Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) director-general Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor and former top ACA officer and “whistleblower”, Mohamad Ramli Manan’s full preparedness to appear before the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity (PSCI) on March 12 is most commendable.
Zulkipli told Bernama that he was ready to appear before the Parliamentary Select Committee on March 12 with detailed evidence against the serious corruption allegations made against him, declaring: “I have the confidence and courage to face the problem because I believe in God and only a person with guilt needs to be afraid.”
Ramli in his interview with the New Straits Times “vowed to tell all” to the Select Committee, declaring: “There is nothing to hide. I will be there.”
Zulkipli and Ramli should honour their public undertaking “to tell all” to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity as any refusal or reluctance by anyone of them to do so will immediately be an adverse reflection on his credibility and integrity.
The Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan and the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patil should also appear before the Select Committee to explain the reasons for the dilatory and unsatisfactory investigations into the serious corruption allegations against Zulkipli in the past ten years.
Gani had said that he had instructed the police to “speed up” investigations into the serious corruption allegations against Zulkipli, while Musa has proposed a task force comprising members from the police, ACA and the AG’s chambers to investigate into the serious corruption allegations against Zulkipli.
Musa’s proposal is quite extraordinary to say the least, raising many vexing questions, including:
- If the investigations are related to serious corruption allegations against Zulkipli in connection with his tenure as Johore Police Chief from 1996, why had such investigations taken ten long years without any outcome. Had there been any abuses of power and improper interference with the investigations in the past 10 years?
- If the investigations into the serious corruption allegations are related to Zulkipli’s tenure as ACA director-general, why is the police involved to the extent of the IGP proposing a task force comprising the Police, ACA and AG’s Chambers to conduct the probe? This raises the question which I posed yesterday — “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?”
- If investigations into serious corruption allegations against a top police or ACA officer must involve three departments, viz. Police, ACA and AG”s chambers, must similar multi-agency investigations be involved if the subject is a Minister, Deputy Minister, Chief Minister or Mentri Besar?
- The IGP’s proposal for a tripartite task force comprising the police, ACA and AG’s chambers to investigate into the serious corruption allegations against Zulkipli is most extraordinary as it would open the way for the AG’s chambers to be involved in criminal investigations apart from admitting lack of confidence that the police itself is capable or competent to conduct such investigation on its own. Is it proper and desirable for the AG’s chambers to set the precedent usurping or sharing police functions of criminal investigations?
The appearance of the Attorney-General and the Inspector-General of Police before the Select Committee will help throw light on these vexing questions, and I will propose at the Select Committee meeting of March 12 that a special meeting be held for both to appear before it.
The comment by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz is most inappropriate.
Nazri said Zulkipli will not be asked to take leave of absence or even be suspended while investigations into the allegations are ongoing – and that this is provided under the General Orders (GO) governing the conduct of civil servants.
Nazri is the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of the ACA and it is most unfortunate that he seems to be totally impervious to the imperative that the ACA director-general must be placed in a special category in such circumstances — that he must not only be clean and incorrupt but must be seen and perceived to be clean and incorrupt if the ACA and the country’s anti-corruption campaign are not to be reduced into a joke and a laughing-stock.
For this reason, not only no one who is tainted by corruption allegations should be appointed to the position of ACA director-general, once serious corruption allegations of corruption are made against the ACA director-general, he should be replaced and transferred to another posting until the full outcome of the investigations.
Nazri should be making such a proposal instead of defending a most inappropriate status quo pertaining to the office of ACA director-general.
#1 by izrafeil on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 12:58 pm
To quote Musa Rahman “who says public servants can’t own businesses?”
#2 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 3:11 pm
Zulkifli declared: “I have the confidence and courage to face the problem because I believe in God…..”
Well, don’t murderers believe in God too? That’s an irrelevant (irreverent) argument. Like Undergrad2 always say, don’t drag God into the picture as a crutch or a convenience.
“Nazri said Zulkipli will not be asked to take leave of absence or even be suspended while investigations into the allegations are ongoing” – Nazri again! This ‘racist’ fella simply has no common sense nor an ethical sense of right and wrong! THis is always the problem when law schools (or, pointedly, his law school!) lower their standards and do not incorporate ethical standards into their teaching!
