Albert Tei, the "businessman," caught in a major drama which turned him into an anti-Anwar trooper, is what I prefer to call a "broker" as I do not know what kind of business he is involved except to broker for licenses on behalf of his clients.
Like me, he has a wide network of contacts, especially with the Sabahan politicians, with whom he could meet and talk to. The only differences between us are that he is lobbying for big projects in the form of licenses on behalf of his clients while I contact people within my network to help solve some problems on the ground, and in his cases, people are willing to pay money for these licenses, or in short bribes, while I do a lot of the work on either pro bono or by just earning an honest income for work done. For example, through my network of contacts, I may be writing the autobigoraphy as a ghost writer for a client but because I empathise with her, I also try to get the help of people I know who can help her solve her problems with a particular state government. She paid me for writing her book, not to pay a bribe to lobby for her case to be NFA.
Of late, I find that he has been digging his hole too big. From accusing that some of the politicians in Sabah had failed to deliver their promises to grant the license after receiving the "earnest" depost, if I may call it, Albert has become a direct attacked of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. He had also accused Anwar's political secretary Samsul Iskandar Mohd Akin of accepting bribes in the form of home furnishings and probably some cash in the name of cash aids.
To me, the biggest mistake was for Samsul to accept these gifts, but I believe Samsul will have the opportunity to prove that he did not recommend any specific company; instead, he provided a list of companies and the selection process was up to the Sabah state government to vet through. Samsul's "mistake" was more towards Anwar's instruction that ministers or any of the current government's senior officers should make any recommendations. The rule is No letter of recommendation. Period.
Now, let's look at Tei's early days when he first came onto the platform with his allegations that some politicians had accepted his bribes. Firstly, the reason why the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) would not give him protection as a wtiness is because of two reasons:
(a) He openly revealed the information in public, which may affect the investgiation process. Tei should have surrendered the information to the MACC and allow them to carry out their own investigation. Now that everything is out in the open, whoever was in the wrong, could easily escape by doing the necessary. After all, we must understand what is in the MACC Act 2009 Section 17(a) and (b), where the deputy public prosecutor would have to prove that a favour was given in return of the money received by the accused:
Albert Tei's early weeks
Section 17(a):
An agent commits an offence if he corruptly accepts or obtains gratification as an inducement or reward for doing—or forbearing to do—any act in relation to his principal’s affairs or business.
Section 17(b):
Any person commits an offence if he corruptly gives or offers gratification to an agent for the same purpose.
In both sections, especially Section 17(b), Tei does not qualify himself as an informant who can be protected under the Whistleblowers' Act, as he himself is involved in "corruptly or giving or offering" the gratification. Through his own video, Tei has basically incriminated himself.
Azam Baki's decision not to provide protection under the Whisteblowers' Act is partly because Tei does not qualify since he is the giver of the bribe itself. The fault does not lie with the Whistleblowers' Act or the MACC for not being able to provide protection to someone who provided information to the MACC that could lead to the prosecution of a person who is involved in a scandal.
It is too bad for Tei, as he did not make the correct moves. In the first place, by exposing that he gave the money to certain individuals, he was merely putting himself in a more precarious position because the MACC Act does not only include the recipient but the giver of a bribe. In short, Tei's vidoes were self-incriminating.
I feel constrained to respond to a question that is on many people’s mind why the MACC did not act on the Sabahan politicians. Money received does not amount to a bribe unless it can be proven that the mining licence was given. If not the MACC would not be able to prosecute the recipients as it will be dismissed by the court. Section 50(1) of the MACC act states that the gratification received must be proven that it was a form of inducement or reward, otherwise the the accused cannot be committed to a crime pf corruption.
50. (1) Where in any proceedings against any person for an offence under section 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 or 23 it is proved that any gratification has been received or agreed to be received, accepted or agreed to be accepted, obtained or attempted to be obtained, solicited, given or agreed to be given, promised, or offered, by or to the accused, the gratification shall be presumed to have been corruptly received or agreed to be received, accepted or agreed to be accepted, obtained or attempted to be obtained, solicited, given or agreed to be given, promised, or offered as an inducement or a reward for or on account of the matters set out in the particulars of the offence, unless the contrary is proved.
So honestly i won’t be surprised that Shamsul, Anwar’s former political secretary, would be acquitted, not because of political interference but the burden of proof is on Tei that he received the mining license in return for the gratification (bribe) he gave to Shamsul.
Comments
Post a Comment