Dare ACA or MACC answer like this?

    Q: How does the ICAC maintain its independence?

    A: We are independent. There is nothing to maintain.

This is from the Sunday Star interview with Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) deputy commissioner and head of operations Daniel Li to illustrate the difference between ICAC and Malaysia anti-corruption body, whether the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) or the soon-to-be MACC.

I quoted this Q & A in Parliament during the debate on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC).

I asked which Malaysian anti-corruption chief would dare to answer with such insouciance and categorical assurance without any hesitation or shadow of doubt about the independence of the Malaysian anti-corruption body?

Unthinkable! Only last Thursday, the No. 2 in the ACA was publicly admitting that the ACA was being perceived as a “lapdog” of the authorities!

This was my answer to attacks from UMNO MPs in the debate for my criticism of Daniel Li who had praised the MACC Bill as even better than Hong Kong anti-corruption legislation and had gone on to praise the “determination” of the Malaysian Government to fight corruption.

I said I accepted Donald Li as an authority on ICAC and the battle against corruption in Hong Kong but that does not make him an authority on the MACC Bill or the corruption situation in Malaysia.

In my speech, I said when standing up to debate the MACC Bill, I had four images following the day-to-day developments in the country after the first reading of the Bill last Wednesday:

(1) First the pervasiveness and the far-reaching effects, including lethal consequences, of corruption arising from the Malaysiakini (10/12/08): report “Landslide survivor: We are victims of corruption”, which stated:

“A furious Ungku Farid Ungku Abdul, 54, did not hesitate in identifying the cause – and culprits – of last Saturday’s landslide in Bukit Antarabangsa.

“’We are victims of the corruption in Malaysia’, alleged Farid, a businessman, whose house was one of the 14 destroyed in the incident.”

Another tragedy that came quickly to mind was the latest road carnage in the express bus North-South Expressway (NSE) crash in Tangkak which killed 10 and injured 14 the previous Sunday.

(2) The irrelevance of the MACC following the Malaysiakini (13/12/08) report: “Law: Time for Supp oldies to ship out”

I was not referring to the SUPP deputy president, Tan Sri Law Hien Ding’s speech at the SUPP triennial delegates conference (TDC) on Saturday to ask the “old-guard leadership” of SUPP to have the courage to let go of power before SUPP reaches a point of no return, but his open admission of the corruption of money politics in the country’s election system, when he said:

“The 2006 Sarawak election and the 2008 general election struck a blow at old politics, and left us confronted with its legacy. A legacy of the old way that said elections had to be bought; spending could be reckless; there was no need to invest in the future because the present was all that matters.

“That is one legacy which we don’t need and must get rid of. In its place, we must acknowledge ourselves and tell the people that money politics is corruption and that vote-buying is a ‘No No’. Tell them that their future and that of their generations to come should not be sold for it has no price.”

The MACC Bill before Parliament has absolutely nothing to say about curbing the corruption of politics particularly in general elections and by-elections.

(3) Malaysiakini (11.12.08): “Dr.M: Vision 2020 now doubtful”

I did not want to debate the former Prime Minister’s pessimism that Malaysia could become a developed nation in 12 years’ time – I had said in Parliament in April 2006 in the debate on the Ninth Malaysia Plan that Malaysia has gone “off-track” with regard to the economic growth targets of Vision 2020 – or the Vision 2020 objective to create a Bangsa Malaysia. I referred to the Vision 2020 objective of Malaysia as a fully moral and ethical society, which must mean a corruption-free society.

(4) After the first reading of the MACC bill last Wednesday, New Straits Times carried the headline: “Abu Kassim: Lapdog tag won’t stick any more” quoting the ACA deputy director-general Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamed when commenting that five bodies will scrutinize the MACC. On the same day, there was news of the indictment of former Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian and his family members on a host of corruption charges. The question that cropped up was whether with the MACC, the anti-corruption laws and systems would be strong enough where such high-profile “big fishes” could be arrested and prosecuted in Malaysia?