YB, kudos to you for suggesting ACA DG, AG and IGP appear separately to answer before the PSCI. THe case is far too fishy… As a matter of fact, the stench is that of rotten fish.
It is high time Parliament behaves like a Parliament and parliamentary powers are exercised to safeguard the integrity of the nation’s institutions. I presume YB you are in this PSCI.
What were those PArliamentary Committees headed by YB Shahrir which investigated so many things but produced (???) almost nothing?
#3 by greenacre on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 3:50 pm
Endangered talks about parliament taking action. Well the notion of separation of powers is indeed ideal and to be cherished.
Separation means legislative /executive /judicial branches are indeed separate for real. However in malaysia only the judiciary is separate the rest i.e legislature and executive are so convoluted and overlapped that the word separation itself is a misnomer. Malaysian electorate only thinks in terms of economic pie and how to put a hand in it.
#4 by Bigjoe on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 4:12 pm
The truth is we Malaysian already expect people like these to be corrupted. Decades of Dr. M rules have made corruption acceptable. Its so bad that when our PM, long known as Mr. Clean before he become PM, become corrupted too, we don’t even really bat an eye. Instead we worry more about his leadership abilities and economic programs.
Corruption is a pathetic national shame.
#5 by pwcheng on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 6:01 pm
Not too long ago that Nazri fellow was investigated by the ACA for alledged corruption while he was the entrepreneur minister but was subsequently cleared of the charges.
Can anybody relate at that time who was the DG of the ACA and if this guy Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor was the ACA chief then, the whole episode stinks because nobody at the top is going to do anything because of scratching each others back. This is what is happening in the whole of UMNO and the government service and at the end of the day the familiar connotation of “semau ok” will be repeated.
This type of scenario is becoming too familiar and frightening and it is the rakyat that needs God help and not those that are corrupted and committing sins.
#6 by pwcheng on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 6:35 pm
It is high time we put our head together and I believe there are still many good, intelligent and loyal citizen of all races who are sincere in wanting to see the country in good hands and who loathed corruption which will ultimately destroy the whole country.
We must put our heads together to think of how to put an end to this highly corrupted government. This country is a de facto of the Philippines during the Marcos regime and we must learn from the Philippinos of “Peoples Power” to drive away these evils; Otherwise we will all suffer like the Philippinos, sending our young girls to some foreign countries as maids.
#7 by dragon88 on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 6:45 pm
Maybe, the only way you can reduce corruption in Malaysia is to make ACA answerable to Agong or Chief Justice. If PM and some of his ministers are corrupted, there is no way to get this present working.
#8 by undergrad2 on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 7:19 pm
HORNBILL: “…..don’t drag God into the picture as a crutch or a convenience.”
Yes. Leave the Old Man alone. Life is already complicated without Him – what’s with Zulkipli and others like him who would appear before anybody who would care to listen, to say that those prime landed properties and stocks were not his but his second wife’, his grilfriend’s, his wife driver’s and his long time driver’s and his mother’s etc.
Further, is ownership prima facie evidence of anything but ownership??
#9 by undergrad2 on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 7:31 pm
Mahathir was very smart when he used the need of the public to know that members of his Cabinet are free from allegations of corruption by making them do declarations. I believe those declarations were submitted to him personally – and nobody else has records of it.
He, of course, believes that if you cannot ‘fight’ corruption
(because you ‘re not free from allegations of corruption yourself) use those who are corrupt to do your bidding.
#10 by undergrad2 on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 8:13 pm
It is time the Malaysian government comes out with a strong commitment in its drive to rid the country of systematic and endemic corruption. There is no dearth of models to follow: Hong Kong’s ICAC model, Singapore’s CPIB model, Thailand’s NCCC model or the United States’ OGE multi-agency model. The Mongolian model?
Or it could come out with its own model since the present ‘model’ has failed to keep corruption in check. Corruption may continue to be a fact of life everywhere but it is important that corruption not be a way of life in Malaysia.
We would like to hear our Fat Lady speak on the negative effects of corruption on international investment in Malaysia. Or is that too much to expect??
