RESPECT FOR THE MACC CHIEF

MACC chief: Kick my ass if I'm wrong

Feb 8, 10 12:29pm

Newly-minted Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief Abu Kassim Mohamed wants Malaysians to give him the benefit of doubt.

Recognising that the MACC will have to redeem its image following a number of controversies, Abu Kassim said the commission must demonstrate that it is independent.

“I need you to be our champion. By doing that, if anyone wants to kill MACC, you'll be our protector. But believe me, if I'm wrong, you kick my ass,” he said without mincing his words.

“Just say, 'Abu, you're wrong. If you want us to protect you, behave yourself.' I will make sure that I go straight. My words, (and) my actions must show that I'm independent.”

Abu Kassim made these remarks at a recent hour-long informal discussion with MACC advisory panel member Anis Yusoff, andMalaysiakini columnist KJ John and editor-in-chief Steven Gan at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Academy in Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur.

Topics covered included the actions MACC must take to regain public trust, its never-ending probe on Selangor Opposition Leader Dr Mohd Khir Toyo and why the commission is reaching out to the alternative media.

Abu Kassim, who took over the embattled MACC less than two months ago, revealed that the advisory panel had requested attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail to explain why no action had been taken on the Lingam tape scandal.

He also described the MACC's police report against Thai pathologistDr Pornthip Rojanasunand - a witness in the Teoh Beng Hock inquest - as a “shot in the foot” [sic].

Excerpts of the discussion follow.

Gan: One of the major problems with MACC is the accusation that it ignores politically sensitive cases.

Abu Kassim: In the case of Rafidah Aziz (former international trade and industry minister), it was very clear that we recommended that she be charged.

All big cases, we investigate. In many countries, to investigate big cases, you have to get permission. In one country, (the anti-corruption agency is) very independent, but the government did not give it enough resources - no people, no investigation. In another country, the anti-corruption agency has no powers. It is merely a coordinating agency.

In Malaysia, the MACC is accountable directly to Parliament. At the end of the year, we have to present our report (to Parliament). We are now preparing our annual report. After that, we have to present it to our advisory board.

And we have to bring that report to the special committee under the Parliament which consists of (MPs) from the opposition and the government. And they can call us up at any time to answer all the issues raised in the report.

The prime minister has no role. The Prime Minister's Department controls only the (MACC) budget. And it answers questions in Parliament on issues not directly involving us. We are more afraid of the (advisory) committee and the Parliament. We are answerable to the committee and the Parliament.

Those who are sitting in the committee, do you think they will keep quiet? Even at today's (advisory panel) meeting, sampai habis (until the very end), I have to answer, answer, answer - non-stop answering.

But I'm happy. They make sure that you don't go astray. You must be straight. If something is wrong, they will say, 'Go back, go back. Straight line, please'. I like that. I like that because they are representing the society.

The problem is people don't understand. One of the committee member just now thought that we have the powers to prosecute.

Anis: They have been in the committee for nearly a year, they still did not know...

Abu Kassim: I had to explain to him, 'No, I don't have the powers to prosecute'. Although the law says that I can act as the DPP (deputy public prosecutor), but it's the AG (attorney-general) who gives me the power. We control the investigation, not the prosecution.

So if you want to assess me, assess me on the investigations. We investigate all cases which have been reported to us. Furthermore,lagi susah (even more troublesome is that) the operation review committee wants everything to be presented to them - any case which we decide not to investigate, we must justify (our decision).

Anis: (The advisory panel chief) Hadenan (Abdul Jalil) is on the committee...

Abu Kassim: Tan Sri Hadenan, Cecil Abraham - all these people are well-trained. Cases which we keep after one year and do not submit to the DPP, we have to tell them. And they start asking why tak habis lagi? (why haven't these been completed yet?).

If there is a conflict between MACC and DPP - we suggest charge, they suggest don't charge - we have to explain why. And before we want to close any case, we have to explain to them (the advisory committee). 'This case is going to be close and these are the reasons'. And they can call up all the cases which the public have complained (about) to them at any time.

That's why, although their terms of reference involved cases only for 2009, when they saw the Lingam tape case, they made a public announcement that they want the AG to present to the (advisory) committee.