For me, the debate on the MACC was a déjà vu for eleven years ago in 1997, the country was lifted up by the hope and even euphoria that at long last, there was going to be an all-out war against corruption with new anti-corruption laws and repeated assurances from top government leaders that not only the “ikan bilis” but the “big fishes” and “sharks” would be brought to book for “grand corruption”.

The national media and relevant stakeholders, including Umno MPs and Ministers, were excited by the proposed anti-corruption reforms which was spearheaded by the then Acting Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim during the two-month leave of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

A remarkable consensus and even unanimity on an all-out war against corruption was forged after three civil society initiatives in the heady month of July 1997 on a proposed new anti-corruption law to give bite to the campaign to eradicate corruption.

Heading the rio was the first Round Table Conference on Corruption and Assembly of Voices in Petaling Jaya on 13th July 1997, which I had convened as Parliamentary Opposition Leader, to create a new culture of integrity in political life and public service with zero tolerance for corruption. It was a distinguished gathering of Malaysians (though many have now left us), personages who had been concerned about corruption and integrity over the decades, including people like Tan Sri Ahmad Nordin, the most famous Auditor-General in Malaysian history; Tan Sri Harun Hashim, the first and most famous Director-General of the ACA when it was formed four decades ago; Dr. Syed Hussein Alatas, Malaysia’s most famous authority on corruption and others like Tunku Abdul Aziz, Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, Tan Sri Samad Ismail, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, Dr. Jomo K.S., Gurmit Singh, Prof Hamdan Adnan and Ruhanie Ahmad, then Chairman of the Barisan Backbenchers’ Club.

On 19th July 1997, a second important civil society initiative towards the same objective to strengthen the national integrity system was taken when the Barisan Backbenchers’ Club, together with Institut Kajian Dasar (IKD), Asian Strategic and Leadership Institute (ASLI) and the Centre for Leadership and Development Studies (CELDES), brought together political parties, government agencies, the private sector, trade unions, the consumer movement and NGOs in the historic “Consensus Against Corruption” Conference. MPs from both sides of the House attended this meeting, which was declared open by the then Education Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and closed by the then Foreign Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

The third civil society initiative was the Round Table (II) on the Anti-Corruption Bill on 27th July 1997.
But by the third civil society initiative in a matter of a fortnight, the promise of a new “dawn for national integrity” was crushed, with the arrival of sudden “spring” which not only ended, but saw the onset of immediate “winter”.

This was my observation in my speech in Parliament on the Anti-Corruption Bill on 28th July 1997:

“Overnight, however, the climate seems to have changed, and this can be discerned from the changed atmosphere in a space of a few weeks – from the first Round Table Conference on Corruption held in Petaling Jaya on July 13 and the Consensus Against Corruption Conference held at Putra World Trade Centre on July 19 on the one hand and the Round Table on the Anti-Corruption Bill yesterday on the other.

“It would not be wrong to say that the climate appears to be quite “wintry” and I know for instance of mass media which have scrapped plans to provide full support to the all-out war against corruption because of the sudden change of climate, and the enthusiasm they have shown for this crusade seems to have withered away.

“In Malaysia, spring is very short before winter sets in. This is very sad.
“However, this is the challenge to all Malaysians who are committed to the cause of integrity in political life and public service – that they must be able to sustain their commitment regardless of the season, whether spring, summer, autumn or winter.”

Why did the 1997 “spring” for anti-corruption proved to be so short-lived? This was because Dr. Mahathir Mohamad returned from his two-month leave on 23rd July 1997 and he made it very clear his disapproval for Anwar’s campaign to push for an effective and meaningful anti-corruption law.
When the 1997 ACA was debated in Parliament, Malaysia was ranked No. 32 in the 1996 Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI). In the past 12 years, Malaysia had plunged 15 places to No. 47 in the 2008 TI CPI. In this period, Malaysia’s CPI score had hovered between 5.02 in 1996 and 5.1 in 2008 (10 perceived as “highly clean” while 0 perceived as “highly corrupt) – while other Asian countries have either improved both their rankings or scores or both, viz:


    1996 – 7 (8.80)
    2008 – 4 (9.2)

Hong Kong

    1996 – 18 (7.01)
    2008 – 12 (8.1)


    1996 – 17 (7.05)
    2008 – 18 (7.3)


    1996 – 29 (4.98)
    2008 – 39 (5.7)

South Korea

    1996 – 27 (5.02)
    2008 – 40 (5.6)


    1996 – 26 (5.32)
    2008 – 47 (5.1)

Malaysia’s CPI score in 1996 at 5.32 was the best in the 14-year series of the TI CPI from 1995 to 2008, i.e. better than any time after the passage of the 1997 ACA. Why is this so?

