*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* { Sila lawat Laman Hizbi-Net - http://www.hizbi.net } { Hantarkan mesej anda ke: [EMAIL PROTECTED] } { Iklan barangan? Hantarkan ke [EMAIL PROTECTED] } *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* Undilah PAS : MENENTANG KEZALIMAN & MENEGAKKAN KEADILAN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kini - Isnin Pindaan Akta Pencegah Rasuah Badan Pencegah Rasuah (BPR) sedang menyiapkan deraf terakhir cadangan untuk meminda Seksyen 32 Akta Pencegahan Rasuah 1997. Menurut Ketua Pengarah BPR, Datuk Ahmad Zaki Husin, cadangan pindaan Seksyen 32 itu akan membolehkan BPR menghendaki individu itu mengisytiharkan hartanya itu apabila mendapat maklumat bahawa seseorang pegawai badan awam itu memiliki harta lebih daripada pendapatannya. BPR juga boleh menghendaki individu itu memperjelaskan perolehan harta berkenaan dan jika penjelasan tersebut tidak munasabah atau individu itu gagal memberikan penjelasan, BPR diberi kuasa untuk mendakwa pegawai badan awam tersebut. Kelemahan yang ada pada Seksyen 32 sekarang ialah BPR tidak boleh menghendaki seseorang pegawai awam mengisytiharkan hartanya walaupun jelas individu itu mempunyai harta melebihi pendapatannya sekiranya tidak ada aduan, tohmahan, tuduhan atau penyiasatan rasuah ke atas individu itu, ataupun penyiasatan kurang bukti yang berasaskan kepada tuduhan itu. Langkah Pro-Aktif Menurut Datuk Ahmad Zaki Husin, pindaan Seksyen 32 akan memberi lebih kuasa kepada BPR. Kepada orang awam, masyarakat dan negara keseluruhannya, sebarang tindakan untuk membanteras gejala rasuah adalah baik dan patut disokong. Cadangan BPR untuk membuat pindaan tersebut adalah satu langkah pro-aktif. Bagaimanapun, beberapa persoalan yang berkaitan perlu diambilkira. Pertama, tindakan membanteras rasuah ini tidak hanya dibataskan kepada pegawai badan awam atau bahasa mudahnya kakitangan awam sahaja? Anggota Badan Eksekutif kerajaan, yang terdiri daripada Perdana Menteri, Menteri-Menteri, Timbalan Menteri, Menteri-Menteri Besar, dan Ketua-Ketua Menteri, juga mesti diambil tindakan sekiranya melakukan kesalahan rasuah. BPR tidak seharusnya membiarkan dirinya digunakan oleh pihak-pihak tertentu, khususnya Perdana Menteri, untuk turut sama berkonspirasi menjatuhkan seseorang, terutamanya musuh politik Perdana Menteri. BPR mesti bertindak adil. Sama ada Menteri-Menteri itu atau sesiapa pun, tidak kira kawan atau lawan Perdana Menteri, hatta Perdana Menteri itu sendiri, jika berlaku rasuah, maka hendaklah diambil tindakan undang-undang. Kuasa Atas Kertas Sahaja Tidak Cukup Perkara kedua, kuasa yang lebih bagi BPR yang terdapat di atas kertas undang-undang sahaja tidak mencukupi. Kuasa atas kertas tidak memadai. Yang diutamakan ialah keberanian menguatkuasakan kuasa yang telah termaktub di atas kertas. Contoh dalam hal ini ada. Hampir tiga tahun yang lalu, bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim telah membentangkan laporan lengkap kerugian syarikat Perwaja milik kerajaan di Parlimen. Hampir RM 3,000 juta Perwaja Rugi. Hampir RM7,000 juta Perwaja terpaksa berhutang. Apa puncanya? Punca utamanya ada dua, iaitu rasuah dan penyelewengan. Rasuah Perwaja BPR mendakwa badan itu telah menyiasat. Tetapi mengapa setelah hampir tiga tahun tidak siap siasatan itu? Adakah udang di sebalik batu sengaja melengah-lengahkan siasatan. Adakah kerana bekas Pengarah Eksekutif Perwaja, Tan Sri Eric Chia kawan rapat Perdana Menteri, maka siasatan masih tidak selesai? BPR mungkin menafikan tuduhan ini. Tetapi persepsi orang awam adalah begitu. Pindaan Seksyen 32 yang dicadangkan itu tidak akan membantu menyelesaikan kes-kes penutupan atau "cover-up" seperti ini. Selagi kes rasuah Perwaja tidak selesai, kewibawaan BPR dipersoalkan. BPR akan terus ditohmah berani bertindak ke atas ikan-ikan bilis sahaja seperti kakitangan awam. Manakala Menteri-Menteri dan teman baik Perdana Menteri terlepas. Adakah persepsi ini melulu? Kes Rafidah Aziz Dan Rahim Thamby Chik Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim baru-baru ini telah membuat beberapa laporan polis dari penjara. Antaranya berhubung kes rasuah Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Perindustrian, Datuk Paduka Rafidah Aziz dan bekas Ketua Menteri Melaka, Tan Sri Rahim Thamby Chik. Dalam kedua-dua kes ini, BPR telah membuat siasatan. BPR telah membuat laporan lengkap. BPR telah membuat perakuan. Apa perakuan BPR itu? Jelas terdapat kes prima facie bahawa Rafidah Aziz dan Rahim Thamby Chik melakukan rasuah. Prima facie itu apa maknanya? Itu perkataan Latin. Maknanya ada bukti kukuh. BPR telah menyerahkan laporan itu kepada Pejabat Peguam Negara. Kuasa Mendakwa Di Mahkamah Dari segi undang-undang dan Perlembagaan negara, Ketua Pengarah BPR tidak boleh mendakwa seseorang individu di mahkamah undang-undang walaupun Rafidah Aziz dan Rahim Thamby Chik didapati ada bukti kukuh melakukan rasuah. Kuasa mendakwa itu terletak dalam bidang kuasa Peguam Negara. Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah akan mengkaji laporan BPR itu lebih teliti dan kemudian membuat kertas pertuduhan. Dia yang boleh mendakwa. Dalam kes Rafidah Aziz memberi saham kepada anak menantunya, Pejabat Peguam Negara telah bersetuju dengan BPR bahawa memang ada kes prima facie bahawa Rafidah Aziz melakukan kesalahan rasuah. Kertas pertuduhan pun telah disiapkan oleh Pejabat Peguam Negara. Peguam Negara sepatutnya terus bertindak dengan membawa kes itu terus ke mahkamah. Rafidah Aziz patut didakwa pada tahun 1995 itu juga. Tetapi itu tidak berlaku. Apa yang terjadi? Dr Mahathir Halang Proses Undang-Undang Peguam Negera merujuk dulu kes Rafidah Aziz kepada Perdana Menteri, Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Prosedur ini tidak betul dan satu penyelewengan. Peguam Negara adalah satu jawatan yang bebas. Ia tidak tertakluk di bawah bidang kuasa Perdana Menteri. Peguam Negera tidak dilantik oleh Perdana Menteri. Peguam Negara dilantik oleh DYMM Yang di-Pertuan Agung atas nasihat Perdana Menteri. Peguam Negara mempunyai kuasa budibicara yang luas di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Dia tidak perlu takut atau tunduk kepada badan Eksekutif ataupun Perdana Menteri. Dia tidak perlu merujuk kes Rafidah Aziz kepada Perdana Menteri. Apabila dirujuk kepada Perdana Menteri tentang kes Rafidah Aziz itu, Perdana Menteri telah menahan. Dr Mahathir Mohamad menyekat tindakan undang-undang dikenakan ke atas Rafidah Aziz. Perbuatan Dr Mahathir Mohamad ini merupakan satu kesalahan undang-undang. Ia adalah satu penyalahgunaan kuasa. Sikap Peguam Negara yang tunduk atas kemahuan Perdana Menteri juga satu kesalahan di segi undang-undang kerana gagal menjalankan tugasnya sebagai seorang Peguam Negara yang menjaga amanah negara iaitu sesiapa yang ada bukti kukuh melakukan kesalahan undang-undang, maka hendaklah didakwa individu itu di mahkamah undang-undang. Anwar Ibrahim Disanggah Mahathir Peguam Negara pada tahun 1995 itu telah menemui Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim tentang kes Rafidah Aziz itu. Anwar Ibrahim telah membawa kertas pertuduhan dari Pejabat Peguam Negara itu menemui Perdana Menteri. Bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri itu telah disanggah oleh Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Anwar menggunakan perkataan beliau "disanggah" oleh Perdana Menteri. Menurut Kamus Dewan, perkataan "disanggah" maknanya disangkal atau dibantah. Ini membawa pengertian bahawa Dr Mahathir Mohamad, selaku Perdana Menteri, benar-benar berniat menghalang proses undang-undang dilaksanakan. Kenapa? Kerana Rafidah Aziz penyokong kuat dan setia kepadanya. Adakah ini betul di segi undang-undang? Perlakuan semacam ini adalah satu penyalahgunaan kuasa. Satu perbuatan rasuah! Kesungguhan Politik Berbalik kepada Pindaan Seksyen 32 Akta Pencegahan Rasuah 1997 itu, satu hal perlu disedari bahawa walau apapun pindaan dan kuasa ditambah kepada BPR, ia tidak akan membawa kesan positif yang dikehendaki dalam usaha negara membanteras rasuah sekiranya tidak ada kesungguhan di pihak lain untuk melaksanakan undang-undang yang ada. Pihak yang mana? Pertama: Pihak Peguam Negara mestilah berani membawa setiap kes rasuah untuk dibicarakan ke mahkamah tanpa mengira siapa individu yang terlibat itu. Perubahan Kosmetik Kedua: Perdana Menteri dan Jemaah Menteri, selaku anggota badan Eksekutif yang memimpin kerajaan, mempunyai kesungguhan politik (political will) untuk benar-benar jujur membasmi rasuah di Malaysia ini. Apakah ini dapat dilakukan oleh sebuah kerajaan yang dipimpin oleh Dr Mahathir Mohamad? Apakah hanya kertas undang-undang sahaja yang dipinda dan dipinda dari semasa ke semasa, tetapi perlaksanaan dan penguatkuasaan tetap sama seperti dulu juga? Apakah negara memerlukan satu perubahan kosmetik dalam memerangi gejala rasuah? Tamat The MALAYSIAN - Monday Does Dr M Know What He's Talking About? Despite all claims that