So they wrote a letter, and AG will have to make a presentation.

Gan: When is the presentation?

Abu Kassim: The meeting will be next month. This is now a totally different world, believe me. Working in MACC is like (being in) hell. Previously we were not transparent. I have to be frank - then, it was only between us and that AG. Now we have to be accountable.

John: What is the relationship between the minister and MACC?

Abu Kassim: He answers questions in Parliament only. We prepare answers for him to answer, that's all. He has no administrative powers over us. If he calls me to see him, and I don't want to see him, it's okay. I never go and see him, unless he says, 'Abu, this is the answer in Parliament, I want to know more in case the wakil rakyat (members of parliament) ask'. Normally I send my officer.

Even if he has a post-cabinet meeting to coordinate something, I don't go. My junior officer goes. All other heads of department, they go. I don't go. Why should I? I don't want to be seen as...

I need to be frank with you. I need you to be our champion. By doing that, if anyone wants to kill MACC, you'll be our protector. But believe me, if I'm wrong, you kick my ass. If I'm wrong, don't agak-agak (don't hesitate). Just say, 'Abu, you're wrong. If you want us to protect you, behave yourself.' I will make sure that I go straight.

My words, my actions must show that I'm independent.

Anis: Today at the (advisory panel) meeting, one of the suggestions was that you cannot sign off as menurut perintah(following orders) any more. You will sign off as pemegang amanah (as holder of the public trust).

Abu Kassim: From now on, with all my letters, I'll signed off asSaya pemegang amanah.

John: All the MACC officers (should do so). Menurut perintah is old culture.

Abu Kassim: I'm happy (with the suggestion). Sometimes you don't see the problem as you're used to it.

John: I'm a retired civil servant. Out there, all ex-civil servants want to see country do well. But you must be able to listen to them. And they will tell you as it is.

Abu Kassim: Based on the law, I don't have to attend the meeting today. Only my deputy needs to attend.

Gan: What meeting?

Abu Kassim: The advisory panel.

John: The full panel?

Abu Kassim: No, no, one of the five panels. The one chaired by Tan Sri (Ramon) Navarathnam.

Anis: The one dealing with media, democracy...

Abu Kassim: Getting public support and all that. But I wanted to come. I wanted to hear. I wanted to interact with them. I wanted to hear what they say. They are not MACC. They are representing the public. I wanted to be close to the public.

They don't even get any salary from us, or the government. They are people like you, who have been appointed to the advisory panel.

Anis: People read Malaysiakini. All the criticism (inMalaysiakini) is coming from one side. But they are not at fault. The criticisms are based on perception.

Abu Kassim: Here's a classic example, the sand case...

Gan: The 'sand and sex' case?

Abu Kassim: Yes... about how it is being politicised. When our officers wanted to make arrests,(Selangor exco Yaakob Sapari)called all the media. And he spun things which were totally irrelevant and not right. He said that we were investigating him for going to China.

How did he know that we were investigating him for going to China? No, we didn't investigate him for going to China.

We were forced to come up with a statement, or else the damage would have been worse. So I asked my officers to tell how many (were arrested). But the mistake that we made was we didn't put the dates on (all) the arrests.

Gan: It looked like the arrests were made on the same day.

Anis: Or that Selangor was the only state where the arrests were made.

Abu Kassim: We had been arresting people the week before - Johor, Pahang...

Gan: But the timing was also bad as Dr Mahathir (Mohamad) said something on the matter in his blog a day or two before...

Abu Kassim: That I totally did not know.

Gan: So you're saying that it was a coincidence.

Abu Kassim: 100 percent. If I knew, I'd have made sure...

Gan: Some people put two and two together and come to the opinion that...

John: That was the unfunny part - the timing (of the arrests).

Gan: What about the MACC's police report against Dr Pornthip? That was...

Abu Kassim: A shot in the foot.

Gan: That's right. How did you come to that decision? What made you do it?

Abu Kassim: For me, it's very important to focus on the Teoh Beng Hock case. Make the (inquest) complete as fast as possible. All the plot within the plot is not important. We have to move forward. How can we move forward if this keeps dragging, dragging and dragging (on)?

