The MACC will fail in their duty to fight corruption if they do not take action against people who refuse to cooperate with them in their investigations.
Refusal to cooperate is nothing new. Parliament saw this as being a possible problem which could disrupt investigations and displace the country's efforts to eradicate corruption. So, in order to overcome this problem, various provisions were included into the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 to deal with it.
Section 30 of the Act, for example, gives the Commission powers to investigate persons for offences under the act and states very clearly under subsection (10) that any person who refuses to cooperate commits an offence. Section 48 of the Act, likewise, makes it an offence for anyone to obstruct investigations and searches under the Act.
Under Section 69 of the Act, there is a general penalty provision which says that any person found guilty for an offence under those sections aforesaid, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding RM10000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.
It is therefore clear that Parliament had in its mind the possibility of threats of refusal to cooperate by certain quarters in these cases. Parliament has dealt with it. It has given the MACC sufficient muscle to act in such instances by making it an offence if one refuses to cooperate. It is all the more serious for elected representatives to refuse to cooperate in MACC investigations for a conviction for so doing could well result in their disqualification.
Refusal to cooperate is nothing new. Parliament saw this as being a possible problem which could disrupt investigations and displace the country's efforts to eradicate corruption. So, in order to overcome this problem, various provisions were included into the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 to deal with it.
Section 30 of the Act, for example, gives the Commission powers to investigate persons for offences under the act and states very clearly under subsection (10) that any person who refuses to cooperate commits an offence. Section 48 of the Act, likewise, makes it an offence for anyone to obstruct investigations and searches under the Act.
Under Section 69 of the Act, there is a general penalty provision which says that any person found guilty for an offence under those sections aforesaid, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding RM10000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.
It is therefore clear that Parliament had in its mind the possibility of threats of refusal to cooperate by certain quarters in these cases. Parliament has dealt with it. It has given the MACC sufficient muscle to act in such instances by making it an offence if one refuses to cooperate. It is all the more serious for elected representatives to refuse to cooperate in MACC investigations for a conviction for so doing could well result in their disqualification.
The laws are there, why isn't MACC taking action
So the question is this. Why is the MACC remaining silent in the face of the blatant refusal of the Sarawak CM to cooperate when they have powers to act against persons who do exactly that?
Surely the MACC understands that silence in circumstances like these opens itself up to suspicion and public criticism. People will ask why the silence? Why the inaction?
It also makes a nonsense of the pledge by the MACC to rebuild its public image and the Prime Ministers promise to battle corruption to the hilt.
Silence indicates weakness on part of the MACC and weakness on part of the nation in its fight against corruption.
It points to a lack of will on part of the MACC to act equally in its fight against corruption. It opens up discussion as to why the case of double standards? For example, did Teoh Beng Hock or Ahmad Sarbani have the same privilege of the MACC shying away if they refused to cooperate?
I call upon the MACC to explain why it remains quiet. There is no reason, to my mind, for the MACC to allow itself to be ridiculed and publicly humiliated like this.
Their refusal to act is without a doubt a serious disservice to Parliament which, in expressing the will of the people, established the MACC to fight corruption and as I said earlier, provided it with sufficient powers to deal with situations like these.
GOBIND SINGH DEO
MP Puchong.
Surely the MACC understands that silence in circumstances like these opens itself up to suspicion and public criticism. People will ask why the silence? Why the inaction?
It also makes a nonsense of the pledge by the MACC to rebuild its public image and the Prime Ministers promise to battle corruption to the hilt.
Silence indicates weakness on part of the MACC and weakness on part of the nation in its fight against corruption.
It points to a lack of will on part of the MACC to act equally in its fight against corruption. It opens up discussion as to why the case of double standards? For example, did Teoh Beng Hock or Ahmad Sarbani have the same privilege of the MACC shying away if they refused to cooperate?
I call upon the MACC to explain why it remains quiet. There is no reason, to my mind, for the MACC to allow itself to be ridiculed and publicly humiliated like this.
Their refusal to act is without a doubt a serious disservice to Parliament which, in expressing the will of the people, established the MACC to fight corruption and as I said earlier, provided it with sufficient powers to deal with situations like these.
GOBIND SINGH DEO
MP Puchong.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.