*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
{ 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]>
