the Abdullah administration. On the other hand, he might even be promoted to head an even more important govt department, even if the sexual assault and corruption allegations against him are found to true. The is the fact of life in Malaysia Darul Corrupt
#24 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 10:55 pm
All things considered, if I were Zulkipli I would take early retirement now rather than be forced out of office. Even if he were to be ‘exonerated’ he should be transferred out of the ACA as being unsuitable to lead the Agency.
#25 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 10:56 pm
Good question by Godfather.
AAB has its own can of worms he does not want opened.
#26 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 11:04 pm
I’m sure the sentiment expressed by k1980 is shared by many. There is a middle road, however i.e. Zulkipli would be allowed to serve his remaining tenure with the ACA, and then retire without loss of pension.
#27 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 11:06 pm
“AAB could have been elevated on moral high ground if he had done that, but instead he chose to keep Zulkipli in his present position, and even extended his tenure. What does this tell us?” Godfather
He is sleeping on the job??
#28 by Godfather on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 11:08 pm
It is more a case of AAB now understanding that the modus operandi pioneered by TDM – using the “track record” of a civil servant as leverage for his own ends – actually works well for whoever is at the helm of the country. Hence the virtues of transparency, accountability and integrity are now thrown out of the window, and has been substituted with “I scratch your back, you scratch mine”.
Nazri has now been quoted, rather unsurprisingly, as defending Zulkipli.
#29 by Godfather on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 11:12 pm
We can shout till our voices are hoarse about the head of the ACA being seen to be clean, but I agree with most of the bloggers here that there is little chance of Zulkipli resigning or being suspended or being transferred out of the ACA. Bodohland simply doesn’t work this way !
#30 by RealWorld on Thursday, 1 March 2007 - 11:26 pm
This is an immediate sacking!
#31 by undergrad2 on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 12:58 am
“It is more a case of AAB now understanding that the modus operandi pioneered by TDM – using the “track record†of a civil servant as leverage for his own ends – actually works well for whoever is at the helm of the country.â€Â
The ‘modus operandi’ was an open secret to his inner circle. There can be no doubt that Abdullah was privy to it.
Why do you think Mahathir chose Abdullah to succeed him? The ‘spat’ was unfortunate as it was not the making of Abdullah. It was the old man showing his disappointment with his handpicked successor who lacked the strong qualities of leadership needed to protect his legacy among other things.
The “track record†you refer to is not only those of key and senior government servants but more importantly of members of his own Cabinet. How do you think he managed to keep Ministers like Rafidah Aziz in tow?
#32 by mob1900 on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 3:44 am
Case of the shepard’s dog feasting on the flock ‘coz the shep’s asleep as usual.
“Masyarakat Bermaruah Bermula Dengan …. ”
a funny and huge billboard I passed thru every single day with someone’s ‘elegant’ face on it. Somebody says, “Jean Danker!” please.
#33 by sotong on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 6:30 am
People holding a position of trust, power and influence should have the highest degree of credibility and integrity.
It is shocking to see people looked up or respected these grossly immoral and unscrupulous characters. Decent people should totally distance themselves from these people.
No wonder the country is so sicked!
#34 by blueheeler on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 9:35 am
a wolf in the hen-house? how many wolves are there in the hen-house that is M’sia?
#35 by Jeffrey on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 11:17 am
“..//..Zulkipli is caught “red-handed†telling a lie (as reported by NST) that he had been cleared of serious corruption charges made against him.. … For this public lie alone, Zulkipli should be immediately sacked as ACA Director-General to restore badly-shattered confidence in the ACAâ€Â…//… per LKS
I think we can’t just call for his sacking for being caught “red handed†lying because it is debatable whether he actually lied.
The allegations of sexual crime based on police reports of a housewife Zarina Mindra Binti Abdullah were made in 1997. The police cleared him of rape or sexual criimes. RPK’s blg has featured the police report here http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/corridors.php?itemid=2740
It was not rape – just some allegations of consensual extra-marital sex, repeated abortions, allegations of assault and battery followed by criminal intimidation etc.
Former ACA officer Mohamad Ramli Manan made allegations of corruption and filed a report only last year in 2006 to the then inspector-general of police Mohd Bakri Omar.
So this means it cannot be said that police had sat on the investigations into the serious corruption allegations against him, a senior police officer, for seven long years because (unless I miss something here) corruption charges were leveled by Ramli Manan only last year in 2006.
More than 7 years ago concerned allegations by a house wife of his alleged sexual misconduct, if you will, but he has been cleared off commission of any sexual crime.
But even if hypothetically for 7 long years the relevant investigating agencies have dragged their feet in investigating him (which I have said it is not the case), this state of affairs cannot be indeterminate going on for another 10 years without finality – I think Zulkipli is fully entitled to reasonably say or presume, without an accusation of having lied, that investigations are closed or at least not pursued on grounds that allegations are baseless!
