LIM GUAN ENG - CHIEF MINISTER OF PENANG
- now facing allegations of corruption, and has been charged in court for corruption - and, it concerns his possible abuse of position as Chief Minister...
Well, legally - he does not have to resign as Chief Minister - and the Malaysian Bar statement is right on this... he is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty... In fact, legally even if he is found guilty - he still need not resign - no need until he has exhausted all his avenues of appeal...
But, the question really is not simply a LEGAL question but really a MORAL question...since he is no mere Member of Parliament or ADUN - but this is the Chief Minister, the one who effectively wields the Executive Power in Penang...could he affect potential witnesses who are State employees? Could he still directly and/or indirectly tamper with evidence? The Malaysian Bar also acknowledges the risk, when they say...'However, the risk cannot be ignored if there is a
need for oral witness evidence — independently or in addition to the
evidence contained in the formal documents — and the relevant witnesses
are his subordinates.'
Knowing Lim Guan Eng, I do not think that he has done anything wrong - but my opinion, or the opinions of other supporters and friends really do not matter now... for the issue now, is what should a Prime Minister, Minister, Chief Minister, Menteri Besar, State Exco member or head of departments do when faced with similar allegation of corruption and/or abuse of power. Some may say it is a 'selective targetting' of political opponents by the BN Federal government - that too matters not. The same could also be said if it was the Prime Minister or some BN Minister who were facing a similar situation..
In some countries, Prime Ministers have stepped down when such allegations have been made - even when there is yet any charges filed in court?
Remember, many wants Najib to resign because of that large sum of money found in its account, about the matters related to 1MDB, etc..
Should Guan Eng set the example - and step aside as Chief Minister? Surely, the Opposition government would have suitable alternatives who can be Acting Chief Minister (if Guan Eng does not resign but merely take a leave of absence) or Chief Minister if Guan Eng chooses to resign...
Will his resignation on a matter of principle affect his credibility, or the credibility of the DAP, or the credibility of the Opposition Coalition? I think not - in fact, I believe that it will be have positive influence and will garner greater support - it may show how Guan Eng is more principled...
Do the people of Penang want Guan Eng to remain as Chief Minister...or to leave? Well, that really is the question, is it not? Maybe, Penang should have a Referendum...
Well, some may say, why go back to people and have a Referendum - all that is needed is to go back to the State Legislative Assembly, table a motion of Confidence and show that the people's reps(the ADUNs) in Penang still want Guan Eng to remain... well, then Najib can say the same - the majority of MPs in Parliament clearly still want him to be PM???
Thus, maybe going back to the people and having a Referendum may be better option...
What will Guan Eng do now ultimately depends on Guan Eng? the DAP? the ADUNs in Penang?
BUT WHAT GUAN ENG DOES NOW WILL REFLECT ON HIM, THE DAP AND THE OPPOSITION COALITION RULING PENANG, WHO HOPES TO RULE MALAYSIA SOON?
THE SAME STANDARDS WILL APPLY ALSO TO BN - AND WE MAY NO MORE BE MORALLY JUSTIFIED IN CALLING FOR NAJIB TO RESIGN, IS THERE?
Press Release | Presumption of Innocence is the Cornerstone of the Criminal Justice System and Must be Respected
| Monday, 11 July 2016 07:20pm | |
 The Malaysian Bar refers to the recent prosecution of Penang Chief Minister YAB Lim Guan Eng and Phang Li Koon.
YAB
Lim Guan Eng was arrested by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
(“MACC”) on 28 June 2016 and detained overnight before being charged on
30 June 2016 under Section 23 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption
Commission Act 2009 (offence of using office or position for
gratification) and under Section 165 of the Penal Code (public servant
obtaining any valuable thing, without consideration, from person
concerned in any proceeding or business transacted by such public
servant).
Phang
Li Koon was also charged under Section 109 of the Penal Code, read
together with Section 165, for purportedly abetting YAB Lim Guan Eng in
the commission of the alleged offences.
MACC
began its investigation into allegations of corruption against YAB Lim
Guan Eng in March 2016.[1] YAB Lim Guan Eng has been apparently fully
cooperative in the investigation.[2] It was reported that he voluntarily
presented himself for questioning by the MACC on 6 May 2016[3] and on 7
May 2016[4] for 9 hours and 10 hours, respectively. He attended
questioning again on 22 May 2016, and acceded to MACC’s request to
inspect his home.[5]
As
YAB Lim Guan Eng had been cooperating willingly in the MACC’s
investigation, there appears to have been no basis for MACC to have
arrested and detained him overnight on 29 June 2016. Enforcement
agencies should never resort to the power to arrest and detain, to
intimidate, harass or victimise an accused person. This would be
plainly a blatant misuse of power by any enforcement agency.
YAB
Lim Guan Eng’s bail set at RM1 million was extraordinarily high and
thus punitive. The purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the
accused person in court for the trial. In this instance, there seems to
be nothing to suggest that YAB Lim Guan Eng posed a flight risk.
Excessive bail would be perceived as punishing or penalising an accused
person prior to the trial, and would be manifestly unfair to the
accused person.
The
Malaysian Bar is aware that there have been calls for YAB Lim Guan Eng
to take a leave of absence, or to resign, from his position as the Chief
Minister of Penang pending the conclusion of the prosecution against
him. There is no strict legal requirement for him to do so. However,
there appears to be instances where a public official facing prosecution
for an alleged criminal offence has vacated office (temporarily or
permanently), if there is a real or apparent risk of direct or indirect
interference by the official in investigatory and/or prosecutorial
decisions.
As
the prosecution of YAB Lim Guan Eng has already commenced, the
investigation would presumably have been completed. There should no
longer be any possibility of interference with the investigation.
With
regard to the prosecution, the risk of interference would depend on the
evidence that is to be adduced by the prosecution in support of the
charges. On the face of the charges, the evidence is uncertain and it
would be premature at this stage to decisively conclude whether YAB Lim
Guan Eng should still remain in office. For example, if the prosecution
intends to rely on formal documents (e.g. minutes of state committee
meetings) that only require identification by relevant witnesses to
confirm their authenticity, the risk of interference in the
prosecution’s case can be disregarded. These documents should already
be in the possession of the prosecution and their contents should be
self-explanatory. However, the risk cannot be ignored if there is a
need for oral witness evidence — independently or in addition to the
evidence contained in the formal documents — and the relevant witnesses
are his subordinates.
The
Malaysian Bar reiterates that all accused persons must enjoy the
presumption of innocence and, pending the determination of a case by the
court, no accused person should be treated as if he or she is guilty of
a criminal offence.
Steven Thiru
President
Malaysian Bar
11 July 2016
[1] “MACC to open investigation paper on Lim Guan Eng over bungalow
”, Astro Awani, 18 March 2016.
[2] “MACC’s overnight lockup of Guan Eng unnecessary, lawyer says (VIDEO)”, Yahoo News, 30 June 2016.
[3] “After nine hours yesterday, MACC to resume quizzing Guan Eng”, Malaysiakini, 7 May 2016.
[4] “MACC wraps up probe on Guan Eng after 10-hour grilling”, Malaysiakini, 7 May 2016.
[5] “MACC visit to Guan Eng's home not a raid, says Gobind”, Malaysiakini, 22 May 2016.
Source: Malaysian Bar Website
|
No comments:
Post a Comment