The Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity (PSCI) will be asked on Tuesday to review the “on/off/on/off hearing of Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) director-general Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor and whistleblower/former ACA Sabah director Mohamed Ramli Abdul Manan.
This follows the latest development where Ramli’s counsel, M. Manoharan, had given assurance that the issue of sub judice at the PSCI hearings for Zulkipli and Ramli does not arise as the serious allegations of corruption against Zulkipli has no bearing on Ramli’s civil suits against the ACA chief. The civil suit involved non-payment of salaries, pensions and gratuities.
As for the corruption trial of former minister Tan Sri Kasitah Gaddam, both Zulkipli and Ramli are not material witnesses.
Furthermore, the Ramli civil suit could take years to be decided while the Kasitah trial is still in the prosecution stage.
As the PSCI is meeting in Parliament on Tuesday in its continuing inquiry into the Sabah Project I/C scandal, I will raise the letter from Ramli’s counsel and his request for an early date for a hearing for deliberation and decision.
There is now even more compelling reasons why the PSCI should neither flinch nor hesitate from holding hearings for Zulkipli and Ramli if the Select Committee is to remain true to its terms of reference to uphold and promote national integrity.
The past one month was one of the darkest periods not only in the 40-month Abdullah premiership, but probably in the 50-year history of the nation, for accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance as the nation and the world watched in agony at the collapse of public trust among Malaysians in the ACA in particular and the government in general, with one corruption scandal following swiftly after another:
- Serious corruption allegations against the ACA chief, Zulkipli;
- Serious corruption allegations against the Deputy Internal Security Minister, Datuk Mohd Johari Baharun in the Emergency Ordinance (EO) “freedom for sale” scandal; and
- Serious allegation by the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim of judges who accept bribes.
As if this trio of serious corruption allegations aimed at the very inner sanctum of government are not enough, there is now another serious corruption allegation to create a quartet — the police report lodged by Parti Keadilan Rakyat Sabah deputy chairman Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan against Zulkipli as one of the 25 serious corruption allegations against Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman, that the ACA chief had been bribed to stop investigations into complaints of abuses of power and corruption against the Sabah Chief Minister.
The Yang di Pertuan Agong in his Royal Address when opening the current session of Parliament on Monday had exhorted “all members of the civil service and all levels of society” to support the campaign to eliminate corruption and abuse of power.
The PSCI, entrusted with the specific task of promoting national integrity, must be in the very vanguard instead of being at the rear to boldly, doggedly and creatively restore public confidence in the integrity of government at a time when the country is facing its worst corruption crisis in history.
In the past 39 years, the ACA had been regarded as a “paper tiger”, with only power to go after the “ikan bilis” but not after the “ikan yu’s” even in the Abdullah administration as proven by the disappearance of the 18 “big fishes” which had escaped into the “high seas”.
A fundamental line has now been crossed by the ACA, when public doubts and skepticism are no more confined to its effectiveness or impotence to deal with the “high-profile” corrupt.
For the first time in its 40-year history, public doubts and skepticism about the ACA have now extended to the very core purpose, heart and soul of ACA on its integrity and incorruptibility — with the ACA Director-General himself alleged to be guilty of corruption.
On Monday, the Prime Minister had urged Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club (BNBBC) members to perform “something extraordinary” to bring back the glory days of parliamentarians in line with the country’s 50th anniversary celebrations this year.
There is considerable skepticism as to what this “something extraordinary” BNBBC MPs are capable of. One test will be whether Barisan Nasional MPs on the PSCI can agree to the holding of immediate hearings for Zulkipli and Ramli in the larger national interests to uphold integrity.
Kit: Is this what the Opposition is all about ? Is this about the proverbial pissing into the wind ? You guys are all living in cloud cuckooland, and unless you come up with more substantive and realistic objectives, I’m afraid it will be business as usual for the thieves in Bodohland – now and forever.
On/Off/On/Off – now On (because Ramli’s counsel, M. Manoharan says “no subjudice”)/then off again (when Kasitah Gaddam’s or Zulkipli’s counsel says otherwise). Story of PSCI.