Otherwise how else can one explain in this 7 long years, he could be “appointed ACA Director-General in 2001, re-appointed in 2004 with a further extension of his tenure in 2005�
I think one should look at 2006 as starting point when Ramli Manan made allegations of corruption and filed a report only last year in 2006 to the then inspector-general of police Mohd Bakri Omar.
Why didn’t the then IG Mohd Bakri Omar investigate, which even if he had the will, would he get sufficient cooperation from investigators or will he get pressure from powerful politicians to desist from investigating?
This is where the joke is on the country and fun begins.
The ACA that normally investigates corruption charges is under none other than Zulkipli who had been its director general by more than 5 years. By that time he has, Ala TDM’s style, as alleged by some of you, probably investigated on all and sundry, from all ranks including politicians and in Edgar Hoover’s fashion kept the files tucked in his desk.
Who would dare then to antagonize him? If one dares do it, all powerful but corrupt politicians whose files and investigations are, by his grace, held in abeyance, will feel beholden to come to his assistance and quash those who intent to do him harm.
He could, with impunity, get any of his assistants to report to Bakri that after investigating Ramli Manan’s allegations, the ACA was of view that it was Ramli Manan who was “dirty†in the sense of being actuated by malice aforethought and that the allegations were baseless. He could get the politicians beholden to him to vouch to Bakri his “integrityâ€Â. What does one reasonably expect “Bakri to do?
He is technically right to say that he has been cleared of allegations of corruptions by ACA which by virtue of the agency being controlled by him as director general tantamount to the self serving procedure of himself clearing himself!
In a corrupt society where everyone’s hands are in the cookie jar, the ACA director who has record of everyone else’s fingerprints in cookie jar is a kingpin controlling by invisible strands of obligations all these denizens.
Assuming if amongst the powerful and influential section of our society comprising political and corporate elites there are more of these with fingerprints in the cookie jar than those who are “cleanâ€Â, then our Zulkipli will have more ‘friends’ than ‘foes’ and is therefore untouchable….
Our mainstream press as well as alternative media have however done a good job to publicly blow the lid of his case, which from now, is not easy to put the lid back and cover up matters.
The only course now is for Zulkipli to go on leave of absence pending investigation of Ramli Manan’s allegations by the police under our present IGP in conjunction with our AG’s department.
Ultimately it is an issue of Pak Lah’s political will to act on the outcome of such an investigation.
#36 by undergrad2 on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 8:58 pm
Zarina and Ramli may have axes to grind but that is irrelevant as to the guilt (or innocence) of the accused. Where credibility is an issue, it goes to the weight of the evidence.
The courts recognize that “Hell knows no fury than a woman scorned†– almost to the point of making it into a rule of evidence. Jeffrey QC may not be married so he may be excused for not knowing.
But Jeffery is right about there being no allegation of ‘rape’ as the word ‘rogol’ is nowhere to be found in the Report lodged by Zarina. However, ‘aggravated sexual assault’ is just as bad. Fortunately or unfortunately, the allegation is as good as the evidence tells you.
Apparently the police found no evidence of any crime committed against the person. Is Zulkipli right in saying, therefore, that he has been cleared of anything?? He is right only as far as the accused who says he is not guilty and therefore he is innocent.
#37 by undergrad2 on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 9:14 pm
To Jeffrey QC:
The common law definition of ‘rape’ is penetration without consent. What if there was penetration with consent, and consent is then withdrawn??
Was that the reason why Zarina did not lodge a rape report??
#38 by Jeffrey on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 11:09 pm
“What if there was penetration with consent, and consent is then withdrawn??” – Undergrad2
When is “then” withdrawn – during or after (the sex act), and if after how long after?
I thought it was trite that if it were during, she definitely can’t prove withdrawal of consent, and if it were after, then, with even stronger reason, she won’t be believed, and if it were way way way after, she couldn’t even prove that there was coitus, much less a forced one!
#39 by Jeffrey on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 11:14 pm
Besides, you also assume that only a married man would more likely know about “Hell knows no fury than a woman scorned†when it is more likely true that men who truly know about it are more likely to remain unmarried to a woman for this reason.
#40 by Godamn Singh on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 11:16 pm
lol
aiyo jeffrey, what he meant is during sexual intercourse (remember no penetration no sexual intercourse ) she withdrew her consent. technically this is not rape. for rape to occur, there must be fresh penetration – and without consent.
i think you’re confused.
#41 by Godamn Singh on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 11:19 pm
“I thought it was trite that if it were during, she definitely can’t prove withdrawal of consent..”
this happens all the time when sex turns rough, and consent is then withdrawn – but for there to be rape, he must pull it out first laa..