#11 by shortie kiasu on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 10:26 pm
I support the proposal that besides the DG ACA, the whistle blower Mohamad Ramli Manan, the AG and the IGP should appear before the PSCI to give facts and evidence.
The hearing conducted by PSCI should be opened to the interested public to attend.
Instead of what had been suggested by Nazri that action to be taken against the whistle-blower, the whistle-blower should be protected, immunity given against any legal proceeding against him.
There are lots of hooha so far, but we have yet to see any real and affirmative decision or action on the part of the Government.
The ignonimous foot-dragging by the authority only further add to the negative image of the authority in the eyes of the international community.
#12 by Godamn Singh on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 11:07 pm
What sort of authority is given to the Committee? Can Zulkipli refuse to appear, or if he appears refuses to answer some of the questions?
#13 by Godamn Singh on Friday, 2 March 2007 - 11:09 pm
..and if he agrees to appear before the Committee is Zulkipli allowed to bring his lawyer along?
#14 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 12:35 am
..///….What sort of authority is given to the Committee?…///… Godamn Singh is asking the right questions….
I would have thought that parliamentary committees consist of smaller groups of MPs attending functions, which the larger Houses themselves are not well fitted to perform.
Whilst they can carry out investigations, hear witnesses, sift evidence, discuss matters in detail and formulate reasoned conclusions, the subject under enquiry ordinarily pertain to some important issue of public interest enquired into.
Through such a process of committees’ deliberations there is a two-way traffic of Parliament being provided an opportunity through committees’ findings to be better informed of community’s pulse, problems and attitudes and conversely the public too has better awareness of matters considered by the Parliament through its committee.
A parliamentary SELECT committee has an even narrower scope: it is normally formed for a specific purpose with a specific frame of reference. Once a select committee has carried out its investigation and presented its final report, it ceases to exist.
(Our parliamentary select committee on integrity seems to last forever since integrity versus corruption is a forever an issue here).
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz who started this Select Committee business appears not very sure as well.
This is what was reported in an interview with The Sun : http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=12334
“The prime minister wants a Parliament where we debate everything. He told me because our majority is big, we must be seen to be listening. I understood what he meant. I did not look at any particular model, such as Westminster, which we should follow. I think we have to build our own model, through trial and error and then we just have to move on in accordance with the needs in Malaysia. We don’t have to copy any other model. I saw the need to have a select committee, and I talked to the PM and he agreed to it. That is why now you see a lot of select committees. There are two now and coming to three. (Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code, National Unity and National Integrity)…â€Â
Little did Nazri realise then that when he said “I did not look at any particular model, such as Westminster, which we should follow. I think we have to build our own model, through trial and errorâ€Â, our Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity has been slowly turned and shaped by our YB LKS towards the direction of becoming a very powerful “all purpose†body, conducting itself like a court or quasi judicial institution (as when Zulkipli and Ramli are summoned to investigate allegations of crime and corruption) and also, at the same time, functioning like a kind of Ombudsman’s ‘watch dog ’ (as when an attempt is made to summon the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan and the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patil) to ascertain even they are doing their job!
In August last year as a result of a public tiff between Jasin MP Datuk Mohd Said Yusof and Jasin Customs director-general Datuk Abdul Rahman Abdul Hamid both appeared before the parliamentary select committee on Integrity upon being summoned which resulted in decision being taken by government that politicians and senior civil servants would no longer be allowed to buy cars confiscated by the Customs Department.
Then it was because Mohd Said was a member of parliament and the allegation of him telling Customs to “close one eye†bears directly on the integrity of parliamentary members and by extension parliament itself.
The present situation involving Zulkipli and Ramli is very different. Neither is a parliamentarian.
The Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity is playing the role of an independent ACA/police all rolled into one with the other role of something like the American equivalent of the Grand Jury to enquire as to guilt or innocence of Zulkipli in relation to Ramli’s allegations.
In proposing to summon the IGP and AG, our Parliamentary Select Committee on integrity is also acting like the US equivalent of the Congress having congressional hearing to determine if top public officials have performed or failed to perform their public duties.
