Umno’s hands in every pie

Today, Abdul Rahman Maidin revealed in the High Court (see here) that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad told him that Realmild Sdn Bhd, the shadowy company behind conglomerate Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad (MRCB), belongs to Umno. Now, Tajuddin Ramli also admits that he was merely the front for Umno to plunder Malaysian Airlines (MAS).

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In the last two weeks, Malaysia Today revealed how Tajudin Ramli plundered MAS with impunity. Malaysia Today also showed that Ramli Yusuff, the Director of the Commercial Crimes Investigations Department (CCID) of the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM), and lawyer Rosli Dahlan, paid a heavy price for pursuing Tajudin Ramli.

Both ended up being hauled into court against trumped-up charges. While Tajudin remained free and still extremely wealthy, Ramli lost his job and his shot at being the next IGP while Rosli lost his clients.

Malaysia Today also showed how Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi closed his eyes to the pillaging by Tajudin mainly because Abdullah himself had also used his position as Deputy Prime Minister to secure the MAS Catering privatisation contracts for his own family.

Now we are going to reveal why Tajudin was so bold and could practically get away with murder.

Tajuddin’s perceived success as a bumiputra businessman goes beyond just the New Economic Policy’s affirmative action. It went to the extent that he would be given immunity from the crimes he committed.

This is not what Malaysia Today says. This is what Tajuddin himself says in his affidavit -- see paragraph 6, 7(c), 12 and 13 of Tajudin’s affidavit below.

Tajudin was so audacious as to claim that he had immunity under the Public Authorities Protection Act. Mahathir, therefore, can’t deny that he asked Tajuddin to plunder MAS.

You will recall that Ramli Yusuff, in his letter to Prime Minister Abdullah, had recommended that Tajudin be prosecuted for various offences. This is based on Tajudin’s own claims that he was a government agent and was merely discharging his “public duties” when he plundered MAS.

This means Tajudin can be charged under both the old Anti Corruption Act as well as the new MACC Act for using his office to gratify his family.

For that matter, Prime Minister Abdullah can also be charged under that same provisions of the law.

Now, if Malaysia Today can figure all this out, surely it is not too difficult for MACC to pick it up from here and start prosecuting the real crooks.

You can read what the Act says below.

ANTI-CORRUPTION ACT 1997

Offence of using office or position for gratification

15. (1) Any officer of a public body who uses his office or position for any gratification shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an officer of a public body shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to use his office or position for gratification when he makes any decision, or takes any action, in relation to any matter in which such officer, or any relative or associate of his, has an interest, whether directly or indirectly.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that, for the purposes of subsection (1), any member of the administration of a State shall be deemed to use his office or position for gratification when he acts contrary to subsection 2(8) of the Eighth Schedule to the Federal Constitution or the equivalent provision in the Constitution or Laws of the Constitution of that State.

(4) This section shall not apply to an officer who holds office in a public body as a representative of another public body which has the control or partial control over the first-mentioned public body in respect of any matter or thing done in his capacity as such representative for the interest or advantage of that other public body.

PART VI

EVIDENCE

Presumption in certain offences

42. (1) Where in any proceedings against any person for an offence under section 10, 11, 13, 14 or 15 it is proved that any gratification has been accepted or agreed to be accepted, obtained or attempted to be obtained, solicited, given or agreed to be given, promised, or offered, by or to the accused, the gratification shall be presumed to have been corruptly accepted or agreed to be accepted, obtained or attempted to be obtained, solicited, given or agreed to be given, promised or offered as an inducement or a reward for or on account of the matters set out in the particulars of the offence, unless the contrary is proved.

(2) Where in any proceedings against any person for an offence under section 161, 162, 163 or 164 of the Penal Code, it is proved that such person has accepted or agreed to accept, or obtained or attempted to obtain any gratification, such person shall be presumed to have done so as a motive or reward for the matters set out in the particulars of the offence, unless the contrary is proved.

(3) Where in any proceedings against any person for an offence under section 165 of the Penal Code it is proved that such person has accepted or attempted to obtain any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which such person knows to be inadequate, such person shall be presumed to have done so with such knowledge as to the circumstances as set out in the particulars of the offence, unless the contrary is proved.

(4) Where in any proceedings against any person for an offence under paragraph 137(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1967, it is proved that any officer of customs or other person duly employed for the prevention of smuggling has accepted, agreed to accept or attempted to obtain any bribe, gratuity, recompense, or reward, such officer or person shall be presumed to have done so for the neglect or non performance of his duty as set out in the particulars of the offence, unless the contrary is proved.

MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION ACT 2009

Offence of using office or position for gratification

23. (1) Any officer of a public body who uses his office or position for any gratification, whether for himself, his relative or associate, commits an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an officer of a public body shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to use his office or position for any gratification, whether for himself, his relative or associate, when he makes any decision, or takes any action, in relation to any matter in which such officer, or any relative or associate of his, has an interest, whether directly or indirectly.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that, for the purposes of subsection (1), any member of the administration of a State shall be deemed to use his office or position for gratification when he acts contrary to subsection 2(8) of the Eighth Schedule to the Federal Constitution or the equivalent provision in the Constitution or Laws of the Constitution of that State.

(4) This section shall not apply to an officer who holds office in a public body as a representative of another public body which has the control or partial control over the first-mentioned public body in respect of any matter or thing done in his capacity as such representative for the interest or advantage of that other public body.

Part VI

EVIDENCE

Presumption in certain offences

50. (1) Where in any proceedings against any person for an offence under section 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 or 23 it is proved that any gratification has been received or agreed to be received, accepted or agreed to be accepted, obtained or attempted to be obtained, solicited, given or agreed to be given, promised, or offered, by or to the accused, the gratification shall be presumed to have been corruptly received or agreed to be received, accepted or agreed to be accepted, obtained or attempted to be obtained, solicited, given or agreed to be given, promised, or offered as an inducement or a reward for or on account of the matters set out in the particulars of the offence, unless the contrary is proved.

(2) Where in any proceedings against any person for an offence under section 161, 162, 163 or 164 of the Penal Code, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission 51 it is proved that such person has accepted or agreed to accept, or obtained or attempted to obtain any gratification, such person shall be presumed to have done so as a motive or reward for the matters set out in the particulars of the offence, unless the contrary is proved.

(3) Where in any proceedings against any person for an offence under section 165 of the Penal Code it is proved that such person has accepted or attempted to obtain any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which such person knows to be inadequate, such person shall be presumed to have done so with such knowledge as to the circumstances as set out in the particulars of the offence, unless the contrary is proved.

(4) Where in any proceedings against any person for an offence under paragraph 137(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1967, it is proved that any officer of customs or other person duly employed for the prevention of smuggling has accepted, agreed to accept or attempted to obtain any bribe, gratuity, recompense, or reward, such officer or person shall be presumed to have done so for the neglect or non-performance of his duty as set out in the particulars of the offence, unless the contrary is proved.