Confused ...: Who is running MACC?

Officers or Outsiders in the various committees?

This blog have always been supporter and defenderof MACC. However off late, messages emanating from MACC is getting confusing and rather inconsistent. Thus this poser of a posting to seek for answers.

At one time, MACC said there is no issue with the RM2.6 billion as it is a donation. Then there was a change in stand to say it is incomplete so MACC is making two recommendations which is believed to involve SRC before it was thrown out back by AG the first time for insufficient evidence.

Subsequently, came the second submission to AG and they requested three charges under the Penal Code. Not mentioned is whether it is SRC or RM2.6 billion but charges under Penal Code.

What was reliably heard (sorry have to protect source's identity), one of the charges involved the RM2.6 billion which was earlier cleared and high officials had met the donor's representative in Nice, France and Saudi Arabia.

Thus this blog's suspicion that it will be another Khir Toyo like case of not involving corruption but merely conduct of a public servant. So happen the Geng Loceng have long been going to town with the no gift for public servant argument.

So we turn to this booklet given by MACC quite sometime ago.

Gift

The mentioned issue refers to their Question 2 and it is reproduced verbatim:

2) Apakah hadiah atau cenderahati boleh digolongkan sebagai rasuah?

Jawapan: Hadiah termasuk cenderahati adalah merupakan salah satu bentuk suapan rasuah. Dengan demikian, jika sesuatu hadiah / cenderahati tersebut diberikan atau diterima secara rasuah atau dengan niat rasuah, maka pemberian atau penerimaan hadiah / cenderahati itu merupakan kesalahan jenayah.

Seseorang pegawai awam tidak boleh menerima sebarang hadiah daripada mana-mana pihak sekiranya penerimaan hadiah itu ada kaitannya dengan tugas rasmi pegawai awam itu dan bentuk, amaun dan nilai hadiah itu tidak sepadan dengan maksud hadiah diberikan. Kesalahan ini dinyatakan dalam Peraturan 8, Peraturan-peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993. 

Walau bagaimanapun, seseorang pegawai awam boleh menerima hadiah / cenderahati dengan nilai yang sepadan jika hadiah / cenderahati diberikan atau diterima bukan secara rasuah. Pegawai awam itu dikehendaki melaporkan dan mendapatkan kebenaran daripada Ketua Jabatannya sebagaimana dalam Pekeliling Bil.3 Tahun 1998 (Penerimaan Hadiah dan Keraian Pegawai Awam).

Obviously, RM2.6 billion is not "hadiah / cenderahati dengan nilai sepadan". However. the important issue to be established is "hadiah / cenderahati tersebut diberikan atau diterima secara rasuah atau dengan niat rasuah". 


If the money received is not corruption and can be proven the intention of the money, is it still corruption? So have MACC done sufficient money trail all the way to the end user or it will do a Khir Toyo to put someone behind bar on technicality?

This is no spin or game to downplay but what MACC said in their booklet.


Charge Najib? 

The latest is the hot news item in town on the recomendation by the Operation Review Panel to charge Najib.  It is reported in TMI here that one anonymous member leaked that Najib should be charged.

MACC issued a statement on the panel recommendation here, in which among others, it was suggested that MACC issue a general statement on SRC and RM2.6 billion, and resubmit the Investigation Papers. It is heard the controversial Dato Bahari made a fiery and emotional presentation to the Panel yesterday.

This statement indicate what was heard of Najib is to be charged for the already cleared RM2.6 billion donation may have some truth.

As raised before, did MACC provided additional material or document as evidence when the IP was resubmitted? Hope MACC can tell the public and will they be resubmitting any additional evidence?

Thus far, this blogger is aware that the money flow showed by WSJ and other chart in circulation on SRC is faulty. It will not stand the test of the court. New evidence from MACC is needed to address this.

Otherwise, it will seemed to be a plot to make Najib vacate his position by charging him. It brings to the case of one former KSU charged for khalwat and missed the opportunity to be KSN. When acquited, he was not offered the post.

