WTF!! They closed the mother-lode of all cases (RM12.5 billion) but Teoh Beng Hock was given HELL for a mere RM2,000/=. And Teoh wasn’t even a suspect.
Yet they claim that there is no selective persecution and expect the public to believe this blatant untruth.
Malaysiakini Report below:
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC) had probed alleged graft involving the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project back in 2004 but no action was taken because it concluded there was ‘no case’.
This was revealed by MACC’s investigation director Mohd Shukri Abdull (pic: right) when testifying before the Public Accounts Committee inquiry regarding PKFZ.
“(Investigations) were done by Selangor ACA (as it was then known), and the (investigations into the) case were completed. The prosecution (department) decided to close the case as there was no case,” Shukri testified.
This was revealed in the June 23 transcript of the inquiry which also recorded MACC Director-General Ahmad Said Hamdan as also being interviewed as a witness simultaneously.
Shukri’s was responding to questions from Petaling Jaya MP Tony Pua (pic: left) who corrected Ahmad Said Hamdan for saying the commission only received a report on the PKFZ scandal in late 2007. (What the…..???)
Pua pointed out that Ronnie Liu, now a Selangor executive council member, had lodged four reports with the then ACA.
Following this, Pua pointed out that according to page three of the 2008 Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) audit report on PKFZ, documents in the possession of the MACC were used as reference.
He adds that with this information, PwC was able to raise elements of abuse of power and other abuses and questioned why the Selangor ACA was unable to do so with the same information.
In reply, Shukri said Selangor ACA was unable to detect any elements of corruption or abuse of power but however did launched fresh investigations following the release of the 2007 Auditor-General’s Report.
“In fact, investigations were completed but when the PwC report came out I took back the investigation papers from the prosecution department to see if there were new issues which required (further) investigations,” said Shukri.
15 witnesses called in
Shukri stressed that back in 2004, Selangor ACA was focusing on the “criminal element” of the case which, however, it failed to prove.
Pressed further, Shukri confirmed that even before 2007, it had probed alleged abuse of power in the issuance of several controversial ‘letters of support’ by an unnamed former transport minister.
However, he said ACA’s prosecution department had deemed that the letters were not an abuse of power.
The decision not to prosecute by the MACC contradicts PAC’s recommendation yesterday that former transport minister Chan Kong Choy be probed for abuse of power and criminal breach of trust in the issuance of those letters.
According to PAC, Chan could not have issued guarantees of government liability without the approval of the Treasury. It further notes that Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patil in his testimony to the PAC was of the opinion that the letters were a form of guarantee.
Meanwhile, Ahmad Said, in his testimony on that day, said only 15 witnesses were called in by the MACC but declined to reveal their identity.
Upon further probing by the PAC members, he revealed that the 15 did not include Abdul Gani or PwC representatives.
The transcripts also recorded Ahmad Said and Shukri repeatedly refusing to answer numerous questions posed by the panel, claiming that the issues raised were still under investigation.
Shukri defended MACC’s position by citing Section 29 (4) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 which states that contents of investigations cannot be revealed to any party except after the accused is charged in court.
An irate Pua had then shot back by reminding Ahmad Said (pic: right) that he had revealed contents of investigations with regards to the MACC probe on Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim’s alleged abuse of power in donating cows to be slaughtered for religious rituals.
Ahmad Said refused to account for the apparent double standards, setting off an exchange between him and Pua before PAC chairperson Azmi Khalid stepped in.
Ahmad Said: Mr Chairman, I think I don’t have to answer this question
Pua: This is contempt!
Ahmad Said: It is not contempt. I’m not going to respond you. Ask me about Port Klang Free Trade Zone. I’m not going…
Pua: I’m asking about your explanation.
Ahmad Said: No.
Pua: Your explanation to Parliament (through the PAC)…
Ahmad Said: I don’t have to answer that. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
When pressured for a time frame to complete investigations, Shukri, after some hesitation, said six months more was needed because the investigations needed to be thorough.
WHAT!!! The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner has no knowledge of KDSB!?!?!?
By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani (MI)
KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 6 —Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan said he had no knowledge of Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSB).
“I do not know what is KDSB. Only today that I have heard that they are involved,” he said in the verbatim report of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) released this week.
He added that that if he had known about KDSB, he would have taken the necessary action.
Ahmad also said that he had never met with the Attorney-General on the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.
“Datuk Mohd Shukri Abdull will conduct the investigation with his officers and he will report on its status, OK. Until now, it has been produced to the prosecution division.
“Because the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report has been released, we decided to re-investigate the case. I have never met with the Attorney-General to discuss on this matter. Never.” he explained.
Ahmad pointed out that the role of the A-G is to advise PKFZ and involved parties but not the MACC.
He reasoned that if the A-G was to help with the investigation, then the A-G will become a witness for MACC.
MACC Director of Investigations Datuk Seri Mohd Shukri Abdull earlier revealed that the Selangor Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) had already conducted an investigation into PKFZ in 2004 but could not find evidence of crime or corruption.
However, the case was reopened after the Auditor-General released its report in 2007.
“We made a new report based on the audit report in 2007 and we are conducting an investigation based on the findings of the report. However, we have yet to make any decision.
“Actually the investigation was already completed but when the PricewaterhouseCoopers report came out, before the prosecution department could make any decision, I decide to pull back the investigation to see whether there is a need to continue with the investigation.
“We found that there are many new matters which needed to be investigated so the case is still under investigation,” he said.
Shukri explained that the PwC report was more comprehensive compared to ACA’s because its investigation was conducted based on criminal offences.
“In 2004, we could not find any proof that there was any occurrence of crime. When we submitted (the report) to the deputy prosecutor, they were in agreement with ACA that no crime or corruption was committed,” he said.
He acknowledged that MACC already knew of the three letters of support but maintained that the deputy prosecutor was of the opinion that there wasn’t any abuse of power and no offence was committed.
When asked if MACC was of the same opinion, Shukri replied that the case was still under investigation.
Shukri was asked when MACC was going to conclude its investigation but he could not give an exact time and requested for patience.
“It is hard for me to give an exact time because it is dependent on the witnesses, bank documents… it is hard for me to give a certain period. If I said six months, can? Is it too long?” he asked.
Both Shukri and Ahmad refused to admit there was any wrongdoing or corruption in the PKFZ scandal because the case was still under investigation.