Hope NACP is as good in action and not on paper only

Hope NACP is as good in action and not on paper only

The newly-launched National Anti-Corruption Plan (NACP) 2019-2023 on 29 January,2019 serves as a warning to all – including the prime minister and Cabinet ministers – to steer clear of graft.

The NACP also reveals that RM1.8 trillion was lost by the government through illicit financial flows between 2005 and 2014.

The prime minister said that the execution of the 115 initiatives in the NACP, which aim to rid Malaysia of corruption, will need the involvement of all – from himself to kindergarten teachers.

“(You) cannot expect me alone to do it, or only the National Governance, Integrity and Anti-Corruption Centre (GIACC).

“And, it is also not the responsibility of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) or certain agencies, to shoulder the responsibility of (ensuring corruption-free) governance and integrity.

“It is the responsibility of all quarters… to inculcate good values and to (instil) hatred towards corruption among our children.

The Federal Court on 30^th January, 2019 cautioned that those who disclose their police reports to the public may face the risk of civil action against them in court.

Justice Azahar Mohamed, who read the judgment in a case involving defamation, said people who disclosed the contents of their police reports to the public did not enjoy the right of absolute privilege.

Absolute privilege is an immunity for individuals, especially elected representatives, who make statements within the legislature regardless of whether their statements are malicious or not.

Azahar said the legal position in Malaysia was that a person making a police report was immune from legal action against him or her.

“However, we do not see a reason, on grounds of public policy, that the complainant should be free from accountability by way of defamation when publishing their statement to the public.

“There is no sufficient basis or necessity to expand the ambit of absolute privilege to cover the subsequent publication of the report at large,” the judge said in delivering judgment in the defamation case against local actress Zahida Rafik.

With this latest ruling from the Federal Court unless clarified by the Government of the day that we cannot be whistle blowers unless we are protected in the fight against corruption.

The Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 passed by Parliament in June 2010 provides protection to whistleblowers who voluntarily come forward to report or reveal information on corruption activities. This Act also encourages the public from all sectors to disclose corruption related activities. The identity of the whistleblower and the information provided are kept confidential from any party. Whistleblowers are also given immunity from any civil, criminal or disciplinary action due to the revealing of the act of corruption.

The Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 is a law of Malaysia to combat corruption and other wrong doings by encouraging and facilitating disclosures of improper conduct in the public and private sector, to protect persons making those disclosures from detrimental action, to provide for the matter disclosed to be investigated and dealt with and to provide for the remedies connected therewith.

Whistleblower Andre Xavier Justo on 1^st February, 2019, who is credited with breaking the infamous 1MDB scandal in Malaysia, has been gifted US$2 million (RM8.2 million) by The Edge Media Group chairman for exposing the scam

Group chairman Tong Kooi Ong presented the gift to Justo when he, his wife Laura and four-year-old son Zander visited the business weekly’s office today. They met Tong and the group’s CEO, Ho Kay Tat, The Edge Markets reported.

“The gift to Justo is in appreciation of his contribution to Malaysia in helping to expose the kleptocracy of the past government,” Tong was quoted as saying in the report.

“Without him, the wrongdoings involving 1MDB, as exposed by The Edge, would not have come to light.”

Justo was arrested in 2015 for leaking documents from oil and gas company PetroSaudi International relating to its joint venture with 1MDB, which formed the basis of a money laundering investigation.

This landed him in a Thai jail for 18 months for allegedly demanding payment in exchange for not disclosing confidential information.

“His family was harassed and intimidated while he was languishing in jail. No one should have to go through what he had to endure for helping to reveal the truth,” Tong said.

So we can see that it is not that easy for any whistleblower without pain and no gain. So Justo at least can see the day of his struggle against the Kleptocratic government under Najib.

So what the Federal Court decision on 30^th January, 2019 can present a harder fight against corruption especially against a kleptocratic government even with today’s new Government should NACP would likely fail too. 

The role of newspapers in the fight against corruption could also be facing tougher challenge as corrupted deals could simply be swept under the carpets as with my experience of exposing the corruption in the Government sector since 2004 in more than 30 Police Reports worth more than RM30 trillions –past present and future losses arising from corruption.

Newspapers would welcome Police Reports for publication to stir public concern.

When the Police fails to act on any corruption matters, the Police would recommend the lodgers of Police Reports to go to MACC for further action. But when MACC also fail to act where would the lodgers go?  Go to Public Complaint Bureau and then to Malaysia Human Right Commission or Suhakam.  When all things fail to see any correction action, it is naturally that such Police Reports are published in online websites and or blogs just to draw more attention without fear and favour.

Now with the “new Malaysia” government, are the aggrieved public got any way better to deal with corruption of a “kleptocratic” government or certain politicians and civil servants now they are sort of  protected with the latest ruling from the Federal Court despite NACP and the Whistleblowers Act 2010?

Now this letter is to the Court of the People in the fight of kleptocracy.  Imagine RM1.8 trillions was lost for the period 2005 to 2014 (only tip of iceberg).  You are sure ill practice would not be repeated when politicians often claim that they spent a lot on money to bribe the voters?

For NACP to succeed, it is obvious the public contribution is pertinent and the Federal Court or the legal fraternity assure the public that Whistleblowers Act 2010 is still relevant.

To have an added punch in fight against kleptocracy, the whistle blowers should be rewarded after a long battle like what Justo has just being rewarded to go on living.

For myself not to be disappointed forever in my effort of more than 30 Police Reports mostly published in blogspot, should not I be similarly rewarded like Justo to bring greater justice in society?

In passing, I am just wondering if there is really any justice from the Courts of Malaysia when we have the expensive and beautiful domes on top of major court buildings or complexes and symbolic of what, may I ask?

There is another Act on cruelty against animals especially dogs, and yet no official punitive action initiated against the often crimes against dogs as recently witnessed a horrendous slaughter of a dog by an employee in a steel factory and apologised by the company concerned.  Why such exposure escapes the attention and action of the relevant authorities?

Also is it not an abuse of court to be punished accordingly for withdrawing a very high profile court case in London by a top opposition leader for a massive claim in great disgrace when he could not recite what he had said in Malaysia in the London court that “It is not a sin of corruption in Islam” as per Rewcastle-Brown.  Why should not Malaysia deliver such natural justice when there appears to be dual systems of conflict but it is done elsewhere?

I must thank God if this letter in full would be published by Daily Express as real justice would prevail in exposing all ills and corruption especially kleptocracy.

Joshua Y C Kong, 7/2/2019

Unlimited TYT term is questionable

Unlimited TYT term is questionable

According to the Chief Minister of Sabah Datuk Sri Mohd Shafie Apdal the “ no limit to TYT’s term” in the Sabah Constitution was just to restore to the original constitution as set out in the Malaysia Agreement 1963. (DE 14/12/2018)

So the amendment does look good when the present TYT’s term is due to expire this month.

Does it really look good after what happened in the alleged drama in the Istana over the appointment of Chief Minister soon after the latest GE 14 held on 9^th May, 2018.  The case over who is the rightful CM is still in Court pending appeal.

With the latest term to be unlimited, how would TYT deal with that Court case should Tan Sri Musa Aman is returned to be the rightful CM?  Anything can happen thereafter.

What if Musa decide to remove the incumbent TYT, how would he do it ?  Before Musa could do that he needs to be sworn in first by the TYT and so what could happen?  Not another drama in the Istana possibly in contempt of Court?  Whatever happen Sabah is always the loser in many circumstances as in the past in several disputes of CM started in 1965 and in 1967.

Looking at the amendment from another angle, I hope Shafie would also revert several amendments of the Sabah Constitution by the USNO Government especially on religion and English so as to restore them like what is to the TYT’s term.  Were the amendments in USNO tenure really above board?  The USNO era had been described as the “dark ages”.

The said amendments on those two items are still very much regretted and challenged by certain quarters.  Even the oath stone is given much prominence.

Coming back to the appointment of present TYT based on the amended constitution in 1987, is it not normal that every appointment be it whatever position and more so official ones be stipulated in the instrument of appointment of the length of appointment? So can anyone imagine an open appointment without limit for bad governance? The higher we go it is imperative that good governance should be emphasised.

Is it a bad omen of sort that in Daily Express on December 15, 2018 ( the next day after TYT term as unlimited) and from the archive page 13 that Tun Mustapha was appointed Governor or TYT for two years beginning from Malaysia Day September16, 1963?  So even the first Governor has his term stipulated despite the Sabah constitution in article 2.

So now why the special treatment for the present TYT?  Do we smell a dead rat? 

With the “ no limit to TYT’ term”, it can present constitutional crisis as to how to remove or terminate the service of any TYT in an questionable scenario? Can any TYT stay for life or as long as such holder insist even committing certain undesirable acts? 

You mean TYT is an angel good fellow forever and unlikely to be tainted in any way?

Take the glaring example of Musa Aman as the longest sitting CM since 2003 to 2018 despite an earlier questioned rotating two years term for several CMs with one only for nine months from 1994. Nobody even dare to curtail the 15 years term of Musa Aman despite several major corruption reports against him while in office. Musa now out of office had been charged many counts of undesirable acts committed while in office.

In good faith and in good governance, how can a legal stipulation in an appointment of two terms of 4 years be removed at the end of that period by back dating such ceremonial office making it in disrepute of the highest office?

