Abu Kassim cannot have a more disastrous start as second MACC Chief Commissioner if his first priority is to restore public confidence in the MACC and the national anti-corruption campaign

Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamed cannot have a more disastrous start as the second Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner if his first priority is to restore public confidence in the MACC and the national anti-corruption campaign which had plunged 33 rankings in 15 years from No. 23 in 1995 to No. 56 in 2009 in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index.

The MACC had ended its first year with lower public confidence than when it started, fulfilling the worst fears of former Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Abdullah had warned at the belated launching of MACC on 24th February last year that the MACC should not end up as just pretty window-dressing of its predecessor the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA).

The then Prime Minister had admitted the public perception of the ACA as “not being independent, of being a toothless tiger, of practicing selective enforcement, being late in taking action and not being professional in its investigations has damaged its image and credibility”.

Abdullah had announced at the launch of the MACC that the new anti-corruption body was to mark “the beginning of a very important chapter in Malaysia’s agenda to strengthen integrity and fight corruption” with the MACC able to stand up to scrutiny.

It is sad, tragic but true that in its first year of operation, the MACC was guilty of all the sins of the ACA and more.

There was not only no new start in an all-out war against corruption –MACC proved to be even worse than the ACA in being prepared to be the catspaw of its political masters to served the Umno/Barisan Nasional political agenda to declare war on Pakatan Rakyat instead of declaring war on corruption, which is why there is the scandal of the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock at the MACC Headquarters in Shah Alam on July 16 last year!

Is Abu Kassim prepared to herald a belated new beginning for MACC as intended by the former Prime Minister?

The second MACC Chief Commissioner will be performing a grave national disservice if all he wants to do is to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan.

But if Abu Kassim wanted to give another go to try to fulfill Abdullah’s parting injunctions to MACC before stepping down as Prime Minister, the new MACC Chief Commissioner has got it all wrong in his first media conference.

Abu Kassim’s vow to invoke Section 29(4) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 would show that he is incapable of the “big picture” of single-mindedly spearheading an all-out war against corruption to thrust Malaysia into the front rank of the world’s least corrupt nations and place the MACC in the company of internationally-recognised independent, effective, professional and successful graft-busting organizations like Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

What is Abu Kassim trying to prove with his vow that he would fully enforce Section 29(4) of the MACC Act 2009 and prosecute those who divulge information on corruption reports they lodge with the MACC, as Section 29(4) provides that such reports “shall be kept secret and shall not be disclosed by any person to any person other than officers of the Commission and the Public Prosecutor until an accused person has been charged in court for an offence under this Act or any other written law in consequence of such report, unless the disclosure is made with the consent of the Public Prosecutor or an officer of the Commission of the rank of Commissioner and above”.

Further, what is Abu Kassim trying to prove when he warned that any person who divulge information about corruption reports lodged with the MACC or editors who publish such information would on conviction be liable to two years’ jail or RM100,000 fine, when the fine in the law is RM10,000?

Abu Kassim is legally right but morally wrong.

The law barring a person who lodges a report on corruption from making any public disclosure about his report on pain of committing a criminal offence liable to RM10,000 fine or two years’ jail or to both had been on the statute books for the past 13 years since the passage of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997. [Section 21(4) ACA Act 199]

However, this provision had never been invoked in the past 13 years although there have been countless cases of corruption reports being divulged publicly by the person who made them and being reported.

It could not be that the heads of the Anti-Corruption Agency from 1987 to 2008 and the Chief Commissioner of MACC in 2009 were unaware of this provision and had not invoked it out of ignorance.

The only reason is that such a provision inhibits public co-operation in the battle against corruption.

In any event, such a provision could be easily circumvented, with the person who wishes to lodge the corruption report going public about his intention a day before the actual report, even announcing word for word the corruption report he intends to lodge the next day, as such an action would not be caught by Section 29(4) of the MACC Act 2009.

The more important question is why Abu Kassim has chosen such a clampdown as his signature as the second MACC Chief Commissioner?

Nobody buys his reason for such a clampdown – to deal with complainants lodging a report with an ulterior motive other than wanting to curb corruption.

This is an unacceptable argument as the MACC Act provides for heavy penalties under Section 27 for anyone who makes false or misleading statements to the MACC as liable to RM100,000 fine, two years’ jail or both.

If MACC is serious about spearheading an all-out war against corruption, it should facilitate and encourage the public to give information or make reports and not obstruct public co-operation as threatening to take action against those who publicly divulge information about their corruption reports.

In this sense, Abu Kassim would prove to be worse than Ahmad Said and his other predecessor ACA Director-Generals since 1997.

I call on Abu Kassim to retract his threat to fully invoke Section 29 (4) of the MACC Act and to announce that he will follow the precedents set by his predecessors in ACA and MACC and will not invoke Section 29(4) which will frighten off the public from co-operating with the anti-corruption body.

In fact, Abu Kassim should publicly support the repeal of Section 29(4) of the MACC Act 2009.

  1. #1 by Godfather on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 10:54 am

    Abu Kassim appears to be willing to probe everything – from Nik Aziz’s birthday cake to MB Khalid’s demand to be on the board of a troublesome charity. He has, however, forgotten to probe the issues surrounding PKFZ, Toyol’s Mansion, etc.

    Mark my words, he’s just another UMNO crony. He will drag more ikan bilis to the courts while the sharks continue to swim free with impunity.

  2. #2 by Godfather on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 10:55 am

    There is no way that he can get the top position at MACC without being an UMNO crony.

  3. #3 by vp74 on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 11:06 am

    MACC only deals with small scale problem like frag, cow and cake. When face submarine, jet and bungalow, they can’t handle it.
    Look like malaysian need BMACC, B for BIG to investigate the big cases.

  4. #4 by -ec- on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 11:16 am

    in that case do not let macc monopolies the reporting and investigation of corruption cases.

    the provision of the act involves only reported cases to macc. in future, we just need to report the cases elsewhere except macc. i guess there are responsible medias that are willing to broadcast these cases to public attention. whether macc wants to investigate these cases or not, let the pm tells them what to do.

  5. #5 by Godfather on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 11:20 am

    Toothless tigers don’t go for tough meat. They eat the easy, softer meat. No need to hunt, no need to chew, no worries about digestion. Just sit around and get fat, and become truly a big cat.

  6. #6 by Yee Siew Wah on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 11:29 am

    This new guy is just another duplicate of that former dickhead boss, if not worse. I just dont trust this guy by his actions and words the day he appear on TV.
    Look, since he took over, he never ever mention those scandals like PKFZ, Military aircraft engines; “Pendatang” KT $24m mansion etc… and not to forget the brutal Mongolian lady murder and TBH death/murder. He and his gang are only interested in getting at opposition on trivial matters like cows and cakes. What a bunch of running dogs dickheads.
    Anti corruption agency my foot.

  7. #7 by k1980 on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 11:46 am

    //The then Prime Minister had admitted the public perception of the ACA as “not being independent, of being a toothless tiger, of practicing selective enforcement, being late in taking action and not being professional in its investigations…//

    And despite knowing all these, he still launched the macc! Actually it is a not toothless tiger, it is actually a cunning tiger selective of its prey, ignoring its rich victims and devouring the poor instead.

  8. #8 by abd on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 12:05 pm

    Perfecto, thats exactly what they want the public perspective on MACC. Thus in future the rakyaat will be tired on lodging report on corruption with the MACC

  9. #9 by Motorist on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 12:40 pm

    During his TV3 interview, this guy actually admitted that leaks to the media could very well come from sources that are familiar with the investigation (ie. its from ACA/MACC itself).

    Will he go after his own ppl who are blaber mouth?

    His body language during the interview says insincere & arrogant.

    He, like many middle & senior civil servants are subservient to UMNO, not the supposedly non partisan civil service.

    But I believe there are still good, honest men/women in the service. Eg. the letter written on MACC letterhead providing clues to Teoh Beng Hock death. The numbers maybe small but these ppl represent the good, honest & loyal M’sian.

  10. #10 by frankyapp on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 12:55 pm

    Macc is a leash tiger,just like a dog being kept on a leash would not be able to attack and bite except just barking.If PM NR is sincere and truly wanted to fighting and redusing corruption,he should immediately un-leash the tiger.Won’t he or would he dares to un-leash it.

  11. #11 by Leong Yook Kong on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 1:56 pm

    I don’t know what is this called, abuse of power or not, corruption or not, forgery or not?????????????????