In my speech, I said the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi wants to fulfill three reform pledges on anti-corruption, restore the independence of the judiciary and establish an efficient and professional world-class police service before he steps down from office next March.

DAP, just like the other component parties in Pakatan Rakyat, would want to give as much support as possible to ensure the accomplishment of these three reforms. However, we cannot give blanket support or endorse proposals which are inimical to these reform objectives.

I had given notice to move five amendments to the MACC to provide greater fire-power in the battle against corruption, strengthen the independence of the MACC from the Executive and reinforce the oversight powers of Parliament.

However, the question before the House and the nation is simple and straightforward – If Abdullah has no political will to conduct an all-out war against corruption in his heydays as Prime Minister in the past five years, will the MACC Bill he is putting on the statute book in his last three months in office end up as a lame-duck law?

I put this question direct to Abdullah, who was in his seat in Parliament when I spoke. But he was expressionless.

Finally, I asked Abdullah how the MCAA could have credibility, not only with the many blemishes in the Bill but also at a time when nothing could be done to eradicate the worst money politics in Umno in the run-up to the Umno party elections next March.

  1. #1 by OrangRojak on Monday, 15 December 2008 - 11:00 pm

    Does Daniel Li charge by the word?
    I thought all Malaysian chiefs answered with such insouciance and categorical assurance.
    I shouldn’t say anything bad, he’s done really well since winning Malaysian Idol. It just goes to show what a person can accomplish if they really believe in themselves.
    Well done Daniel, keep up the good work!

  2. #2 by hawk on Monday, 15 December 2008 - 11:03 pm

    Whether ACA is independent or not or MACC will be independent or not mainly depends on the personality, integrity and resoluteness of the Chief Commissioner. If a useless fella who is a political dog is appointed by the King on the advice of the always corrupt Umno President, ACA or MACC will always be an Umno’s lapdog.

    That is why the selection of the C.Commissioner must go through a process of interview by the Parliamentary Select Comm.

    Dolah’s introduction of the MACC Bill is like building a house in which he will not see to live in it. What makes he thinks his successor would love to live in that house that he has built.

  3. #3 by aiD_kamikuP on Monday, 15 December 2008 - 11:11 pm

    In Bolehland, where accountability is never in the mindset and logic is perverted for self-preservation, it is not hard to fathom that categorical answers like these can only be heard whenever head honchos are in denial.

  4. #4 by monsterball on Monday, 15 December 2008 - 11:40 pm

    Even tsunami and volcanic eruptions are caused by man made selfishness and with no respect to nature…animals and other living things that help the good earth..stay calm and in good condition.
    People resigned from blaming governments….because so much have been said and who are the culprits…it’s USA..Russia foremost..with China…Iran..North Korea ……they could not care less. USA government is now blaming others.
    Here in Malaysia…houses falls like domino bricks from hill tops…few times..and yearly floods….no improvement at all…and road accidents…is sickening…where trucks …lorries and long trailers are lumped up with cars and motor bikes…all into one road…is real sickening.
    Government never build roads to separate them..like in Europe…40 years ago. UMNO is a real sick braggart….no management… money greedy face government….just like to show off with expensive cars and titles…..and it takes idiots from BN…to say…”it’s due to nature”

  5. #5 by hiro on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 12:59 am

    I wonder what Anwar meant when he said that he’s giving the MACC Bill a conditional support and further expressing that it is “difficult process” which he understood as a Deputy Prime Minister – as reported by Malaysiakini.

    Frankly I find that quite surprising. He may have had to compromise being in UMNO, but now that he’s out of it, what’s the catch?

    I imagine Pakatan is in a difficult situation – to support the bill or not? What if certain BN MPs don’t support the bill? It will fail and we have no reform at all. Yet, what’s the point of having a reform when it will continue to be subject to interference by the Executive?

    My take of the situation is if the Bill does not pass, then BN MPs have more to answer about failed reform than Pakatan MPs, who is just doing the job to get things right. On the contrary, if Pakatan supports the Bill, BN controlled media will have a field day playing up the support should the need to criticise the reform arises in the future.

    Let BN thrash out their differences. Malaysians should not compromise on half reform just because it’s a deal between Badawi, Najib and UMNO.

  6. #6 by HB Lim on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 1:05 am

    If there is political will to be a responsible and accountable government and to wipe out corruption, the present anti-corruption laws would have been sufficient. Without that political will, no amount of new legislations would change a thing. With UMNO still in the helm with their patronage system, corruption will be here to stay. The only solution is to show BN the exit in the next GE or earlier.

    With their deep knowledge of and experience in the tricks in dirty governance, they would make a formidable opposition which can keep the next government on their toes. Should they become the government again in the next few years, the party expelled from government to become opposition would also have installed new systems and moulded new attitudes and they would have learned the tricks of government and will be a much better watch-dog. In due course, the interest of the people will eventually be protected in a two or three-party system.

    YB LKS, as for the MCAC and JAC bills, do the best opposing you can but don’t be too bothered if they become law unamended as they are proposed now. You will have a chance to do the necessary amendments after your comrades have earned the right to govern. Instead, keep up with the good works your comrades have done in the 5 opposition states. The people are not blind. Neither are they stupid.

  7. #7 by HB Lim on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 1:48 am

    hiro, on the other hand if Anwar and his PR MPs do not support the bills, the BN and the the media controlled by them would also have a gala time criticising them for not being interested in wiping out corruption and installing a better judiciary. They would be accused of opposing just for the sake of opposing.

    It is a difficult position the PR is stuck in. Three steps forward and one step back is still some progress and better than nothing. But it may be two steps forward and one step back to square one. But is it merely back to square one? Some of the provisions in the proposed MCAC make drastic inroads into due process and I am afraid they will become another set of laws or weapons the BN will use to persecute rather than prosecute, in which case we would be taking a few steps backwards.

  8. #8 by simon041155 on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 2:30 am

    If the Proton Saga, based on the failed 1983 Mitsubishi Lancer Fiore can get an award after it was first launched, ahem…. anything is possible, right? Nowadays, celebrities earn good money, just to appear for 30 seconds on television.

  9. #9 by kyototan on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 7:59 am

    To reform or not depand very much on one will. If it is force to reform the force should come from the rakyat voter and should not come from the executive. Shame all those in corruption

  10. #10 by Godfather on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 8:20 am

    Let’s keep it simple.

    In 1997, Anwar wanted to go after a senior minister, who had been colluding with local authorities to alienate land in Johor, Kedah, Langkawi and Sepang. Of course Mamakthir won’t have this happen to the then UMNO treasurer. In the 90s, the ACA and the AG opined that there was a case against Rafidah over the allocation of shares to her son-in-law. Mamakthir stopped the proposed prosecution. In the late 90s, the Director-General of the EPU was “caught” with a rather large bundle of cash in his office drawer by the ACA. Again, Mamakthir said “no” to the proposed prosecution.

    What would be different if the MACC had been in place at those times ?

    Same old, same old.

  11. #11 by ctc537 on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 8:22 am

    TDM set the unrealistic goal of Malaysia becoming a developed nation by 2020. Our English proficiency level is still so low, the THES world rankings of our universities is above 300, we have yet to win an Olympic Gold Medal, corruption is reportedly so rampant and most telling of all, our Malaysian people are still so unexposed to the outside world, imbued with a false sense of pride. No, we will never achieve developed nation status even by 2050 under the present administration where so many things in the country are done along racial lines. Perhaps a PR administration for the next twenty years will realise this Malaysian dream.

