YB Kit,

PSCI’s chairperson Bernard Dompok has called off PSCI’s scheduled meeting based on alleged latest developments ie (a) Mohd Ramli filed a suit and (b) investigations of Zulkipli handled by task force involving police and the Attorney-General’s Chamber – http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/64278

There is no advantage in pursuing the course of challenging Bernard’s decision to cancel. Argument of defective and short notice of cancellation made unilaterally by chairperson is mere procedural, not going to substance. BN is represented by 8 out of 10 members in PSCI and, as matter of procedure, will outvote you. Whether or not Bernard “buckled down to ulterior and improper pressures” to unilaterally cancel PSCI meeting is a point cannot be proven but he has, instead, a valid point of substance that the PSCI should not duplicate investigation into issues already covered in (a) for reasons of possible sub judice and (b) above, for lack of investigative resources as compared to the task force.

Instead, you may however consider changing track and focus on frame of reference of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity (PSCI) scheduled to meet on March 12, but now cancelled.

Existing frame of reference of PSCI is too narrow – to hear “whistleblower” Mohd Ramli’s allegations against ACA DG Zulkipli and Zulkipli’s defence which is now a subject of imminent court case…

I think PSCI should transcend and rise above to address wider and broader issues on integrity versus corruption.

This is where you should bring in the issues raised in your earlier blog thread (‘Combat corruption – last opportunity for Abdullah to prove he means business’) and integrate these issues within the new frame of reference that PSCI should and will enquire into.

The basis for the PSCI to do so is grounded upon the following points and justifications: –

1. Investigations of allegations relating to ACA DG Zulkipli and Deputy Minister Datuk Mohd Johari Baharum should be viewed and dealt by PSCI together as an intregral whole of the problem of Corruption.

2. For so long as each is allowed to remain at the helm of their respective agencies without being made to take leave of absence pending conclusion of investigations – the fact that theoretically each could still exert influence over their respective agencies – ‘taint’ the independence and impartiality of the cross-investigations conducted by each agency on the other’s head, as a matter of public perception. There will always remain public suspicions, whether justified or otherwise, of the risks of each scratching the other’s back in mutual exoneration, quid pro quo. That such an arrangement is allowed to stand makes farcical the so-called war against corruption and raises serious question whether there is real commitment and political will from the top to combat it.

3. Yet something has to be done because of the seriousness of the allegations raised in these two cases. The allegations do not just relate to ordinary bribe taking that, if true, belong to the genre of corruption that debilitates and distorts the economy by way of misallocating its resources and deterring foreign investors. The allegations, if true, pertain to involvement of organized crime and top triad gangsters being let loose which pose an immediate threat to safety of our society, especially in such times of rising crime statistics and surging crime wave!

4. Against this back drop, if it were the top executive decision that the investigations mentioned in 2. above are allowed to proceed, and if these proceedings, no matter how ‘farcical’, are an executive decision and prerogative that is incontrovertible and unchallengeable, then may I humbly suggest, that as a measure of check and balance within the limiting circumstances, the PSCI should be allowed to come in and play a new and revised oversight role to oversee the investigations by having the top honchos responsible for the cross investigations – the IGP representing the police and Deputy Director General – report to PSCI periodically and receive broad directions on how investigations may be conducted and proceed in a manner as to mitigate public concerns and suspicions.

5. Related to corruption, the PSCI should bear in mind that allegations of corruption involving high officials are not limited to only cases of proving receipt of gratification and bribes. Unless there is entrapment and marked notes or willing witnesses un-cowered by gangsters, this kind of direct evidence can never be procured. What suffices, as is the case in most instances is where the accusation cannot be supported by direct evidence of any illegal gain to the decision-maker but it is a matter of reasonable inference of corrupt motive for a certain decision that had been made outside known and defined parameters normally operating for such executive decision making. Then there is a case where although there is no direct evidence of receipt of any illegal gain, there is however evidence of possession of disproportionate assets by an official that cannot be explained against his lawful income earned. In all these cases of circumstantial evidence, the PSCI should recommend immediate dismissal of the public official, even if prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act is not sustainable by law or other reasons….

6. This implies changing the terms of reference of PSCI to accommodate scope of enquiry as outlined in 4. and 5. above and persuading Bernard Dompok on the coming Monday to agree to it.

Typo error : “blonging for” should be “belonging to”.
Also assume (rightly or wrongly) a distinction exists between Royal commission and an ordinary commission. Whether or not there’s distinction, I am not too sure. But what I am sure is that there ought to exist a body that can ‘check and balance’ and oversee the cross investigations by the relevant agencies by reason of the peculiar and exceptional circumstances that have arisen of their respective heads being simultaneously implicated by allegations.