    A company search was done by me on 16-10-2009 and the corporate information is as follows:-
    a) Company Name: ABC Sdn. Bhd. (not real name)
    b) Last Old Name: XYZ Sdn. Bhd. (not real name)
    c) Date of Change: 02-04-2008
    d) Registration Date: 18-08-2005

    A Government Department had claimed that ABC was already in existence at least on 24-09-2007 by virtue of making a reference to ABC in the letter of 24-09-2007 and, thereby stating an approved validity period of accreditation from 29-08-2007 to 31-08-2008. I was given (either intentionally or unintentionally) the letter by the Department on 08-12-2009. It was clear and explicit that the Department conveniently referred to a non existing entity (i.e. ABC) and not XYZ at that material time and hence was clearly misstating a fact for possible devious purpose. Therefore, there was some intention of the Department. I suspect that the letter was falsified to discredit me and to undermine my complaint to the Department.


    Not all parents can afford to send their lowly educated children to private skills training institutions. Many are forced to save their hard earned money or to work harder to earn extra money to provide skills training education and development for their children.

    I wrote 2 e-mails and a letter to MACC seeking advice on the issue but as at todate, I am still waiting for a response. I have no choice but to post it here.

  12. #12 by Dap man on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 2:12 pm

    If only you had said the company was connected to Pakatan or to Anwar Ibrahim, they would have acted with lightning speed.

  13. #13 by gofortruth on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 3:27 pm

    “The more important question is why Abu Kassim has chosen such a clampdown as his signature as the second MACC Chief Commissioner?”
    That typical hall mark of chap UMNO – Bulldozer bulldozing its way to bully the common folks.
    MACC is just the same old smelly UMNO’s ACA soup in a different pot but more smelly now.

  14. #14 by sightseeing on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 3:35 pm

    //Why Abu Kassim has chosen such a clampdown as his signature as the second MACC Chief Commissioner?//

    This is a brilliant plan by an UMNO’s lapdog to redeem the reputation of MACC.

    By enforcing Section 29(4) of the MACC Act 2009, people will stop making corruption reports to MACC.
    On the anniversary of his appointment Abu Kassim will announce that MACC has been extremely effective in combating corruption as proven by the drastically reduced number of corruption reports. Mission accomplished!
    He is guaranteed the title of Tan Sri.

  15. #15 by gofortruth on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 3:36 pm

    I would like to ask a question of common sense here –
    Who dare to beat the daylight out of Anwar?
    Who dare to do “such a thing” to Teoh Beng Hock?

  16. #16 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 4:23 pm

    //It could not be that the heads of the Anti-Corruption Agency from 1987 to 2008 and the Chief Commissioner of MACC in 2009 were unaware of this provision (ie Section 29(4) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009) and had not invoked it out of ignorance.//-YB Kit .

    Hah Ha – well the implication is that if his predecessors were not ignorant, then he must be!

    However addressing a more basic question – what is the nature of this “report” to which Section 29(4) of the MACC Act refer that ought to be kept secret (at the pain of being punished for public divulgement)???

    It is the report referred to in subsection 1 of the same section 29(4) – ie the report relating to the offence which (I quote): “may be made orally or in writing to an officer of the Commission, and if made orally it shall be reduced into writing and read over to the person making the report; and every report, whether in writing or reduced into writing, shall be signed by the person making the report”.

    So this is the question: if secrecy of 29(4) covers the signed copy of the official report made – one can’t show it- does that also extend to a subsequent general public/press disclosure of (a) fact that one has made such a report to the MACC and (b) the substance of whom the report was lodged against and the allegations???

    Lets review the arguments and counterarguments. Abu Kassim would answer, “of course” to the question. “What’s the difference?” he’d ask. His argument is the line has to be drawn when report is made and matter has become official. It becomes his duty then to investigate. He is vested the powers under the MACC Act to freeze properties and bank accounts of those alleged corrupt in order to investigate the money trail. How is he to do that if one making the report tells the whole world after official investigation has begun? The one investigated will immediately cover his trail and tracks by transferring properties and moneys, and investigation will be hampered….