Gan: I can understand if the police report is made againstSuara Keadilan. But not Pornthip. It looked like MACC has an axe to grind.

Abu Kassim: I agree with you. I went to Mecca to perform myumrah (minor pilgrimage). I came back and the next morning I and my wife went to have nasi lemak. When we were almost finished, a TV station (reporter) came and asked, 'Datuk, what's your opinion (about the report against) Dr Pornthip?'

I said, 'What report?' What to answer? So I said if there was a report, then let them (police) investigate.

But I was very sincere when I said, 'I did not know'. I asked AG (about it), the AG said every (MACC) officer has the right make a police report.

But I would say that if he had made a police report against Suara Keadilan, then there may be some basis to it. I don't really understand why a report was made against Pornthip.

Gan: So the officer did not consult you?

Abu Kassim: I was away. I just came back.

John: Can an officer make a report without consulting any of his bosses?

Abu Kassim: I referred to the AG, and the AG said that if an officer wants to make a report, he can.

John: But he is doing it as a public official, he is not doing it as an individual.

Gan: Yes, he is seen to be representing MACC when making the police report.

Abu Kassim: He made the report as an MACC official, to preserve the (image of) MACC. I believe he might have asked somebody... I was not there at that particular time. At the particular time, I did not know. So I can seriously answer, I did not know.

Loose Tongues

I have been busy running around (practically so) this month that I have had very little time to pen my thoughts and my programs on my blogs. Must have racked on quite a fair bit of miles and worn out a sole or two (exaggeration!). But anyway, felt compelled to write on this matter.

I have always considered YB Dato’ Seri Rais Yatim as one of the more rationale minded and knowledgeable ministers around. His comments and ideas appear to be well thought out before he says them and the way he delivers his thoughts and ideas, especially in his speeches shows a certain flair, elegance and mannerisms of a learned and well read person.

However these past several weeks have been quite the opposite for him. First was his comment that Malaysians, especially Muslims, should not be too engrossed with Facebook, Twitter and such because this is a Western invention. Honestly, I find it very offensive and totally of tangent, especially because:-

i. Facebook, Twitter and so on and nothing more than tools of communication. It is up to the user how to use or abuse them. The same goes for internet and a lot of other things. They are by no means an end to themselves but just tools to assist us to achieve what we want. Should you decide to use the internet to good use, seeking knowledge and opening up our minds, then internet has been put to good use. Should we decide to abuse it by accessing porn sites and other negative sites only, then we are abusing this facility. Twitter, Facebook or even the internet cannot decide. They just react to our commands.

ii. So what if it is a western invention? If we are not allowed to use Western inventions, then there are a whole list of things we cannot utilise or even consume. No where in the Al-Quran nor in the hadiths by Rasulullah saw that said Muslims must stay away from Western inventions. What are Halal and Haram are not dictated by geographical aspects nor by who invented them.

If anything at all, one should put these mediums to good use. Use them to spread the teachings of Allah swt for example, keep contact with friends near and far and learn about other cultures and countries that are so distant from us.

Another statement that he made was the recent issue on blogger Aduka Taruna. What Aduka Taruna did was extremely disrespectful, not only because AlMarhum Tuanku was the subject, but would even be insulting for a normal person who passed away. How can YB Dato Seri Rais Yatim said that this person will not be charged and should be let off? I thought that was the purview of the Attorney General after reviewing the case and no one else. What YB Dato’ Seri did then was ultra vires.

As a learned person holding the post of Minister, YB Dato Rais should know better. The fact that he is holding the portfolio of information minister makes it worse for him on these cases. His statements make him look foolish and ill placed, especially when even his cabinet colleagues and fellow UMNO members from top to bottom are criticising him for his statements.

My letter to Star

Dear Sirs,

I refer to your report on page N8 - “Legalise, Don’t Deport”.

I totally disagree with MIC Youth Chief T Mohan who asked the Government to introduce a clemency programme for the 40,000 Indian citizens working illegally in Malaysia. His statement is irresponsible and is not thought out properly.

