No Case Or Lack Of Witnesses?

A Kadir Jasin
[Please take note, ANONYMOUS comments with not be entertained. When commenting, your real identity is preferred. But a suitable pseudonym is accepted. If you have to use anonymous, please print your name or pen name at the bottom of your message. Please avoid seditious, defamatory and libelous statements. Unrelated comments will not be given priority.]

[UPDATE] -- PUTRAJAYA, July 29 – Dr Ling Liong Sik was charged in court here today for his role in the scandal hit Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project.


The prosecution of Dr Ling comes as a huge shock and is expected to have repercussions for MCA as he is still considered a kingmaker in the party.

The prosecution team is led by the Attorney General Abdul Ghani Pattail, Deputy Public Prosector Tun Majid Tun Hamzah and DPP Manoj Kurup.

Ling will be represented by Datuk R R Sethu.

[Original Post]


THREE high-profile politicians were yesterday cleared by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission of graft allegations, the New Straits Times reported today.

The paper quoted the MACC Operations Review Panel (PPO) as saying that it had closed the files on Health Minister Liow Tiong Lai, former transport minister Ong Tee Keat and the Selangor Menteri Besar, Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.

PPO head Hadenan Abdul Jalil said the commission found no evidence of any wrongdoing by the three politicians. But in the following paragraph, the paper quoted Hadenan as saying as the lack of witnesses one of the reasons why the investigations against the three were closed.

I know Hadenan (Tan Sri) for a long time. He’s a fine civil servant. I have no bone to pick with him.

But I am puzzled because, on the one hand he said, “the commission found no evidence of any wrongdoing by the three politicians” while on the other he said, “the lack of witnesses one of the reasons why the investigations against the three were closed.”

So, which is which – the investigations against them were closed because the commission found no evidence of any wrongdoing or because the commission could not find sufficient witnesses to make cases against them?

Hadenan was further quoted as admitting, “there is still the perception among the public that the MACC is slow in investigating high-profile cases.”

“This is a misunderstanding as it takes time to probe and there are also other factors to consider,” he said at the panel’s second quarterly review at the MACC Academy in Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur.

Can we blame the public for forming such perception?

It bothers me, when government and opposition leaders were simultaneously investigated, and months later investigations against them were simultaneously discontinued, purportedly for the lack of evidence.

Ong was alleged to have accepted an RM10-million donation from a government contractor who is also the leader of Barisan Nasional's backbenchers in Parliament, Tiong King Sing. Tiong was the CEO of Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd, a key contractor of the problematic Port Klang Free Zone project.

Liow was alleged to have received a motor vehicle worth RM574,884 as a birthday gift from a Heath Ministry contractor.

Abdul Khalid was alleged to have used state funds to donate 46 heads of cattle for the Qurban in 2008.

Ong, Tiong and Abdul Khalid are not the only important politicians to get out of the hook. In recent months, investigations against many big names of both the BN and PR had come to naught. Even those who were taken to court had the cases against them unceremoniously thrown out for poor prosecution.

As I have stated in the posting of June 20 under the headline “Acquittals Of Corruption Cases Bad For MACC”, unless the MACC and the AG’s Chamber are able to get a higher conviction rate, the public should not be blamed if they once against lose confidence in the two key agencies that are in the forefront in the fight against corruption.

We can only demand that Hadenan and the MACC make good the threat to charge the witnesses with perjury if they retracted their statements.

The NST quoted Hadenan as saying: “As such, lack of evidence and hostile witnesses have jeopardised investigations. Despite numerous warnings to witnesses not to turn hostile or perjure themselves, it is still a problem in many cases.

“Either stick to your original statement or be charged with perjury.”

To borrow the phrase made famous during the era of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, please “walk the talk.”