Two important witness have left the country and MACC claimed they have met them both. Can they be summoned as witness in court?

If Bank Negara with the better international network and cooperation could not provide additional evidence to AG for their case, how could public statements by MACC allegedly to create perception of guilt on the part of Najib conjure up new evidence?

It need be reminded that MACC was given a dateline to submit their investigation last year but could not complete investigation. Critics were pressuring and accusing AG for delaying the process. But, when AG gave a new dateline, MACC requested for more time.

At the current junction, any investigation need done should have been done and resubmitting will not involve new evidence. Off course, there is the suspicion of AG colluding to cover-up the PM. However, it is still presumption.      

Confidentiality

Since the AG have final say, transparency is not an option. That takes us to Question 22:

22) Apakah kriteria dan bidang tugas ahli lembaga / jawatankuasa / panel penasihat SPRM dan apakah locus standi lembaga / jawatankuasa / panel penasihat SPRM yang membuat ulasan terbuka kepada media mengenai kes yang sedang disiasat oleh SPRM dan menyebut nama tertentu kononnya akan disiasat? Adakah pandangan beliau mewakili pendirian SPRM?

Jawapan:

Berdasarkan kepada terma rujukan setiap mekanisme tanggungjawab yang diwujudkan itu, mereka tidak mempunyai autoriti untuk membincangkan kes-kes siasatan SPRM secara terbuka apatah lagi kes-kes yang masih lagi dalam siasatan SPRM. Terdapat peruntukan yang jelas di bawah Seksyen 29(4) Akta SPRM 2009 di mana sesuatu aduan tidak boleh didedahkan oleh mana-mana orang kepada mana-mana orang selain pegawai-pegawai Suruhanjaya dan Pendakwa Raya sehinggalah orang tertuduh dipertuduh di Mahkamah. Sebarang pendedahan hanya boleh dibuat dengan persetujuan Pendakwa Raya atau seorang pegawai Suruhanjaya yang berpangkat Pesuruhjaya dan yang lebih tinggi.

Oleh yang demikian, sebarang kenyataan yang dibuat oleh mana-mana ahli lembaga / jawatankuasa / panel penasihat SPRM berhubung dengan siasatan SPRM adalah dibuat atas kapasiti peribadi mereka sendiri atau dibuat oleh mana-mana mekanisme secara kolektif dan kenyataan tersebut tidak boleh dikaitkan dengan SPRM.

The question is long winded and confusing but the red highlight emphasised the point that no one should make any comment on any corruption reported or under investigation or in the process of being charged.

So why is MACC official of lesser position than Commissioner and member of the Operations Review Panel making public comments. In TMI report linked above, the source from among OPR was anonymous.

So who among them; Tan Sri Dr Hamid Bugo, Tan Sri Mohamed Jawhar Hassan, Datuk Zamani Abdul Ghani, Datuk Azizah Arshad, Datuk Wan Abdul Wahab Abdullah, Professor Dr Normah Omar, Dr Sundramoorthy M. Pathmanathan and Lim Chee Wee could have leaked their recommendation?

Is it an offense to breach this Article 29(4) of the MACC Act 2009?

This has to be taken seriously because leaks and constant allegations and accusation made these investigations prejudicial. The public have become presumptous because of public statements made on the case, particularly planned attack through foreign media.

Even investigating officers was said to have prejudged based on their prejudice of Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor and presumed her as the hands behind all this. Whether it came about from a statement by a former public servant, one will never know.

If this opens one to the risk of cover-up, look at it in another way. A leak could seriously inhibit investigation and allow perpatrator to escape.  

Locus Standi

Although only AG and MACC Commissioner can make public statement on cases, it is important to examine the various Council, Commitee and Advisory Panel established by MACC.