Whilst all these developments or evolution of the role of Parliamentary Select Committee on integrity may be good, and to the chagrin of Nazri, advancing the Cause of public accountability and transparency, the question however still remains to be asked – by what parliamentary practice or bylaws or constitutional practice, has our select committee these kind of expanded powers? In a word, has it – to borrow one of Undergrad2’s favourite legal jargon – the locus standi to enquire into these areas?
Without knowing the answer to this first basic question, it is difficult to try answering Godamn Singh’s follow up second question, “Can Zulkipli refuse to appear, or if he appears, refuses to answer some of the questions?
Now the same may be asked, with greater interest, of what happens if the IGP and AG also refuse to appear : are they guilty of contempt of parliament, if they ignore the summoning on grounds that the parliamentary select committee on integrity has no authority, frame of reference or locus standi to summon them?
#15 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 4:07 am
“No one simply goes to a police station and files a sexual assault report against a senior police officer. If there was no case, why didn’t the police take action against the person who filed the report? ” as per Aliran
Filing a police report is one thing but showing that there is a prima facie case (needed before police investigation could proceed further) for crime or crimes alleged to have been committed, is another.
Apparently, the police report was filed in good faith. How could the police then take action against the party who lodged the report? The police would want to investigate if the party’s intention is solely to defame or discredit the party named in the report i.e. report was made mala fide. Allegations made against a public official could themselves be the end rather than the means.
In this case a woman making a police report about her own sexual promiscuity , is hardly the kind of report a woman would want to make – unless we’re talking of a woman scorned. A woman scorned can make a good witness.
Mere allegations are what they say i.e. “mere allegations” a case of he says she says. For these allegations to then proceed to the next stage i.e. prosecution, there must be prima facie evidence which the AG could act upon. It looks like police investigation was ‘incomplete’ in the sense that the AG had called for more information.
What police investigation has revealed so far is perhaps nothing more than the fact that Zulkipli had been seeing this woman and had some kind of relationship which went from bad to worse when he tried to end the relationship. Having a sexual relationship with someone other than your wife is not a crime.
#16 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 4:46 am
Pak Lah, I hope you understand. Integrity is a great leveller. No one is exempt as the following news in BBC online shows. If there is so much as a breach in your personal integrity, a domino effect cascades and knocks everybody else down. That was what happened during TDM’s empire! This tragedy looks set to repeat itself in your brief tenure! Civil servants, politicians, MPs, judges persist with their their corrupted pursuits with impunity while you golf, dine and sleep through your brief term. If unaltered you will go down in Malaysian history with 3 firsts: 3S’s (pronounced ‘asses’)
1) The shortest PM’ship
2) The stupidest PM’ship
3) The sleepiest PM’ship
“BBC-Top judge charged with exposure”
“A Court of Appeal judge has been charged with exposing himself, British Transport Police (BTP) have said.
Lord Justice Richards has been charged with two counts of exposure relating to allegations of two separate incidents on trains in south-west London in 2006.
He was arrested on 19 January after a woman complained to police that a man had exposed himself to her.
Sir Stephen Richards, 56, from Wimbledon, south London, has overseen several high-profile hearings.
They include the case brought by the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, seeking action against police officers over the killing of the Brazilian at Stockwell tube station in south London.
Sir Stephen, a married father-of-three, was bailed to appear at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on March 8.
He was arrested by BTP following an undercover operation.
Sir Stephen became a High Court Judge in 1997 before taking up his current role in 2005. “
#17 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 7:03 am
“What sort of authority is given to the Committee?†asked Godamn Singh in his posting of March 2nd, 2007 at 11:07 pm.
That’s a relevant question.
Select Committees are appointed from time to time by either or both Houses to examine or investigate particular topical and public issues, often within a time-frame and frame of reference set by the House and cease to exist upon their assignment completed, and report made to parliament and the government.
As our Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity (“PSCIâ€Â) looks into issues of “integrity†in a political and cultural milieu in which corruption is systemic, it looks like its enquiry could go on forever, till Kingdom come, and yet can never be completed!
In the tiff between Said Yusof and Jasin Customs director-general Datuk Abdul Rahman Abdul Hamid, they did appear before the PSCI, when summoned, which resulted in a report to and a decision being taken by government that politicians and senior civil servants would no longer be allowed to buy cars confiscated by the Customs Department.