  12. #12 by Godfather on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 8:53 am

    Crime pays in Bolehland. If Nazri doesn’t believe us, ask him the following:

    1. How many snatch thieves have been caught and prosecuted ?

    2. How many rape and murder cases have been successfully prosecuted ?

    3. How many white collar crimes have been investigated and successfully prosecuted ?

    4. How many drug cases have been successfully prosecuted ?

    We don’t have to dig deep to find the answers. Last month, it was reported that the infamous Ummi Hafilda was one of the lucky recipients of a Ministry of Tourism scheme. Her project never took off, and she was found to have issued cheques that bounced. Has any investigation been instituted against her ? Or has she been granted immunity from prosecution given her role in Anwar’s case 10 years ago ?

    Last week, it was reported that the Intel heist case in Penang was “solved”. How was it “solved” when no one was charged for the crime ? Well, there was insufficient evidence, so a number of the suspects were detained under the emergency ordinance ! Detention without trial !

    We don’t need the MACC bill. We should just continue to detain suspects under our emergency ordinance or the ISA.

    Once a mickey mouse country, always a mickey mouse country.

  13. #13 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 8:54 am

    All Badawi care about is not ending his Premiership being a laughing stock, i.e., some semblance of dignity for being kicked out. He just want to get this crossed and ticked and he don’t care what it ends up.

  14. #14 by k1980 on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 8:59 am

    Cool down, ctc537. The inaugural Badawi Prize for Tourism is going to be won by our space tourist, who charges RM8,000 per hour for talking. Even Clinton can’t charge that much for his speeches

  15. #15 by taiking on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 9:06 am

    Dont press the issue too hard. If those meritless clowns realise that the Act is insufficient they could just propose a dozen F-16s to combat corruption and maybe some submarines too for use to nab any corrupt guy operating in open seas. In short, always in pursuit of FORM.

    Lets face it, in SUBSTANCE, anti-corruption = anti-umno.

  16. #16 by mata_kucing on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 9:09 am

    I wouldn’t issue such challenge to the BN if I were you, Kit. They will answer you with a resounding yes, knowing how thick faced they are. They never walk their talk anyway. Instead, you should ask them to employ Daniel Li as the ACA chief on a contractual basis for say, five years and let’s see if things will change. Provided Daniel will not catch the Umno corruption disease.

  17. #17 by melurian on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 9:44 am

    “Q: How does the ICAC maintain its independence?

    A: We are independent. There is nothing to maintain.

    this is the most irresponsible reply ever given …. imagine aab or nazri was asked … “how do you see corruption in malaysia” – and the reply “there is no corruption” or “why the people cannot allow to demostrate” and the reply “because it’s illegal” as zam said….

  18. #18 by AhPek on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 10:39 am

    Employing Daniel Li is no solution either for the whole effectiveness of MACC depends solely on whether it is independent or not.Whether the Chief Commissioner has to report to the PM or Parliment.Whether his tenure of office can be terminated by PM or Parliment?

    And its effectiveness will also definitely not depend on Daniel Li’s track record with ICAC if mata_kucing’s suggestion were to be taken up.Everything hinges on whether MACC can act independently or not.

  19. #19 by taiking on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 11:28 am

    Daniel Li will be hopelessly lost in malaysia. He may have the muscles of Tyson, the brains of Obama and the steel will of Thatcher he will still be unable to move the weight of corruption that has been bearing down on umno and the country for decades.

  20. #20 by i_love_malaysia on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 11:36 am

    Q: How does the ICAC maintain its independence?

    A: We are independent. There is nothing to maintain.

    This is only possible when the right people is being selected to be placed at the right position. People being appointed based on merit and all the necessary qualifications and not those whose intention is to go in to rob!!!
    A very good e.g. in the news was an ACA officer was caught blackmailing someone who found receiving bribes!!! ACA could not even screen out the bad from the right people for the very job that they need to perform is worrisome!!! Do we need to have more eg???