YB, perhaps you may wish to get your resignation letter ready for the PSCI Meeting.
If the jokers carry on with their bad joke, I think it may be an opportune moment for you to send the ‘motley fools’ (Shakespeare’s ‘As You Like It’)and painfully ridiculous court (parliament) jesters to go stage their sandiwara alone.
No distinguished parliamentary rep ought to dignify or sanitise a circus for a Parliament! My humbe opinion.
For such an important Parliament committee to dilly-dally, to be wishy-washy and muddling along, seems to be a wasting of a lot of resources including time and money big time.
Just how much has been wasted by all 12 members and by the committee itself by all this indecisiveness? What has been achieved? Does the committee expect the taxpayer to tolerate all this shenanigans? My drinking kaki was so frustrated this evening when he called the Chairman a “Dumb Ox” but I told him not to be so unkind. Suffice to say the people like to see things move along quickly, efficiently and transparently and cut out all the wayangs and sandiwaras.
Stop all the tiresome nonsense and get things moving! Same for all the other committees.
On/off/on/off hearing – this is flip flopping at its best, or worst, depending on how you look at it. When the Parliamentary select committee was set up, I was wondering why some members were there in the first place. You need someone who can think straight, talk straight and have a firm understanding and grip on isssues -someone in the mould of maybe Zaid Ibrahim, Megat Najmuddin, Shahrizat Abdul Jalil or Sharir Samad and not flip floppers like what we are seeing now. Therefore, Uncle Lim, to answer your question the other day whether you should remain in the committee – it’s a definite yes, a 100% yes, for otherwise this committee has really no sense of direction.
And the appointment of those flip-floping members of the committee says much about the person or persons who appointed them in the first place.
It is not in the country’s interest to carry the concept of ‘subjudice’ too far because of the stifling effect it has on freedom of speech. In U.S. jurisdiction the term ‘subjudice’ is never mentioned because of the First Amendment issues involved.
In other jurisdictions it is considered inappropriate to publicly comment on cases subjudice and could be an offence (but not always) and could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
In Malaysia the term subjudice is being used as a gag order for everything and anything apparently before the courts. That is not the purpose.
Secondly, not all issues before the PSCI are subject to subjudice. If an issue is subjudice, a ruling could be made and the witness need not answer.
To Kit:
What sort of legislative authority is given to the PSCI? Does it have the power of subpoena? Would the testimony be under oath? Could a witness be compelled to answer questions he does not want to answer? Could a witness not answer questions because the answer could incriminate him or her?
If the testimony is not under oath, then why do we even bother to take it?
I don’t agree YB should resign.This is the tactic which BN MPs play as they love to get rid of YB.But is this for the good of the nation? Definitely, not!
For Opposition MPs to get appointed to the Select Parliamentary Committee is so difficult, so why should they resign so easily all the more PSCI is an important Committee and YB is the only person in that Committee who can bring to bear raison d’etre of that Committee.
I don’t understand why the majority of MPs cannot understand that if they are to wait until all the legal cases are disposed off, which will take years,the nation’s fight against corruption will worsen.This is because if PSCI has no chance to have a Hearing now of the two principal witnesses,then it cannot make immediate recommendations for changes in the laws relating to corruption.If you are to wait until the time the legal cases are disposed off the two witnesses may either not willing or no longer around.
YB, fight on to have the Hearing immediately and expose the fallacy of the matter being sub judice.
why on/off/on/off? cuz they need more time to cook up stories or do cover ups. once everything is in place to cushion their buttocks, then maybe we will c some sandiwara. now juz buy time… better still, let ppl get tired of it n then juz forget… e usual.
If the ACA is a paper tiger, the PSCI is a toothless lion.
o Kit:
What sort of legislative authority is given to the PSCI? Does it have the power of subpoena? Would the testimony be under oath? Could a witness be compelled to answer questions he does not want to answer? Could a witness not answer questions because the answer could incriminate him or her?
If the testimony is not under oath, then why do we even bother to take it?
In relation to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity (PSCI) Undergrad2 asked, “Does it have the power of subpoena? Would the testimony be under oath? Could a witness be compelled to answer questions he does not want to answer? Could a witness not answer questions because the answer could incriminate him or her?â€Â
I think these are not only relevant but central questions concerning the role of PSCI in overall scheme of promoting the agenda of integrity governance.
We have a situation of on/off/on/off and now on again without certainty as to whether it will be off again when someone raises an objection.
I have no doubt that the PSCI’s proper role is or ought to be a kind of ombudsman exercising parliamentary scrutiny and oversight functions (via a smaller select committee) on how to promote a culture of integrity.
What I am not sure is whether it can double up and assume quasi judicial function as if it were a tribunal or a kind of court to investigate, arbitrate and determine the truth or untruth of what director-general Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor and whistleblower/former ACA Sabah director Mohamed Ramli Abdul Manan have to say (if indeed, the hearing proceeds uninterrupted).
For this to happen, the term of reference of PSCI must allow for such quasi judicial function; the rules of evidence would be applicable, the testimony be under oath, witnesses be compelled to answer questions etc.
At this moment we don’t even know whether the standing orders applicable for PSCI allows for such a quasi judicial enquiry.
And even if it does, whether it is not a course fraught with problems – for example it may legitimately be asked how qualified are the PSCI’s members, no matter their political affiliation, in law to play the role of judge? Further, what happens hypothetically if the PSCI hearing Zulkipli and Ramli Abdul Manan determines the former as guilty of corruption and the judiciary via the courts subsequently determines he is innocent : whose opinion ought to prevail, the PSCI or the Court? Is the PSI entitled – under the excuse of parliamentary privilege to promote the culture of integrity – to usurp the role of courts ?
The public do not know the answer to this question and not in the position to judge who is right and who is wrong as the on/off/on/off/on/off scenario unfolds.
Under blog thread “Should I continue to serve on PSCI?†of Wednesday, March 21st, 2007, YB had made it very clear that “I am prevented from Parliamentary Standing Orders from disclosing what transpired at the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity (PSCI).â€Â
This creates further problems because it may be legitimately be asked by the Rakyat why is the PSCI by such standing orders not transparent in its deliberations.
A very necessary and big part of promoting integrity culture and governance is the twin benchmarks of transparency and accountability, the second is not possible without the first!
And if the PSCI were to lead the way to promote integrity culture and governance, then it should do first by example and make its deliberations and proceedings transparent so that PSCI itself is accountable to the people!
The institution that sets up select committee is Parliament itself and Parliamentary proceedings themselves are transparent in the sense that they are open to public and reported in media – so why is the select committee of its creation not transparent in the sense that Parliamentary Standing Orders prevent disclosure of what transpired at the Parliamentary Select Committee’s meeting? Here the mother is transparent but her baby is opaque!
The all important question of whether PSCI should proceed to hear Zulkipli and Mohamed Ramli, and whether the on/off/on/off/on/off is justifiable or not in the face of objections based on subjudice of Kasitah Gaddam’s pending trial cannot be meaningfully or intelligently addressed or evaluated by the public including us here unless it is clear what PSCI, as a body, really is – whether it is “toothless lion†or a wild bore that charges, hither and thither, without direction – and what it could do, by answering first the questions raised above in this post.
Making a big show of cleaning up after sweeping it under the carpet
http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/newsncom.php?itemid=3324
Jeffrey: “What I am not sure is whether it can double up and assume quasi judicial function as if it were a tribunal or a kind of court to investigate, arbitrate and determine the truth…â€Â
These doubts can easily be put to rest if Kit answers the question. Right now we are left with doubts as to what powers PSCI has to begin with.
The central question is would the testimony before it be under oath and under the threat of perjury? This does not mean powers of the court are being usurped.
If the testimony is not under oath and the person testifying before it is not under threat of perjury, then what is the point? What is the role of the Parliamentary Select Committee and what is the role of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity in this case?
Kit knows and could easily put us readers out of our misery here by responding to the question.