YOURSAY | ‘Looks less like courage, more like storytelling timed for political damage control.’
Ex-aide lodges MACC report after flagged for Zaliha's silence on graft
Group urges MACC to probe claims Zaliha turned down RM50m bribe
Ex-aide says Zaliha rejected bribe but kept mum, KJ says possible offence
Ayam Kampung: This is a lame attempt to bootlick the boss - a textbook bodek queen at work.
If then minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Federal Territories) Dr Zaliha Mustafa, or her ex-aide G Sivamalar, were genuinely insulted or alarmed by the alleged RM50 million bribe, they should have gone straight to the MACC.
That is the bare minimum expected of any public servant who claims to stand for integrity and accountability.
Remaining silent and allowing this information to surface more than two years later in a casual, off-hand interview is not how one earns the rakyat’s trust.
It looks less like courage and more like convenient storytelling timed for political damage control.
Put your money where your mouth is. You are a public servant. You serve the rakyat, not your political superior. The right thing was to report the matter immediately, which you did not.
So please do not claim the moral high ground now. You forfeited that right two years ago when you and your boss chose silence over duty.
Dr Suresh Kumar: Is this a Freudian slip on Sivamalar’s part, or a clumsily crafted attempt at apple-polishing that backfired? Either way, the damage is done.
Sivamalar admitted she was present and personally witnessed the alleged offer. RM50 million is not loose talk, not small change, and certainly not something to be mentioned casually years later. It is a serious sum that demands serious action.
The public has the right to know who this so-called brave hero is, especially after businessperson Albert Tei’s bribery case.
In a country plagued by unbridled corruption, selective disclosures and delayed revelations only deepen cynicism and erode trust in public institutions.
If this disclosure was meant to inspire confidence, it has achieved the opposite.
Cogito Ergo Sum: In a sloppy attempt to ampu bodek (brown nose) her boss, Sivamalar has unintentionally implicated both herself and Zaliha in a potential corruption issue. This episode speaks volumes about the calibre of our cabinet.
Both appear to see themselves as unsung heroes - paragons of integrity who deserve praise for doing what the law already requires. They are not heroes. They are public office holders who failed to act when it mattered most.
MACC must act with the same vigour and enthusiasm shown in the Tei case. There must be no double standards, no political cushioning, and no immunity simply because the narrative is inconvenient. Integrity delayed is integrity denied.
Wah Gor Your Favourite PM: This is a classic case of “The lady doth protest too much, methinks,” from William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene II.
Nobody accused her boss of corruption, so there was no need for this public justification. At most, she has been criticised for incompetence and a lack of gravitas in handling sensitive matters such as decisions related to the Pardons Board. This revelation does nothing to add weight to her standing.
A seasoned and genuinely upright politician would have rejected countless monetary offers quietly over the years, often involving far larger sums, without ever feeling the need to publicise them. That is simply part of the job.
By highlighting a single instance of supposed integrity, the former aide inadvertently exposes her boss as politically lightweight — someone for whom rejecting a bribe is treated as an extraordinary achievement rather than a basic expectation.
IndigoJaguar7545: For your information, attempted bribery is 100 percent prosecuted as if you committed the act.
Section 28 of MACC Act says: “Attempts, preparations, abetment and criminal conspiracies punishable as offence: Section 28. (1) Any person who (a) attempts to commit any offence under this Act; (b) does any act preparatory to or in furtherance of the commission of any offence under this Act; or (c) abets or is engaged in a criminal conspiracy to commit any offence under this Act, commits such offence and shall on conviction be liable to the punishment provided for such offence."
How do you not know this?
Anonymous: The law is clear, regardless of political allegiance. Section 25(3) of the MACC Act requires any person from whom gratification has been solicited, obtained, or even attempted to report the matter at the earliest opportunity to the commission or the police.
I am not a fan of Zaliha nor Sivamalar. But legal accuracy matters. Neither Zaliha nor Sivamalar solicited the bribe. On that point, outrage should be properly directed.
If the allegation is true, the MACC should pursue the tobacco company and its representative for attempting to bribe government officials.
That offence stands on its own and should not be obscured by political theatre, delayed virtue-signalling, or selective moral outrage. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.