  21. #21 by i_love_malaysia on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 11:57 am

    I wonder what will happen to Malaysia if we legalise corruption!!! may be there’s no difference whether we legalise it or not as it is already practiced openly and every where!!!

    Now: Tuan, Boleh Tolong???

    Future: Tuan, berapa mau???

  22. #22 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 12:19 pm

    Q: How does the ICAC maintain its independence?

    A: We are independent. There is nothing to maintain.

    The following is from Mr. Ryan WONG Sai-chiu Assistant Director of Operations ICAC in a forum way back in 2002. According to him:

    ICAC’s Commissioner is not subject to the direction and control of any person other than the Chief Executive of HK. Independence is also guaranteed under HK’s constitution.

    The ICAC commissioner is empowered by law to appoint his officers and to terminate their service in the interests of the Commission. There is witness protection. The informant identity is not disclosed in criminal proceedings.

    ICAC work in partnership with the community. A number of advisory committees drawn from respectable persons within community oversee ICAC’s work.

    On question of who watches the ICAC’s watchers, there is an internal investigation unit (L Group) answerable to the Director of investigation. Upon receipt of a complaint against an ICAC officer for criminal conduct, be it corruption related or otherwise, it will be referred to the Secretary for Justice, who will decide on whether the complaint should be investigated by L Group or police. If the investigation is to be carried out by L group, the outcome of the investigation will be reported back to the Secretary for Justice and subsequently to the Operations Review Committee.

    The ICAC Commissioner submits an annual report on its activities to the Legislative Council (HK Parliament) and to seek approval of the annual budget, which as early as in 2002 stood at about HK$700M.

    The Commissioner is also required to attend public hearings by council members on matters relating to ICAC whenever public interest is involved.

    Although prosecution authority still rests with the govt’s Department of Justice, check and balance comes from a relatively independent judiciary and media supporting ICAC’s prosecution. Public are also supportive.

    ICAC conducts public survey annually to ascertain public perception on corruption and how they see we are performing. 70 % of our corruption reports are made by persons who are willing to provide their personal details when they make the complaint without fear of reprisals.

  23. #23 by Kelvenho on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 1:58 pm

    In order to make MACC independent, the commissioner is only
    answerable to Parliamnet and not the PM.

  24. #24 by wesuffer on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 2:15 pm

    Give thumb down to pakatan in perak.
    wasted public fund to upgrade p.perdana to toyota camry 2.4litre.
    they can highlighted Rm 1 million used for exco cars maintainace every year eventually under BN adminstration. But never investicate the huge firgure. and never plan to change service center ? voter wont believe p.perdana can spend RM 70,000 for maintanance yearly. dont waste public fund. dont follow BN foot step anymore. perak pakatan is already wasted 9 month.
    2.7million can spend to benefit to perak folk.
    upgrade infra, repaint road line . clean up enviroment of perak.
    this is BN has not done enough !

  25. #25 by AhPek on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 2:16 pm

    The truth of the matter is there is not going to be any miracle or miracle worker to sort out this mess created by UMNO for the past 50 years,this mess that smells right up to high heaven.The ball has to be thrown right back to our feet.Are we angry enough to boot them out to oblivion?The solution lies exactly in the answer to this question.

  26. #26 by Tonberry on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 2:27 pm

    wesuffer Says:
    Give thumb down to pakatan in perak..

    if that’s the case, then you can choose to vote BN in the next GE. No one is stopping you. It’s either BN or PR. It’s that simple. No other choice. Choose the lesser evil if you’re wise enough.

  27. #27 by Tonberry on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 2:31 pm

  28. #28 by k1980 on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 2:57 pm

    I can imagine what the PM is going to say when you interview him.

    Q: How is the country going to manage the high cost of living?

    A: We are rich. There is no cost of living to manage.

    Q: But what about the poor?

    A: There are no poor people in this country. We are one of the richest countries in Asia.

    Q: Then how about those earning RM1,500 and below?

    A: Well, they need to tighten their belts and change their lifestyle. For instance, don’t drive to work. Take a nice morning walk to work and a leisure stroll back home in the evening. You will be able to save RM10 a day by walking. This adds up to RM300 a month.