Should not the present TYT now resign with good standing?

The amended clause can only apply to future or incoming TYT but how to remove any if found to be incapable? The Mustapha case should remain the guideline.

Joshua Y C Kong.  18/12/2018

Stunnng incident of faded Ringgit notes not fake

Stunning incident of faded Ringgit notes not fake
It is indeed a stunning incident of faded notes not fake according to Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) (DE 5th December, 2018).
I believe most of Ringgit notes in circulation have been fake or legally fake for decades as I have lodged Police Reports and writing about that in several letters in Daily Express in recent decades.
But nothing has come forth from the BN Government and BNM despite billions or even trillions had been in circulation for decades.
Are we living in a fake nation when Malaysia has been very much challenged under MA63 ?
About the Ringgit notes, how come they are not fake when such notes of same denomination has different sizes and variances of position in the features of such notes? You can check it yourselves with the notes in your pockets.
In today’s great precision technology especially in printing, how can we tolerate such massive errors in the high tech printing of notes?
Can different printers by different printing or minting companies with different plates be used for such printing giving the impression of fakeness which should give rise to no legal tender in the value of such notes?
If most Ringgit Notes be in such disappointing scenario, how do we know which notes are genuine as issued by BNM or even BNM has been issuing fake notes officially in legal terms resulting in fraudulent practices?
Again today with top quality printers, how come the faded Ringgit notes are still not fake? Has BNM done its job well or it is aware of such “fraudulent” practices in the award of printing works to dubious printers or the main contractor sub-contracted it to others of lesser quality for the motivation of profit ?
There are reports in Australia of Malaysian Government involved with dubious and corrupted printing deals. What happen to such reports ? I hope MACC would look into them in the prevalent corrupted climate in the BN Government of 6 decades.
I am attaching some of the noted discrepancies in Ringgit Malaysia notes for greater and wilder appreciation as the notes in our pockets are indeed fake.
I had seen a video clip of Chinese tourists in a coach with bulky stakes of Ringgit notes of RM50 and RM100 denominations and how come most Chinese tourists pay by online pay schemes such as Alipay, weechat, etc and yet they carry so much notes without worry of security?
It is timely that a Royal Commission of Inquiry on BNM be conducted on a wide range of pressing issues including all those questioned Governmental guarantees by BNM urgently to give genuine value to our Ringgit notes and our economy be in better position and not fake impression. Can we accept the foreign debts of more than RM1 trillions and still rising..?
Joshua Y C Kong 13/12/2018

Online banking can be headache too.

Online banking can be headache too.

This is the second time I want to raise alarm over the recent new banking processes.  Last time it was about the very slow delivery at the ATM for a withdrawal and cash money did not come out after I cancelled the transaction after requesting the amount. The said bank later refunded me the cash amount. 

Now it is again on the new banking online transactions.

After obtaining my requested bank statement for the month ( bank does not post statement now) where the allegation of transfers had gone missing, I can confirm that I  had transferred online two sets of money to another bank account but the receiving bank did not record such transactions.

The two banks accounts are under my control and so I could view the statements.  My personal account can be accessed online but the other account has no online access hence I could not check it except when the said bank statements are obtained.

I am also told by an associate that someone had the transferred money denied by the receiving party but how to confirm with ease when both statements are private to the holders.  This can present long drawn affairs as banks are concerned while the clients do encounter financial difficulties.  Is there any easy solution there?

In my case, it is a total sum of RM1,900 and the receiving party is not an active concern and without the transactions recorded, the bank of the receiving party would not send out any bank statements of the months concerned.  I had to go to the bank to obtain the statements for the period for the purpose of updating the annual accounts.

So there are many questions as which bank is to be held responsible for such missed transactions?

The receipt alone of the paying bank would not be conclusive of such transactions when the receiving bank does not record such transactions.

So there lies the big questions of online transactions when they go haywire.

Would it be a case of Police report for further investigations?

Would both banks concerned resolve the case with compensation on tow for the alleged failures?

The banks concerned would be arguing themselves over such failed transactions to identify the wrong party between them.  Hopefully the banks concerned can come up with the solutions with their own records held by them.

It may be argued that millions of such online transactions occur daily and why these two items?

Maybe many do not check their accounts as I have seen in my accounting works except now it is handled by software. My case is simply manual for the few transactions annually.

I also append the statements with this letter.

Can it be a banking fraud and hopefully not detected?  Or the paying/receiving banks failed in communication.

I will be writing to the banks concerned with documentary evidence hoping for an early answer. But the process can take months. Maybe, it is still safer using the cheques except for the transaction float.

Joshua Y C Kong 7/12/2018