The salient point is that Mohd Said is a member of parliament, and earlier Customs director-general complained of him asking his department to “close one eye†on a seized timber consignment that bears directly to the issue of parliamentarians’ – and by extension Parliament’s integrity!
The allegations of “whistleblowerâ€Â, ex ACA officer Mohamad Ramli Manan against ACA director-general Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor stands on different plane. Neither is a parliamentarian, parliament is not even involved.
If corruption is a public issue, the investigation of it is for the police and ACA to conduct. If there is no public confidence that these investigating agencies are efficacious or serious in investigating, it does not imply a parliamentary select committee like the PSCI has either the power or the resources to do a better job!
Ironically the PSCI has doubled up to act as if it were also :-
1. a Quasi judicial tribunal to enquire and determine the charges of crime and corruption (in the case between Zulkipli and Ramli) when the enquiry should be done by the courts;
2. a powerful all-purpose ‘watch dog’ institution to conduct Ombudsman’s enquiry and summon even the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan and the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patil to appear before and answer to it – like the US equivalent of “Congressional hearings†to summon top public officials to answer to it.
From where and whence has the PSCI (to borrow Undergrad2’s legal jargon) the locus standi (legal authority) to do all these things?
Which is why it is difficult to answer Godamn Singh’s further question, “Can Zulkipli refuse to appear, or if he appears refuses to answer some of the questions?â€Â
#18 by WFH on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 7:17 am
All the connections between the various Govt agencies, their organisation and operationall heads, their Ministers, remind me of Mario Puzo’s “The Godfather” where everyone is connected in some strange ways, where the interconnects can be consructive, but more likely, destructive. Let’s see which one amongst the ACA, Police, AG, Chief secretary, Nazri, etc will be the first to tremble and play out any of the others. Not forgeting, too, the case of the Mongolian. Then we’ll have a real sizzler, Made-in-Malaysia.
Can’t we hope for some principles and righteousness from anyone in leadership in Malaysia?
HELLO……? Anybody there?
#19 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 7:18 am
Even the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz in charge of parliament is probably not sure of what is the purpose and function of parliamentary select committee.
He said this in an interview by The Sun, “The prime minister wants a Parliament where we debate everything. He told me because our majority is big, we must be seen to be listening. I understood what he meant. I did not look at any particular model, such as Westminster, which we should follow. I think we have to build our own model, through trial and error and then we just have to move on in accordance with the needs in Malaysia. We don’t have to copy any other model. I saw the need to have a select committee, and I talked to the PM and he agreed to it. That is why now you see a lot of select committees. There are two now and coming to three. (Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code, National Unity and National Integrity.)†– see link : http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=12334
Perhaps Nazri would now have some misgivings about his open-ended approach – “I did not look at any particular model, such as Westminster, which we should follow. I think we have to build our own model†– when our ‘own model’ , at least as far as Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity goes, is fast evolving into (or some may say, hijacked to become) a very powerful institution, tripling up all functions of police investigation, court hearing, ‘watch dog’ Ombudsman, all rolled into one, of an indeterminate time frame and open ended frame of reference on anything to do not just with Parliament’s integrity but integrity of elected or appointed public officials, politicians, indeed uintegrity of national and public life etc, one of the kind in the world.
This is One Up for the Rakyat of Malaysia : Malaysia Boleh!
#20 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 8:00 am
Can the transcript of proceedings before the Parliamentary Select Committee be used as evidence in a court of law?
#21 by Godamn Singh on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 8:15 am
“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?” as per WHF
zulkipli would get an F from me. the first no-no is you do not book a hotel room in your name or arrive at the hotel car park in your car and pay for the parking and keep the ticket so you could reimburse yourself later.
then you must not be seen together in the hotel lobby talking to each other, or in the coffee house or having high tea together.
third, you must not send your driver to buy your rubber at 7-11 around the corner.
fourth, be careful not to leave your DNA on her dress
fifth, when she protests i.e. withdraws her consent to sex, never pull out laa… not the whole way! half way can!
that about completes rape for dummies – things not to do.
#22 by Godamn Singh on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 8:17 am
oh yes, in case you have the foresight not to book the hotel room in your name, not to pay for it later using your credit card or ask your driver to pay using his credit card.
