Rafizi’s Political Noise: A Distraction Malaysia Doesn’t Need
 |
| Where is the hype? Rafizi arrived at the MACC office dressed in a full suit. |
I thought this title may attact readers more, but I decided to use the other topic in view of my desire to see this country coming back together again, and nothing else.
Someone sent me a message that made me fumed. It accuses the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) of exercising selective investigations.
To me, this kind of messages is baseless. And the way how former Minister of Economy Rafizi Ramli's former aide James Chai had staged it over a few weeks, showed that both Rafizi and Chai are very determined to create a drama out of something that is normal for MACC or the police to conduct its investigation when a report is lodged.
Often, the authorities are accused of sidestepping the investigation; the truth is the evidences provided are not strong enough that can be produced in court, or at the very least, convincing the officers that there could be a case.
The public must understand that an investigation may be carried out, but it is not "selective" investigation, as alleged by certain quarters. In fact, I was surprised that Rafizi did not immediately advise Chai to appear before the MACC to provide the full story of what transpired. He allowed Chai to drag the case for a few weeks. Chai only complied after the MACC offered to pay for his airticket to return home; otherwise, the MACC would apply through Interpol to have Chai arrested and brought home.
Usually an investigation is kickstarted when a report to the MACC had been lodged. It is not often that the MACC would start an investigation unless it has reasons to be suspicious that some form of corruption had taken place. However, it does not mean that the investigation will always end up with a person being charged in court. Chai knew that he could thereafter face another charge for not cooperating with the investigator.
Meanwhile, Rafizi had threatened right from the beginning to sue the MACC if the investigation did not find fault with him or Chai.
Personally, I think Rafizi was too presumptious when he made that statement. What the public must realise is that Rafizi is good at saying things that will attract attention to himself as though he is now the victim of a regime that is seeking to silence him.
To clear the air, an investigation by the police or the MACC may not necessarily end up with a prosecution. There are many instances where, after a statement is made, the case is given the "No Futher Action" (NFA) status unless some fresh evidence emerges. So, please do not be deceived by this kind of empty talk by Rafizi just to hype up his case.
Observe this with me, won't you? While Rafizi is creating the perception that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is victimising him, Anwar has not uttered a word against Rafizi. Although Anwar is well-known for his slogan, "Lawan Tetap Lawan," I think so far, Anwar still has a softspot for Rafizi. Of course, he would have wished that Rafizi bury the hatchet and work together with the Madani government and the people of Malaysia to rebuild the nation.
And when I say that Anwar may still have a soft spot for Rafizi, the relationship may not necessarily be reconciable, especially if the rift is too big between the two. Ultimately, Rafizi risks political irrelevance, as an increasing number of observers except those who are aligned with him, feel that he is overplaying his hand.
Anwar's focus now is on the country's economy, something which Rafizi himself had not been very actively working to bring the local business community together to boost the country's economy. I wonder within the tenure that Rafizi had served as Economy Minister, how many meetings did he have with the business associations to discuss how the government could help their businesses to thrive.
The game that Rafizi and James Chai were playing all along shows that they have a personal agenda: to attack the Prime Minister and Azam Baki. To put it bluntly, I have mentioned that James Chai was only a "man of interest" to the MACC. He wasn't even a suspect, buit Chai's political gimmicks were to discredit the MACC and Azam Baki. A "man of interest" is because he was the main person who was expediting the entire process to obtain the approval. Before the MACC could get a statement from Rafizi, they had to establish the background facts first what transpired.
No one is saying that Rafizi signed the agreement in a hurry with ARM Holdings, a chip design company. It was signed by Tengku Zafrul in his capacity as Minister of International Trade and Industry (MITI). Tengku Zafrul may be called for an investigation. I am not saying that Anwar would be questioned. His role as the one launching the agreement is too remote from the way how this deal was struck within the shortest time possible.
The bottomline is whether Rafizi and Chai followed the standard procedures for any procurement. If yes, they are safe. If not, and if any form of gratification was received, then, they will surely face the music.
The MACC can charge Chai if his hotel accommodation in London, and all the expenses incurred, was paid for by ARM Holdings but at the end of the day, the prosecution will have to prove that ARM provided all this kind of support in return for the contract. It is not easy for the Prosecution to prove it unless the MACC can provide strong evidence that the accommodation and pocket moeny was all part of the gratification package promised by ARM Holdings.
Conclusion
Ultimately, whether the matter proceeds to court will depend on the strength of the evidence gathered by the MACC and forwarded to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC). I believe this is why some cases which were rushed through back in 2018-2020 had to be dropped. Such evidence must meet the legal threshold required to prove bribery beyond reasonable doubt. If it falls short, the court is duty-bound to acquit. This is an inherent feature of our justice system, and it inevitably leads to situations where even serious offenders escape conviction. Bottomline: do not let yourself be led into the bonfire :
END>
In Contrast with Albert Tei and Shamsul
I have mentioned before that Albert Tei's action in exposing politicians in Sabah was not a very smart move -- he was basically incriminating himself in the process. When you are the one giving the bribe, and you openly admitted to it, you can be prosecuted for bribing a person, but if the other person has not given you anything in return to prove that the money or favour he received is a form of gratification, the person will not be charged. Is that not fair?
The law is such that you may give your money to a police officer, with the hope that he would not arrest your son who had caused a major accident on the road, the MACC can charge you, but if the police officer carried out his duty and arrested your son, he is free from prosecution. Before any prosecution can result in a guilty verdict, even the Attorney-General's office would have to consider, "Was there something given in return for the money received?" If not, where is the case?
My prediction is that Tei will have a tough time proving his own innocence, because he had admitted in public that he gave the money to solicit the license on behalf of his client. As a broker that was his job, and it is obvious that he did it by paying a bribe.
Compared to Rafizi and Chai, Albert Tei and Anwar's former political secretary Shamsul Mohd Akin were arrested, handcuffed and produced in court to be charged. In the case of Shamsul, it was obvious that he had received some money and furnishings for his home but whether he will be found guilty by the honourable judge will depend on whether the prosecution can prove that Shamsul had pushed for one particular company to be approved by the Sabah state politicians. As far as I know, Shamsul's letter provided a list of recommended companies. In the first place, Shamsul did not need to be charged because it is not wrong for anyone to provide a list of recommended companies. If you go to Air Selangor website, they have a list of approved Air Selangor contractors.
When my house developed problems with leaking pipes, I asked a staff from Air Selangor whether he could recommend any good contractor. His reply was simple: "Sorry, I cannot recommend one. You can go to the AIr Selangor website to look for an approved Air Selangor contractor."
The only wrong that, in my opinion, that Shamsul had done was to write an official letter using the Prime Minister's department letter head, when Pakatan Harapan's policy is not to continue this practice formerly a common practice among Barisan Nasional politicians. A letter from the minister, for example, meant that the ministry staff have to better take into serious consideration. In the private sector, we say, "This is an instruction from the Big Boss," and most staff would have to comply with the boss' preference of the contractor. Such practice has been done away with by Anwar because it is smacked with the stench of corruption.
Feedback I received :
Comments
Post a Comment