    The Counterarguments: (1) as you said, “such a provision – section 29(4) – could be easily circumvented, with the person who wishes to lodge the corruption report going public about his intention a day before the actual report, even announcing word for word the corruption report he intends to lodge the next day, as such an action would not be caught by Section 29(4) of the MACC Act 2009.” Following this, one would argue that the law in section 29(4) cannot be construed as leading to absurd results to cover something that can be so easily circumvented, and hence must be inferred to cover only the signed copy of the official report made rather than a general disclosure of such a report having been made and its substance! Now Abu Kassim will rebut by saying that the difference is that the line is drawn when official report is made. Before that you can say what you like but not after since in the period after it would be MACC’s duty to investigate and it cannot do so effectively if the corrupt has advanced information from public domain to cover their tracks. All he is asking is that one gets MACC’s clearance first as regards what to disclose. Otherwise one is obstructing its execution of oficial duty. He has got a point but this leads to Counterargument (2): if such a law is construed widely to cover all disclosure as Abu Kassim said, what happens if after making the report, the MACC sits on it, does a sloppy job, and the person alleged corrupt never gets charged? This would make section 29(4) a shield against MACC’s inefficiency or even collusion with powers-that-be having an interest that the Public do not know about the acts of corruption alleged. People will also be deterred from lodging reports and MACC will end up protecting corruption that curbing it!

    One has to balance the danger/public detriment in Counterargument (2) against the alleged impediment to MACC’s work.

    On balance of competing public policy considerations, it would serve public interest more to read the intent of 29(4) as confining “report” that is to be made secret to (narrowly) the signed official report lodged with MACC (that black sheep MACC’s personnel should not leak to those investigated).

  17. #17 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:00 pm

    Mr Leong Yook Kong,
    I don’t quite understand about your complaint but I guess you were complaining that the ROC allowed a company to backdate and change the company shareholding information in order to allow the original shareholders to escape some legal obligations.

    In fact, to allow the company to backdate the directors’ resolution and the shareholders’ EGM resolution is not a new thing which happens only recently. During 1990s, a lot of companies which tried to apply for IPO in Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (KLSE, now called Bursar Malaysia) were allowed to delay lodging the company annual return to the Registrar of Companies (ROC) in order to allow the company to defer paying corporate income taxes, so long as the company agreed to pay a fine of about RM3,000 per year of delay reporting. This kind of arrangement facilitated the artificial accounting for purpose of getting the approval for Initial Public Offerings (IPO) of the company shares and meanwhile facilitated delay in paying out huge amount of corporate income taxes which would adversely affect the company’s cashflow situation.

    The company was not afraid to pay corporate income taxes even though it did not actually earn that much of income, so long as the IPO could be approved by the Securities Commission and the approval of the IPO would ensure the company many sources of borrowing from the commercial banks, the stock brokerage houses, and the merchant bankers for obtaining cashflows to pay the deferred income taxes payable to the Inland Revenue Department.

  18. #18 by ReformMalaysia on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:13 pm

    Armed with Section 29(4) , MACC now would enjoy the ‘flexibility’ and freedom to choose which case to pursue and which case to be ‘closed’…. as the evidences of corruption cannot be ‘registered’ in the internet or media…. so can be easily made disappeared if MACC wished to….Even PKFZ corruption case could have been closed if this section was invoked much earlier….

    Seems like Malaysian need to rely on Raja Petra Kamaruddin to continue to expose evidences as he exists but invisible……

  19. #19 by cseng on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:13 pm

    En Abu, MACC’s role is not only justifying NFA on cases reported to your office. Don’t eliminate the little benefit of doubt by confirming MACC’s role and party. Why don’t you try to put MACC logo into ballot paper by next GE? That is more sensible than saying what you have said.

  20. #20 by Leong Yook Kong on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 7:04 pm

    Dap man, thanks for the alert. Next time, I will use Anwar & Co., Guan Eng & Co., or Brother Kit Siang & Co. Maybe this will help in a speedy response.

    Onlooker Politics, ROC had no connection with this issue in question. ROC approved the company name change on 02-04-2008.

    However, a certain Federal Government Department is trying to cover up for ABC on the complaint surrounding the issue of skills training. A company search has already revealed the facts. One cannot run away from the facts. Besides, there are another 2 serious flaws in the letter. I believe this Department is trying to insult the intelligence of the stakeholders, namely, the trainees and parents.