#23 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 8:46 am
Well thats about right for “Dummies” as the clever ones do it (rape) in abandoned housing estates (not hotel).
#24 by taikohtai on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 10:14 am
I think the real tragedy here is not that the corrupted ones are getting away with their misplaced sense of ethics but that the Rakyat is letting them do so and continue to tolerate such abuses.
Looks like the ones being screwed are ‘enjoying’ it and think that it is just desert! Remember when whole masses of North Koreans simply die from starvation because they don’t know what to do? They can’t fight, they don’t know how to fight and they simply submit.
Same case in Malaysia??
#25 by madmix on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 10:28 am
Morals and ethics means nothing in this country. People in high office can get away with anything as long as they are not convicted. The standard reply is: he has not been tried in a court of law and found guilty, so he should not be touched. This principle applies only to the powerful but not others. How many suspected criminals are serving resticted residency or jailed in Simpang Renggam? If youn can put a suspected criminal away without trial. why not a top official. They should be send to Simapng as well.
#26 by shortie kiasu on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 12:06 pm
The task force set up by the IGP to investigate the allegations against the DG of ACA will be more effective in getting to the bottom of the issues.
We should let the IGP conduct his job and give him the fullest support, hopefully at the end of the day the truth will prevail.
PSCI will hopefully complement the job of the task force and contribute to the early conclusion of the investigation so that every will be satisfied at the end of the day.
#27 by Ray on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 1:00 pm
Rakyats >>High Time to Reveal the Reality of Umno 50 yrs of National Struggling History”If the Attorney General doesn’t order ACA Crooks Heads indicted even after all those Proven evidence/witnesses “it means that the entire law enforcement establishment in Malaysia is a partner to these crimes be it cas tin Stone ” and the good news for Murid2 in National History Textbook.
ACA equates to Umno BN Govenment Cultured Core Policies Values and Lobang Assets Managenent .
We are immuned to this BN Cancerous Diseases and their degrading
moral values of all sort ie…Dicsriminative education policy ,Inequalities and all the rest of daily Unfair Constitationals indulgings towards Righteous Rakyats Phural society
Yet you can see Umnoputras/cronyputras Lies /boastful about
Malaysia Multi-Racial is so perfect example for world adaption.
Umno politicals motives can not be Trusted at all as Corruption to its Core>>NoWay Out
Rakyats we really needed a SET of Core Values For National Unity …Economy Growth Equality for mutaulity harmonious coexistence in these phural society of Malaysian thro A New Regime of DAP /PKR Oppostion Visions regardless of race religion and language.for /by/of the Rakyats
Ray sign off….
#28 by pwcheng on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 1:20 pm
Undergrad2 said “Having a sexual relationship with someone other than your wife is not a crime “.
That is true, but under the Syriah law, don’t you think they should be charged for khalwat???
#29 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 7:10 pm
PDRM, ACA and our AG are concerned with investigation and prosecution of secular criminal laws and not religious/syariah criminal laws (under jurisdiction of religious officers).“Having a sexual relationship with someone other than your wife†a species of what is described as “fornification†is a crime in religious God ordained but not secular man made laws. Let’s keep what Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor has done or not done within focus of our secular criminal laws. If he has done something wrong by secular laws and not prosecuted, then lets seek a redress – within secular laws and not try to secure redress by resorting to religious laws, which is not the issue here. Unless you are the type who believe that laws should enforce sexual morality, let’s not pursue this line of action.
#30 by premkumar on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 11:38 pm
The allegations are not fresh. The revival seems to be the order of the day. The appointment of ACA Director General is not a simple matter. He has to be vetted officially and the vetting must be seen to be done so thoroughly as not to leave any grey areas. It is obvious that his thrice re-appointed tenures have deprived others next in line. The question then which begs to be considered, was he the exclusive capable civil servant that could run the ACA? Was there no one else mentored by him to replace him? This person has to appear before a specially appointed committee to answer. To comment would be sub-judice. However it is interesting to note that as a matter of interpretation that the minister in charge of ACA has already made known that since the ACA DG is appearing before the Committee, he would not be suspended as he would be required if he was charged formally. Let us see how matters unfold hereon. The world will be watching.