    Q: Then why don’t you yourself walk to work?

    A: Me? We are talking about the poor.

    Q: But you just claim that there are no poor people in this country.

    A: Interview over.

  29. #29 by setiawan on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 3:37 pm

    OrangRojak, you speak of a Daniel Li that won the Malaysian Idol, YB Lim speaks of the Daniel Li who is the head of operation of Hong Kong’s ICAC.

    You see idol, YB Lim sees good fight corruption.

  30. #30 by tselau on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 4:50 pm

    I remember that when I was in Singapore during the 90s, their ACA chief, Glen Knight was arrested for corruption. That is what I mean the job of the ICAC or MACC. Real transparency and no one is above the law unlike here in Bolehland.

  31. #31 by melurian on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 5:28 pm

    “In order to make MACC independent, the commissioner is only
    answerable to Parliamnet and not the PM.”

    you’re shortsighted – who controls the parlimen if it’s not pm and and his cahoots….. before lks and his gang raise anything, he’ll shut up by the speaker as we’ve seen in every motions……

  32. #32 by AhPek on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 8:43 pm

    It’s again you exhibiting such complete ignorance of the British Parlimentary Democracy in which our own parliment is supposed to model after
    but has turned it into a form in which the other 2 pillars of democracy the Legislature and the Judiciary has been made subservient to the Executive.But then again it is to be expected of you since you have been well schooled under the tutelage of your masters

  33. #33 by AhPek on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 9:52 pm

    And melurian has given us the best example on how subservient the legislature
    (ie parliment) is to the executive when he says ‘…………………….before lks and his gang raise anything, he’ll shut up by the speaker by speaker as we’ve seen in every motions…’.

  34. #34 by AhPek on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 - 11:27 pm

    For a vibrant democratic system to exist the following conditions must hold:

    (a) A free press must exist,that is to sayall the dragonian laws introduced by Mamakplus what is inherited from the British to gag the press must go.

    (b) A 2 Party system or a 2 Coalition Party system must be present.For the past 50 years we have witnessed a monolithic political party lording over the country,it is only recently that the 2 party system is beginning to emerge.

    (c) The 3 pillars of government (legislature,judiciary and the executive) must be restored back to before Mamak took control.

    (d) In Malaysia’s case the civil service has also be be neutralised to become the people’s civil service and not UMNO’s civil service.

  35. #35 by i_love_malaysia on Wednesday, 17 December 2008 - 9:58 am

    tselau Says:

    Yesterday at 16: 50.54
    I remember that when I was in Singapore during the 90s, their ACA chief, Glen Knight was arrested for corruption. That is what I mean the job of the ICAC or MACC. Real transparency and no one is above the law unlike here in Bolehland.
    Even LKY and his son were investigated for buying condos at discount during soft launching!!! Do you know why??? because the question is why only the selected few for the soft launching and not the others and the developer may use this to have better connection in future with these people who were given discounts!!! Anyway, at the end, they were found not guilty (that’s why you still see the son as PM). Want to know the details, you may need to dig the file!!!

  36. #36 by veddy.lum74 on Saturday, 20 December 2008 - 8:52 am


    bruce lee only charged usd400/hour when he taught kungfu,a world class sifu n a famous international movie star,dis cili-padi,just picked as a spaceman by UMNO bcos of his creed,spending millions of tax-payers’ money to outer-space,dared to even charge rm8000/hour for his talk c#ck speech,dis is called a “skim cepat kaya”,condoned by UMNO suckers,especially the Jamalludin Janggut!

  37. #37 by AhPek on Sunday, 21 December 2008 - 8:47 pm

    Hmmmmm,let me see……who would be the likely audience willing to fork out RM800/hr to listen to this great pretender space explorer cum adventurer? Certainly not the ordinary Joe Public middle class or upper middle class,not big executives from big local companies nor executives from multinationals for they all have better things to do.Can they be from GLCs using taxpayer’s money to pay for entrance or certain favoured companies?

You must be logged in to post a comment.