  21. #21 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 7:10 pm

    Onlooker Politics, I think Leong Yook Kong is complaining of some govt dept’s letter on 08-12-2009 to him making a reference to a company by its old name (ABC) without mention of the new name (XYZ) after the company had changed name in ROC from ABC to XYZ on 02-04-2008 (earlier than the govt dept’s letter to him of 08-12-2009).

    By referring to old name Leong imputes some motives on Dept’s part. This assumes that the Dept knows of the Change of Name. The problem is the company has a kind of NRIC No – ie its company number that identifies and defines it, which does not change it or its status in spite of name change. How it affects Leong adversely in relation to the “approved validity period of accreditation from 29-08-2007 to 31-08-2008”, I am not clear.

  22. #22 by Leong Yook Kong on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 8:04 pm

    Jeffery, On 08-12-2008, the govt. dept. gave me a letter dated 24-09-2007, its content had already referred to and recognised ABC instead of XYZ. The effective date ABC could use ABC (new name) was on 02-04-2008. Therefore, there is no reason why ABC can appeared in the letter of 24-09-2007 before the company name change.

    The stakeholders were cheated by ABC as ABC enrolled trainees on 30 March 2008 prior to obtaining a valid certificate of accreditation as provided in the Legislative Framework. To justify and substantiate that ABC is legal, the dept. gave me the letter. By this letter, the dept. had indirectly told me off, “WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING”?

  23. #23 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 8:14 pm

    Leong Yook Kong has to clearly state which Department he is complaining about. If he talks about Jabatan Pembangunan Kemahiran, then he must first obtain a copy of guideline on training funds reimbursement procedures in order to get a hands-on knowledge about the claim procedures.

    The claim section of the Department of Skills Development indeed has imposed certain rigid rules for all claimants to follow. If the allowed claim period had been expired, no claim would be entertained. If there is some inconsistence between the name of training provider as stated in the invoice and the training provider’s name as mentioned in the application form, the claim section will most likely reject the application for training funds reimbursement.

    I try to answer this based on my personal experience in dealing with the Claim Section of Department of Skills Development. However, Leong Yook Kong has to disclose to us about the actual problem in much more detail. Otherwise, I guess no one will be able to help him without the adequate information to be fed back from him!

  24. #24 by yhsiew on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 9:34 pm

    MACC should stop filling a new bottle with old wine, but rather, carry out meaningful reforms to improve the nation’s Corruption Perception Index so as to instill confidence back into Malaysians and foreign investors alike.

  25. #25 by lynda on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 8:26 am

    Dear Sir,

    Criticizing the MACC Chief Commissioner for the betterment is one thing, but cursing him bcoz u have illwilll or hidden agenda is another thing.

    I look at what Dato’ Abu says as his frustration towards public perception. I believe he didn’t mean to sanction or penalize the media. Dato’ Abu that I know is someone who believes in freedom of speech as well as media, but there should bound to certain limit.

    I look at Section 29(4) of MACC Act. I suppose the Act specifically pointed to “pengadu” or informer. Nowadays, new trend is that, people who has been called to assist enforcement bodies by giving statement (either as witness or suspect) esp. political members, before they see the enforcement officer, they already call media with the intention that the media will publish/aired it. I strongly believe that it really jeopardizing the whole investigation as some people related to the case might run away, or evidence is expunged.

    Hence, what Dato’ Abu is asking for is assitance from the media not to publicize the content of memorandum or whatsoever-part-of-the-evidence as well as suspect/witness before prosecution is made.
    It’s not even one month he succeeded the Commission. Let us pray for the best. As normal human being which is bound to mistake, let us not scrutinizing his statements that at last will disintegrate our harmonius country, so far..

  26. #26 by undertaker888 on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 8:46 am

    macc is a joke. I rather believe what mt expose than what is coming out from their dens of deceit. Reminds me of a song.

