The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), in its blog www.ourdifferentview.com, admitted that the documents published by blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin were genuine, although it did not refer to it directly.
However, it stated that Raja Petra's claims in his Malaysia Today blog that the agency failed to act on graft allegations as baseless.
“The accusations made in a blog that said MACC did not investigate and did not prosecute suspects based on the investigation reports of three cases is absolutely baseless,” stated the MACC blog.
Apart from publishing MACC documents concerning ex-Malaysia Airlines chairman Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli and former Selangor Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo, Raja Petra also published MACC investigation papers or reports against Datuk Seri Zulkifly Mat Noor who was former chief of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA, as the forerunner of the MACC was known at the time) and National Civics Bureau director-general Datuk Shagul Hamid Abdullah, and a report on the allegations by Kulim State Assemblyman Lim Soo Nee that he was offered a bribe to defect to the Barisan Nasional (BN).
The MACC blog stated: "All cases cited are old cases.”
Concerning Zulkifly, MACC stated that news reports in 2007 had highlighted police investigations on Zulkifly, and pointed out that they could not have taken action against their own head.
“To ensure that investigations were done fairly and transparently, the police were given the responsibility to handle the investigations,” said the MACC.
“Besides, the cases mentioned were not graft cases. Don’t try to connect MACC with this issue and slam us for purportedly not taking action to investigate and prosecute. It is not fair to hit out at MACC and connect it to the issue of MACC’s frayed image for silencing action on this case.”
MACC also pointed out that the report on Lim was not enough to prosecute BN's former Kedah Menteri Besar who allegedly offered Lim a RM5 million bribe to defect to the BN, which could have resulted in the current PAS-led Kedah government to fall.
“If the investigation report is read carefully, it is only a report that was given by the branch office to the headquarters for it to start the investigation process. In this case, the ACA had already started investigations,” said the blog.
The blog further blamed Pakatan Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) leaders for hampering their investigations by sparking massive media coverage which eventually affected the outcome of the case.
“The attitude of PKR’s highest leaders who were too quick to over-react until this case was blown up in the media,” said the MACC.
“It clearly affected the ACA’s investigation process. Investigations were disrupted as there was no longer an element of surprise and the perpetrators who were involved knew the future actions of the authorities. Eventually, the case that was supposed to happen did not happen. So, who should be blamed in this instance?”
The MACC went on to state that they had tried to collect evidence in Lim's case as the purported bribe had not yet occurred, but their efforts were allegedly blocked by over-reactive PKR leaders as mentioned by the former MACC chief, according to a February 2009 news report.
“In this case, the (graft) transaction had not yet happened and the process of collecting evidence was disrupted because of the over-reaction of other parties,” it said.
“Because of that, MACC tightened laws by introducing Section 29(4) of the MACC Act 2009. It is aimed at preventing complainants from declaring their complaints in public until the investigation process is complete and the guilty party is brought to court.”
On Dr Khir's case, the MACC blog pointed out that the case was deemed 'no further action' as investigations showed that there was no wrongdoing.
In a third case which involved Dr Khir, the MACC pointed out that they had no basis to prosecute him as statements from witnesses and documents favoured the accused.
“In the case of the former Selangor Menteri Besar, it clearly shows that both elements — statements and evidential documents — were on the side of the accused. To what basis then MACC will have to use to prosecute him?” it asked.
“MACC has investigated and deemed that he (Dr Khir) did not commit any wrongdoing in his visits to Disneyland and Morocco,” it said, adding that the agency had completed their duties in investigating Dr Khir and pointed out that an investigation process was not about pinpointing the blame on someone.
“This case clearly proves that MACC has done its duty to investigate. The investigation process is not a process to look for someone to blame. Instead, it is a process to find the truth. MACC cannot accuse someone based merely on sentiment.”
06/10/10
However, it stated that Raja Petra's claims in his Malaysia Today blog that the agency failed to act on graft allegations as baseless.
“The accusations made in a blog that said MACC did not investigate and did not prosecute suspects based on the investigation reports of three cases is absolutely baseless,” stated the MACC blog.
Apart from publishing MACC documents concerning ex-Malaysia Airlines chairman Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli and former Selangor Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo, Raja Petra also published MACC investigation papers or reports against Datuk Seri Zulkifly Mat Noor who was former chief of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA, as the forerunner of the MACC was known at the time) and National Civics Bureau director-general Datuk Shagul Hamid Abdullah, and a report on the allegations by Kulim State Assemblyman Lim Soo Nee that he was offered a bribe to defect to the Barisan Nasional (BN).
The MACC blog stated: "All cases cited are old cases.”
Concerning Zulkifly, MACC stated that news reports in 2007 had highlighted police investigations on Zulkifly, and pointed out that they could not have taken action against their own head.
“To ensure that investigations were done fairly and transparently, the police were given the responsibility to handle the investigations,” said the MACC.
“Besides, the cases mentioned were not graft cases. Don’t try to connect MACC with this issue and slam us for purportedly not taking action to investigate and prosecute. It is not fair to hit out at MACC and connect it to the issue of MACC’s frayed image for silencing action on this case.”
MACC also pointed out that the report on Lim was not enough to prosecute BN's former Kedah Menteri Besar who allegedly offered Lim a RM5 million bribe to defect to the BN, which could have resulted in the current PAS-led Kedah government to fall.
“If the investigation report is read carefully, it is only a report that was given by the branch office to the headquarters for it to start the investigation process. In this case, the ACA had already started investigations,” said the blog.
The blog further blamed Pakatan Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) leaders for hampering their investigations by sparking massive media coverage which eventually affected the outcome of the case.
“The attitude of PKR’s highest leaders who were too quick to over-react until this case was blown up in the media,” said the MACC.
“It clearly affected the ACA’s investigation process. Investigations were disrupted as there was no longer an element of surprise and the perpetrators who were involved knew the future actions of the authorities. Eventually, the case that was supposed to happen did not happen. So, who should be blamed in this instance?”
The MACC went on to state that they had tried to collect evidence in Lim's case as the purported bribe had not yet occurred, but their efforts were allegedly blocked by over-reactive PKR leaders as mentioned by the former MACC chief, according to a February 2009 news report.
“In this case, the (graft) transaction had not yet happened and the process of collecting evidence was disrupted because of the over-reaction of other parties,” it said.
“Because of that, MACC tightened laws by introducing Section 29(4) of the MACC Act 2009. It is aimed at preventing complainants from declaring their complaints in public until the investigation process is complete and the guilty party is brought to court.”
On Dr Khir's case, the MACC blog pointed out that the case was deemed 'no further action' as investigations showed that there was no wrongdoing.
In a third case which involved Dr Khir, the MACC pointed out that they had no basis to prosecute him as statements from witnesses and documents favoured the accused.
“In the case of the former Selangor Menteri Besar, it clearly shows that both elements — statements and evidential documents — were on the side of the accused. To what basis then MACC will have to use to prosecute him?” it asked.
“MACC has investigated and deemed that he (Dr Khir) did not commit any wrongdoing in his visits to Disneyland and Morocco,” it said, adding that the agency had completed their duties in investigating Dr Khir and pointed out that an investigation process was not about pinpointing the blame on someone.
“This case clearly proves that MACC has done its duty to investigate. The investigation process is not a process to look for someone to blame. Instead, it is a process to find the truth. MACC cannot accuse someone based merely on sentiment.”
06/10/10
No comments:
Post a Comment