Firstly, should the Government follow his advice, the Government will set a very dangerous precedent for other illegal workers. What about the illegal workers from Indonesia and China? If we were to allow for the illegal and missing Indian workers, we would then need to allow for the others too.

By coming out with a clemency programme as suggested by MIC Youth, the Government will set a trend that will encourage more illegal workers and overstayers in the future. Our country will be swamped with them and we would have a host of other problems that our country could well do without.

The relevant agencies under Government must take action against illegal workers, irregardless where they come from. For example, obviously these workers were brought in by agents or specific companies to work in Malaysia. Immigration Department or Human Resources Ministry should haul them up, not to explain but to impose stiff penalties and even blacklist these companies because of their failure to monitor these illegal and overstaying workers.

MIC, being the a political party should assist the Government by flushing the illegals out rather than trying to protect the wrongdoers and trying to get them clemency.

We want good workers who are respectful of the law, not those who break the law. I am disappointed that MIC Youth feels they should protect these people who have clearly broken the law.

Ahmad Ikmal Ismail

Vice Division Chief for UMNO Jerai

A Case for The Removal of Subsidies

I generally agree with the Government’s move to reduce the subsidy on sugar and remove it from white bread. I was also happy (although it also hit my pocket) that the Government reduced the subsidies on petrol.

Generally subsidies make us have a false sense of economic security and well being. It also gives us a false inflation indicator as the index is calculated based on the subsidised price and not the actual market price and cost. We then think we have more money in our pockets whilst in all fairness, our purchasing power has gone down. Because of subsidised pricing and this false sense of security, we tend to be clumsy on our spending and maybe even consume more, which in turn chalks up a higher subsidy bill for the Government and taxpayers.

Subsidies are also a lot like burnt money. They tend not to have a high multiplier effect on the economy but is just given to the supplier direct. For example, Malaysia’s subsidy bills runs up to approximately RM25 – RM30 billion. Imagine what the nation can do in terms of development, economic stimulus packages and so on if we have that much money in the nation’s pocket instead of it being burnt money.

So,in general, subsidies are bad for the economy in the long run. The gradual removal of subsidies, especially to the rich must be implemented and welcomed. For example, why should a person who can afford to buy a luxurious huge oil guzzler of 3.0 litres or more, be given the same amount of subsidy per litre petrol as a person driving a 1.6litre. More so the oil guzzler might have a 120l capacity tank compared to the smaller car which has a 70l capacity tank. In this regard, obviously, the Government subsidy on petrol is being enjoyed by the wrong group.

However, in reality, the Government still needs to subsidise for the poor and the needy, especially on basic and essential items like rice, sugar and so on. Certain economic activities like padi planting, farming, fishing and so on also must be subsidised. These are all part of the overall “Food Security Programme” for the country. It is better to subsidise these activities and ensure domestic production of these food types rather than import from outside and be exposed to the whims and fancies of foreign country suppliers.

The removal of subsidies should be done gradually and smartly. Agreed that this will be an unpopular move politically but it must be done to ensure the country’s competitiveness and survival in the long run. The Government must clearly explain and justify to the rakyat the importance and the effects of the removal of these subsidies. At the same time, the Government must clearly show where all the money saved as a result of the removal of the subsides go to. A case in question is the reduction of the petrol subsidy. The Government declared that it would save RM4billion which would be used to improve transport facilities and so on. Even if the ensuing world petrol price hike had wiped out the total RM4b savings, this must be explained clearly and in detail to the Rakyat instead of a one off remark. The same goes for the savings for sugar, white bread subsidies and other subsidies in the future.

Though the Government means well, lack of communication and explanation will lead to confusion and speculation. The Rakyat will think that there is corruption and leakages in the Government machinery which is a worse political death knell than the removal of subsides for the rich initially.

Remove certain subsidies and re-strategise on certain other subsidies to ensure that the subsidies reach the right target group. At the same time, the Government machinery must be improved to ensure there is no abuse or wastage on these subsidies.

Tell the rakyat clearly where the savings from the removal of subsidies have gone to.

Ahmad Ikmal Ismail

Vice UMNO Division Chief Jerai

(sent this article to the media)