    Old Macc-donald had a farm
    And On that farm they torture wit-nes-ses
    With a jab jab here
    And a poke poke there
    Here a punch, there a poke
    Everywhere a blue black mark

    Old macc-donald had a farm
    And on that farm they had umno dogs
    With a cows cows here
    And a cars cars there
    Here’s a fry, there’s a cake, go investigate

    Old macc-donald had a farm
    E I e I o
    And on that farm they had AG and PDRM turkeys
    E I e I o
    With a gobble gobble money here
    And a gobble gobble money there
    Here a gobble gobble there a gobble gobble
    Everywhere a gobble gobble gobble
    E I E I O

    Old macc-donald had a farm
    E I E I O
    and on that farm they persecute opposition cows
    E I E I O
    with a tbh here
    And a guan eng there
    Here’s nik, there’s the cake
    Everywhere a wayang kulit

  27. #27 by k1980 on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 11:05 am

    Old macc-donald needs to be renamed Old macc-dollah, its infamous founder

  28. #28 by Khoo on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 11:50 am

    Abu Kassim just resume his post for about 15 days. Don’t expect him to produce miracles within this short period. Give him ample time to proof himself. 100 days will be good for him to prove that he would make a difference to the entire anti-corruption initiatives. Abu, within this 100 days we want to know the results of the following cases: toyo, azalina, MMR2 etc…..

  29. #29 by taiking on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 3:41 pm

    100 days? No lah. No need so long one. Nah. Now result oredi known. All cleared. No hanky panky found. Files closed.

  30. #30 by Syeikhs85 on Sunday, 17 January 2010 - 5:08 pm

    Thank you Mr Lim for his courages comment on Datuk Abu Kassim. Well, Mr Lim has his own views with many who supports him but also calls for my professional view on the same matter.

    I see nothing wrong for Datuk Abu Kassim, the newly appointed MACC Chief Commissioner to restore public confidence as his priority. Well, in whatever one intend to do which has direct consequences to the community at large then he has to get public confidence to succeed. ICAC Hong Kong, in the early part of their establishment went all out to get public confidence and support before being successful. Hence, each and every citizen of this country should have confidence on MACC and support the commission in fighting corruption. Only then we may succeed in eradicating the menace.

    One can show confidence and support by refraining oneself from involving in any form of corrupt practices. Start from adhering to all law and rules, do not beat traffic rules, queue for any services, show lots of integrity, accountability and transparency in our everyday life. Go forward to lodge any graft to the commission by providing all about the incident like who, when, where, what, why and how to the authority and not just say something and let the commission to witch hunt. I agree that it is the legal duty of the commission to investigate but every citizen has the responsibility to report corruption and to refrain from any involvement it it.

    Whatever the MACC does but without the support of every citizen be it the politician, government agency, business sector, NGO and all walks of life then the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index surely going to drop not only from 23 in 1995 to 56 in 2009 but further. However, if every citizen supports in the fight of corruption by refraining it then we can hope for a better Malaysia and enhance the TI CPI to a better standing. If not, hope for the worse, the FDI will be negative and economy growth also going to be slow. Let’s support and together we eradicate corruption.

    I have closely monitored the MACC for the past year and wish to congratulate the commission for a very good job done in the first year of transformation. Many arrest of ‘big fishes’ including politicians, DG, Deputy DG and some high profile cases. No point many arrests but the menace still exists. The politicians be it the ruling coalition or the opposition should all refrain from any form of corrupt practices to help TI CPI be in better standings.

    Well, on Datuk Abu Kassim’s intention to invoke Section 29(4) of MACC Act 2009 after all this 13 years of its existence (formerly Sec. 21(4) ACA Act 1997). I too concur with the voters of the NTV7 survey on the matter where 82% agrees. I think it’s timely to invoke the said section to prevent politicians to capitalize a political mileage after lodging a wake report. Revealing the report will surely help the culprits to destroy all available evidence and to be prepared with good alibi to get off the prosecution. The section also safe guards the alleged person at least till being charged in court. Just imagine, one being merely alleged and reported to the media, he and his family have to face the shame even though at the end of the investigation he is not charged for lack of evidence. I think, all individuals must have the right to be heard and not guilty until proven so.

    I think it’s time for each and every citizen to stand support the MACC in fighting corruption to make our country a better place to live, not only now but all years forthcoming.

  31. #31 by alwaysfair on Monday, 18 January 2010 - 11:37 pm

    You think Abu Kassin is Lim Kit Siang?

    How to fight corruption when your own boss who has the power to hire and fire you is corrupt?

    The MACC’s reporting structure is wrong, they should report to the Parliment not PM in order to be effective.

    Just like the External Auditors report to shareholders and not management, or else if got mismanagement how to expose?

    It is stupid to expect this guy to do better when the reporting line is wrong as any manager will tell you. Sorry,You are to weak in the Parliment to make a change.

You must be logged in to post a comment.