Guan Eng’s budak sekolah argument on his corruption crime
Guan Eng’s argument that the MACC did not find any “corruption money” or cash on his person and/or there was no money transferred to his bank account is a budak sekolah argument. In that case, how could Anwar Ibrahim and Harun Idris be convicted and sent to jail since the MACC did not find any corruption money or cash on them and/or there was no money transferred to their bank accounts?
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
“How can there be corruption when no corruption money was discovered in my possession? I will prove my innocence in court, particularly when no gratification or corruption money was found in either my personal bank account or in my possession in cash,” said Lim Guan Eng today.
Actually, Guan Eng does not need to prove his innocence in court. It is the prosecution’s job to prove his guilt. And they need to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. In the event the prosecution cannot do that, then the benefit of the doubt needs to be given to the accused.
According to the federal court in its September 2004 judgement on Anwar Ibrahim’s appeal against his sodomy conviction, they were convinced that Anwar is guilty of sodomy. However, the prosecution had failed to prove it beyond any shadow of doubt. Hence the federal court was forced to acquit Anwar, even if reluctantly.
Anwar, too, was sent to jail even though the MACC did not find any corruption money or cash on him and/or there was no money transferred to his bank account
Anwar sued the federal court and tried to get that part of the judgement expunged (the part that said the court was convinced of Anwar’s guilt but the prosecution failed to prove it) but Anwar failed. So, it remains on record that the federal court said this.
On the first charge that Anwar faced, which was basically a crime of abuse of power or corruption, there was no money or cash involved. Yet Anwar was found guilty and sentenced to six years in jail. Anwar appealed that conviction and lost. He also was not granted any pardon.
Hence, on record, Anwar is an ex-convict who went to jail for abuse of power or corruption even though there was no money or cash involved.
One-time Selangor Menteri Besar Harun Idris was also convicted of corruption and was sentenced to jail. He, too, never received any cash and no money was banked into his bank account or found on him. In fact, he never laid eyes on the money or even touched it.
Harun is another example of where you do not need to have the money on you or in your bank account to be convicted of corruption
What happened was, the Selangor State Government, which Harun headed as Menteri Besar — in essence the EXCO — approved some land for a certain bank. In return, the bank donated a certain amount of money to Umno. Hence the beneficiary was Umno, not Harun.
Nevertheless, Harun was convicted and sent to jail, even though “no corruption money was discovered in his possession and there was no gratification or corruption money found in either his personal bank account or in his possession in cash” — to quote Guan Eng.
Yes, Harun’s case has set the benchmark for the meaning of abuse of power and corruption. You do not have to personally approve anything. The government is run on collective decision (as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad keeps saying). Hence the Menteri Besar or Chief Minister can he held accountable for the decisions made by the EXCO that he heads.
The Rafidah Aziz case is another example. The Ministry of Trade committee approved the shares for her son-in-law. Rafidah did not personally approve those shares. In fact, according to Rafidah’s explanation, she declared her “conflict of interest” and told the committee she will not vote on the matter. She will abstain from voting.
Mahathir had to save Rafidah from getting arrested for corruption where she did not receive any cash and no money was transferred to her bank account
But the MACC still considered she had committed the crime of abuse of power or corruption and sent a paper to the Attorney-General recommending prosecution. Mahathir, however, intervened and told the AG to drop the case. The MACC person involved also had his career cut short for pursuing the case against Rafidah.
Guan Eng’s argument that the MACC did not find any “corruption money” or cash on his person and/or there was no money transferred to his bank account is a budak sekolah argument. In that case, how could Anwar Ibrahim and Harun Idris be convicted and sent to jail since the MACC did not find any corruption money or cash on them and/or there was no money transferred to their bank accounts?