Anwar Ibrahim is irrelevant, the issue crops up to haunt Mahathir everywhere he goes. So it was in New York. In an interview on PBS public television, there was the following exchange between the interviewer, Charlie Rose, and Dr Mahathir: MAHATHIR: And it seems that he smuggled out urine under a different name, which was sent to a laboratory in Australia. And they found arsenic in the urine. And, therefore, he claims he's being poisoned. But the fact is that the amount of arsenic in the urine is compatible with someone ingesting a lot of seafood. And in order to be poisoned with arsenic you need to have something like almost 100 times more-- more than 100 times that amount in the urine before you are really being poisoned. ROSE: But he said they were trying to do it slowly. MAHATHIR: Well, it is not so easy to do it slowly. You mean to say that we have to feed him with seafood every night? ROSE: Do you believe that was a plot to destabilize the government? MAHATHIR: No-- Well, you see, the trial was coming towards an end. And then there is this law conference in Kuala Lumpur and the APEC was meeting. And he brought up this matter 14 days after he received the information that there was arsenic in his urine -- 14 days after. In the meantime, he was attending court. He never complained of anything. He was quite well. Everybody thought he was quite well. And yet 14 days after the results were known he decided to bring up this matter just one hour before the prosecution completed its case. So, if he is really poisoned, a person who knows he's being poisoned would run to see a doctor, not collect urine and send it Australia. This brief extract illustrates Mahathir's belief in the principle put forward by Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief: repeat a lie often enough and people will start to believe it. First of all, there were no 14 days. The printout from the laboratory in Australia is dated late on 8 September 1999. It reached Dr Wan Azizah on 9 September 1999. It was brought to the attention of the court on 10 September 1999. In contrast, when Anwar Ibrahim was beaten up by then IGP Rahim Noor, it took days for medical attention to be given to him, and it took months to identify the culprit even though a number of police officers knew the truth. Meanwhile, it was Dr Mahathir himself who suggested that Anwar could have inflicted the damage on himself although he knew perfectly well how the damage had been inflicted. Secondly, there was no thought of timing it to coincide with anything for international attention. Once again, if indeed there was any thought to the timing, it couldn't have been worse timed. That was the height of world attention to the East Timor issue, which naturally took precedence in coverage and attention over the issue of the arsenic level in Anwar's urine. As for timing it to coincide with the Commonwealth Law Conference, Dr Mahathir might as well accuse the judges in Murray Hiebert's case of having deliberately timed their decision. That, in the nature of the conference, took centre stage as an issue of controversy. The arsenic issue did not and could not arise, not being a matter of law -- yet. Indeed, if the Commonwealth Law Conference was so inclined, there were sufficient matters of law in both Anwar's first trial and in his current trial to merit their attention. Introducing the issue of arsenic poisoning would only have detracted from such matters. Thirdly, it is undisputed that Anwar had previously complained about his deteriorating health and Dr Wan Azizah has been concerned about it, particularly his major weight and hair loss -- indicators that something is wrong, even if not specifically due to arsenic poisoning. Fourthly, of course, neither Anwar nor Dr Wan Azizah knew exactly what was wrong. They knew him to be unwell, hence obtained the most convenient sample she could in the circumstances -- his urine -- and despatched it for testing in view of the nature of the deterioration of his health. Yes, it was labelled with a different name to conceal his identity -- given all that has happened in the past year, can she be blamed for taking this precaution? True, it is not normal procedure, but why is so much being made of this? Anwar is not in normal circumstances. He's in prison. He can't, as suggested by Dr Mahathir, "run to see a doctor" as and when he pleases. Nor can he call up a crony to send over a private jet to rush him