Share |

Tuesday, 16 December 2008

Dare ACA or MACC answer like this?

By Lim Kit Siang

Q: How does the ICAC maintain its independence?

A: We are independent. There is nothing to maintain.

This is from the Sunday Star interview with Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) deputy commissioner and head of operations Daniel Li to illustrate the difference between ICAC and Malaysia anti-corruption body, whether the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) or the soon-to-be MACC.

I quoted this Q & A in Parliament during the debate on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC).

I asked which Malaysian anti-corruption chief would dare to answer with such insouciance and categorical assurance without any hesitation or shadow of doubt about the independence of the Malaysian anti-corruption body?

Unthinkable! Only last Thursday, the No. 2 in the ACA was publicly admitting that the ACA was being perceived as a “lapdog” of the authorities!

This was my answer to attacks from UMNO MPs in the debate for my criticism of Daniel Li who had praised the MACC Bill as even better than Hong Kong anti-corruption legislation and had gone on to praise the “determination” of the Malaysian Government to fight corruption.

I said I accepted Donald Li as an authority on ICAC and the battle against corruption in Hong Kong but that does not make him an authority on the MACC Bill or the corruption situation in Malaysia.

In my speech, I said when standing up to debate the MACC Bill, I had four images following the day-to-day developments in the country after the first reading of the Bill last Wednesday:

(1) First the pervasiveness and the far-reaching effects, including lethal consequences, of corruption arising from the Malaysiakini (10/12/08): report “Landslide survivor: We are victims of corruption”, which stated:

“A furious Ungku Farid Ungku Abdul, 54, did not hesitate in identifying the cause – and culprits – of last Saturday’s landslide in Bukit Antarabangsa.

“’We are victims of the corruption in Malaysia’, alleged Farid, a businessman, whose house was one of the 14 destroyed in the incident.” Read more

No comments: