Cyber CoffeeShop
THE BENCH MARK column
By Harun Hashim (The writer is the retired Supreme Court Judge, Tan Sri Harun Hashim and the first director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency)
DEPUTY PRIME Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim recently announced that the Government is proposing to confer additional powers on Anti-Corruption Agency in its efforts to prevent and eradicate corruption. The announcement is most welcome as indicative of the political will to rid this country of the curse of corruption.
The popular jibe is that the ACA is only after the small fry and has not been able to catch the big fish. The public perception is not quite fair nor accurate either but not entirely without basis.
The apparently impotency of the ACA can be attributed to our legal system. To prosecute a person for corruption the court needs proof which can only be obtained if a witness is willing to testify that he has given or that he has been offered a bribe.
A motorist commits a traffic offence. He is promptly stopped by a traffic policeman. The motorist to avoid prosecution offers a bribe. To the credit of our traffic policemen, the motorist is arrested on the spot for offering the bribe and is prosecuted.
Such arrest and prosecution is successful because the intended receiver is honest and provides proof to the court.
A citizen goes to a government agency to apply for a licence. The official demands a bribe. The citizen reports to the ACA which arranges a trap by making the payment with marked notes. The official is arrested and the prosecution is successful because the honest citizen has provided proof to the court.
The big fish, however, plays a different game. In this case, both the giver and receiver of the bribe are willing partners of the crime. Neither is willing to testify against the other because the secret transaction has resulted in mutual benefits. Thus there will be no prosecution due to lack of evidence.
But the so-called secret transaction does not remain a secret for long. When the big fish rots, it stinks. People begin to talk of the new found wealth of government officials and politicians.
Market talk is filled with stories of how some businessmen have been very lucky in obtaining government contracts, orders, concessions and State land. Some even boast that they know who, and how and when to pay.
The main campaign issue during the general election of 1969 was allegations of corruption. In the aftermath of the election, the Government enacted the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 22 of 1970. The aim of this law is to strike at corrupt politicians and public officers who have used their public positions for pecuniary or other advantages.
Such persons are said to have committed the offence of corrupt practice and on conviction are liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or fine not exceeding RM20,000 or both. After more than 25 years this law should be incorporated into the main Prevention of Corruption Act 1961.
Be that as it may, the 1970 Ordinance has a lot of teeth and if public talk of corruption in high places has any truth, one would expect a spate of prosecutions under this law. True, there has been some prosecutions in the past but not obvious in recent recent times.
The point is that it is not difficult to make laws or to confer extensive powers of investigations on the ACA but enforcement of the law is another matter.
So, how do we catch the big fish? Perhaps the best way is to make illicit enrichment an offence namely, politicians holding public office and government officers who are in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to their known sources of income for which they cannot satisfactorily account for punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 20 years without the option of a fine and such properties be forfeited. "Possession" includes possession by spouses, children, siblings and even front companies.
Above all, it is important that the public believes in the capacity of the ACA to perform its duties without fear or favour.
When I was director-general of the ACA in the 1960s I authorised all prosecutions without reference to either the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General. Tunku Abdul Rahman who was the Prime Minister at the time wanted it that way to assure that there was no political intereference of the ACA.
It was only an administrative arrangement but it was effective.
The public knows who are corrupt. So does the ACA.
---Ends---
|
|
||
|
|
MGG Pillai | Sat Dec 7 16:10:22 1996 |