anywhere. Fifthly, the sample was sent to Gribbles in Kuala Lumpur, a lab in which Vincent Tan - a businessman close to Daim, Mahathir and apparently his sons as well - has a share. It was Gribbles KL which despatched the sample to Gribbles Melbourne, and evidently, from the lab printout, Gribbles Melbourne conveyed the results to Gribbles KL, which then issued it. The arsenic level detected by Gribbles Melbourne is high. Of that, there is no doubt. The United States Biological Exposure Index, which states the level above which exposure is considered hazardous, is 50 microgrammes (ug) arsenic per gramme (g) of urine creatinine. For the normal population, that is those who are not engaged in occupations in which they are exposed to arsenic compounds, the level should not exceed 20 ug/g creatinine. Studies have indicated that the normal range is between 2 and 5 ug/g creatinine. Anwar's urine sample was reported by Gribbles Melbourne to have an arsenic level of 230 ug/g creatinine. No one has questioned that result. In any case, contrary to Dr Mahathir's claim, it is not true that someone poisoned would have to have a level of arsenic 100 times higher than that reported for Anwar. A person with a level 100 times that reported for Anwar would be well and truly dead! Finally, the trial was not 'within an hour' of coming to an end - as claimed by Mahathir. In fact, the prosecution had already closed its case. At the time, the defence was making its submissions, following which the judge would decide whether or not to call the defence. Few people, least of all Anwar himself, expect that the judge would have ruled that there was no case to answer and acquit. As such, it was anticipated that there would be at least another few weeks during which the defence would present its case. Anwar's Health Inquiry Still Needed Seafood now seems to be the favoured argument. Seafood restaurants in the country are getting really bad press from the BN government these days -- and think of what that will do to the tourist industry in the country. The BN leaders and the BN press is virtually telling everyone: Eat Malaysian seafood and you will get high doses of arsenic. Now, Dr Mahathir says it is poisonous. Relax, everyone -- seafood does contain arsenic, but it is in the organic form, which is less harmful than inorganic arsenic. True, the level reported is compatible with someone eating plenty of seafood, provided the bulk of it is organic arsenic. But was Anwar getting huge seafood meals nightly in prison? Or at least enough to cause both the high arsenic level recorded earlier as well as the dramatic deterioration in his health. Obviously, Anwar, Dr Wan Azizah and all who are concerned will thank God if the tests for arsenic now prove negative, implying that Anwar may be out of danger FOR NOW as far as arsenic poisoning is concerned - assuming the arsenic found earlier was organic innature and has since been passed out of his body. But this should not detract from that fact that Anwar has obviously been quite ill, and comprehensive tests (e.g. for poisoning due to ingestion of other heavy metal compounds) should still be done to ascertain why. Where there is smoke, there must be fire. This is why The Malaysian still calls for an official inquiry into the reasons for the deterioration of Anwar's health while incarcerated. After all, such an inquiry may well find evidence of a deliberate poisoning attempt, though not necessarily of arsenic poisoning. Regardless of the outcome of the inquiry into possible arsenic poisoning, in the light of significant evidence suggesting earlier attempts on Anwar's life, his person is probably still under threat, especially if he continues to remain incarcerated. Hence, Anwar should be released on bail pending appeal for his conviction while an independent Royal Commission of Inquiry investigates the still unexplained dramatic deterioration of his health while in detention. END ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ( Melanggan ? To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] pada body : SUBSCRIBE HIZB) ( Berhenti ? To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] pada body: UNSUBSCRIBE HIZB) ( Segala pendapat yang dikemukakan tidak menggambarkan ) ( pandangan rasmi & bukan tanggungjawab HIZBI-Net ) ( Bermasalah? Sila hubungi [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pengirim: "Concorde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>