There are Anti Corruption Advisory Board (or the Malay acronym LPPR), Special Committee on Corruption (Or in Malay, JKMR), Complains Committee (or in Malay, JA), Operations Review Panel (ORP or in Malay, PPO) and Consultative and Prevention of Corruption Panel (or in Malay. PPPR).

Basically, the role of the five committee cum panel cum advisory are established for the internal role to undertake monitoring and check and balance role. PPPR is merely education and campaign in nature but PPO is elaborated at length in Question 23. Excerpt on PPO in Q&A 23 is below:

Panel Penilaian Operasi (PPO) diwujudkan secara pentadbiran dan ahli-ahlinya dilantik oleh Perdana Menteri dari kalangan mereka yang mempunyai kepakaran dan mewakili badan-badan profesional yang bersesuaian serta individu yang berupaya memperlihatkan ketelusan dan kebebasan tindakan oleh Suruhanjaya. Bidang kuasa PPO adalah seperti berikut:

• Menerima dan mendapatkan penjelasan berhubung perangkaan Kertas Siasatan yang dibuka oleh Suruhanjaya;

• Menerima dan meneliti laporan daripada Suruhanjaya berhubung Kertas Siasatan yang mana tempoh siasatan melebihi 12 bulan;

• Menerima laporan daripada Suruhanjaya berhubung semua kes di mana Orang Yang Ditangkap yang dilepaskan dengan jaminan oleh Suruhanjaya melebihi 6 bulan;

• Menerima dan meneliti laporan daripada Suruhanjaya berhubung keputusan-keputusan Kertas Siasatan yang telah dibuat oleh Pendakwa Raya;

• Menerima dan meneliti laporan daripada Suruhanjaya berhubung Kertas Siasatan yang dikemukakan kepada Pendakwa Raya dan tidak mendapat apa-apa keputusan selepas tempoh melebihi 6 bulan ke atas;

• Memberi pendapat berhubung tindakan-tindakan ke atas kes-kes yang diputuskan untuk tidak dituduh;

• Menasihati, mengkaji dan membantu Suruhanjaya ke arah keberkesanan operasi

• Meneliti, mengkaji dan memperakukan Lembaga Penasihat Pencegahan Rasuah berhubumg cadangan untuk meningkatkan keberkesanan operasi siasatan Suruhanjaya; dan 

• Mengemukakan laporan tahunan dan ulasan PPO kepada Y.A.B. Perdana Menteri berhubung dengan perjalanan operasi siasatan oleh Suruhanjaya.

Also internal monitoring and check and balance role. Still internal in operation. But since when do they have the locus standi to speak publicly on behalf of MACC?

As far as LPPR, JKMR and JA, it is all provided under the MACC Act 2009 Act 694 (available here), but PPO and PPPR are not provided for in the MACC Act. On what legal basis could the OPR instruct or direct the course of action of MACC?

Who runs MACC?

Has the civil servant paid and empowered to play the role of combatting corruption submit their power to the PPO? Is PPO the real MACC?

Before submitting to AG, MACC had consulted a special independent committee comprise of, as extracted from TMI report, below:

"The five members are former inspector-general of police Tan Sri Musa Hassan, former Court of Appeals judge Datuk Mohd Noor Abdullah, former Bank Negara deputy governor Datuk Zamandi Abdul Ghani, former Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee, and advocate and solicitor Datuk Zuraidah Atan."

The issue is more significant here. Under what law or civil service procedure did MACC form this special committee that is perceived to be empowered to recommend charges be made and review IP to make more charges?

In a more similar word, who empower them to do MACC work? Why empower them? Why allow those with political agenda and non independent personality like Lim Chee Wee a place?

Just asking because the Special Task Force boo boo with a predetermined intention by former AG, Tan Sri Gani Patail should not repeat itself. Maybe PM has to answer for appointing the PPO. By the look of it, the PPO initiative by PM is biting the hands that fed them. It still does not matter.

What matter most is MACC should remain Independent, Transparent and Professional.  -anotherbrickinwall