#42 by Godamn Singh on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 11:22 pm
then he must put it in laa…no penetration no rape remember??
#43 by Jeffrey on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 11:24 pm
I must be then : have no experience in such a phenomenon of withdrawal of consent during sexual intercourse. Maybe he has.
#44 by DarkHorse on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 11:40 pm
“It was not rape – just some allegations of consensual extra-marital sex, repeated abortions, allegations of assault and battery followed by criminal intimidation etc.”
Allegations??? Why do you book a hotel room with somebody who is not your wife? To have a business meeting?? Yeah, right.
#45 by WFH on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 7:00 am
I find the later comments useful and enlightening.
Will Undergrad2, Jeffrey and Godamn Singh consider publishing “Rape; For Dummies” (Malaysian version/title to avoid legal issues with the Dummies people), with Zulkipli contributing the Foreward?
I cannot recall any occasion where ANY politician or senior Govt officers have voluntarily stepped down, even aside, to facilitate investigations of allegations against themselves.
Obviously, when Nazri defended Zulkipli as innocent until proven guilty, he had in his mind some taxi matters. Else how can the de-facto law minister even think of uttering this weakest form of defending his (now-in-trouble) pal, DG of ACA?.
There will continue to be more and more clamour for all perceived wrong doings and doubtful govt contracts, and politicians, to be “referred” or “reported” to the ACA for investigation. But, now, with the DG in hot soup, irrespective of whether finally he is cleared or not, HOW?
The whole sham of the Govt having an anti-corruption agency goes down the drain. How many negative points has this episode “earned” for Malaysia in the next Tranparency International’s Corruption Index for the next, and following, years? I speculate this episode has pre-purchased the continued slide in Malaysia’s Corruption Index for the next few years? And AAB’s target was to go down to 30 in 2008. Yeah, Right! Maybe 30 from the other end.
#46 by shortie kiasu on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 11:34 am
If the woman, Zarina, “victim” involved the complaints on sexual crimes and assault allegedly committed by the DG of ACA had lodged a Police Report (Official), and the investigation concluded that there was no criminal elements in the complaints, then there should be valid religious elements in the complaints. “Khalwat” was committed in the Islamic religion, as both parties involved in the sexual rendezous are practising Muslim.
OK, if DG of ACA was not guilty of a crime in this “official” report lodged with the Police, then the case should be transferred to the Islamic Religious Dept for “Khalwat” prosecution.
The Police might have overlooked or tried to cover up the case at that time, because it involved a very senior government servant, the DG of ACA, but now that the case (official Police report) had been blown up in the open, the IGP should take necessary action to refer this serious sexual case, with or without consent from the female, to the Islamic Regious Dept for immediate action.
Obviouly, there were penetrations while they were both in the hotel room, and the Police report lodged by woman should have indicated such.
Or rather the Islamic Regious Dept should take up the case, now that it is in the open, and conduct prosecution of khalwat in the syariah court immediately against the DG of ACA, since the Islamic Dept is always keen to get the “khalwaters” into the syariah court, as proven by many such incidences in the country, past and present.
They should not wait any longer, and act fast to prove that they are fair and just in conducting their business of rooting out khalwat among the Muslims. And most of all, the political leaders of the faith, especially the PM, should be firm that khalwat cases like this one, which so obvious and probably proven, be brought to syariah court without further delay.
People and the world may then be convinced of the fairness and justice in the implementaion of civil and syariah laws in the country.
#47 by shortie kiasu on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 11:52 am
Refer to what DarkHorse Says on March 2nd, 2007 at 11:40 pm
“It was not rape – just some allegations of consensual extra-marital sex, repeated abortions, allegations of assault and battery followed by criminal intimidation etc.â€Â
Allegations??? Why do you book a hotel room with somebody who is not your wife? To have a business meeting?? Yeah, right. – DarkHorse Says.
This is an obvious case of Khalwat punishable under the Islamic law for the time being in force, whether the acts were consensual or otherwise.
#48 by pwcheng on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 5:19 pm
Good excuse for the government to establish another agency called the Anti anti corruption agency so that more of their jobless graduate can be employed. But let me tell you , with all these donkeys in the government there will be no end of one agency overseeing the other agencies. How do you expect the government to come up with something brilliant when you only have donkeys in the government service as most of them if not all are chosen because of skin colors and spoon fed from the womb to the tomb.
#49 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 4 March 2007 - 10:03 pm
“This is an obvious case of Khalwat punishable under the Islamic law for the time being in force, whether the acts were consensual or otherwise.”
But with khalwat the crime is in the fact that the couple were together without any one else present and behind closed doors. Not easy.