Repeal Article 48(1)(e) and Article 48(3) and allow the voters to choose who they want as their Parliamentarian, irrespective of whether he has been convicted and serving a sentence.
A Member of Parliament, according to the Federal Constitution in Article 48(1) '...a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if - ...(e) he has been convicted of an offence by a court of law in the Federation (or, before Malaysia Day, in the territories comprised in the State of Sabah or Sarawak or in Singapore) and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than two thousand ringgit and has not received a free pardon; or...'
Now, the problem that has arisen of late, is the use of COMPOUND and even other agreements, that lead a person who have committed an offence not being charged, and/or if already charged, charge being withdrawn and then even 'ACQUITTED'..
COMPOUND - a payment of a compound must be taken as an admission of a crime > and this must be recorded, and for serious crimes like money laundering, corruption, etc > it must lead to automatic disqualification. No innocent person will take up the compound offer and pay it - if innocent, he will insist on a trial and prove his/her innocence.
If not payment of compounds to avoid trial/conviction, makes Article 48(e) a 'JOKE' defeating the intention of our Constitution drafters.. If the 'guilty' can avoid conviction simply by paying compounds, 'deals with prosecution', etc - this is not right.
Compounds maybe for minor offences like speeding, breach of Covid-19 SOP like social distancing/wearing mask - but then ALL offences of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 can be compounded....(see s.92)
Worse, when it comes to a compound, who decides on the sum - the Act stipulates the maximum so the public officers decide, and it could have been RM100 too > maybe the compound amount should be determined by the Judiciary, or the minimum set at not less than 25% the total fine.
As an example, for discussion purpose, let us consider the Pontian MPs case...
In the case of the Pontian Member of Parliament, he was charged for an offence under Section 113(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967, which '....on conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than one thousand ringgit and not more than ten thousand ringgit and shall pay a special penalty of double the amount of tax which has been undercharged in consequence of the incorrect return or incorrect information or which would have been undercharged if the return or information had been accepted as correct...'
Section 4(1)(a) of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fifteen years and shall also be liable to a fine of not less than five times the sum or value of the proceeds of an unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence at the time the offence was committed or five million ringgit, whichever is the higher.
For giving false statements to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) when questioned by MACC, he was charged under Section 32(8)c) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, Section 32 (8) Any person who-....(c) furnishes to an investigating officer any information or statement that is false or misleading in any material particular,...commits an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding three million ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both, and, in the case of a continuing offence, shall in addition be liable to a fine not exceeding three thousand ringgit for each day or part thereof during which the offence continues to be committed.
92 Power of competent authority to compound offences
(1) The competent authority or relevant enforcement agency, as the case may be, may, with the consent of the Public Prosecutor, compound any offence under this Act or under regulations made under this Act, by accepting from the person reasonably suspected of having committed the offence such amount not exceeding fifty per centum of the amount of the maximum fine for that offence,
....(3) An offer under subsection (1) may be made at any time after the offence has been committed, and where the amount specified in the offer is not paid within the time specified in the offer, or such extended time as the competent authority or relevant enforcement agency may grant, prosecution for the offence may be instituted at any time after that against the person to whom the offer was made.
(4) Where an offence has been compounded under subsection (1), no prosecution shall be instituted in respect of the offence against the person to whom the offer to compound was made.
Normally, an offer of compound is made before one is CHARGED in court, and if paid, then no prosecution will be instituted.
In the case of the Pontian Member of Parliament Datuk Seri Ahmad Maslan, he was already charged in court >>> and note that the Public Prosecutor reasonably will not charge anyone unless they believe that they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person is guilty...
'...the prosecution had withdrawn the charges against the accused as he had paid a RM1.1 million compound...'
Settlements and agreements, including payment of compounds, after one is charged can thus undermine the Federal Constitution section 48(1)(e) disqualification provision.
Should there be an additional DISQUALIFICATION inserted in Article 48, that will result disqualification if payment of COMPOUND of more than RM2,000?
OR ALTERNATIVELY, should we just REPEAL Article 481(e) - that means no more disqualification if a parliamentarian is convicted of a crime. LEAVE IT TO THE VOTERS, and if they choose a MP or Senator that had been convicted and sentenced, that is the voters' choice and he/she is the duly elected peoples' representative...Full Stop.
Article 48(3) (3) The disqualification of a person under paragraph (d) or paragraph (e) of Clause (1) may be removed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and shall, if not so removed, cease at the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which the return mentioned in the said paragraph (d) was required to be lodged, or, as the case may be, the date on which the person convicted as mentioned in the said paragraph (e) was released from custody or the date on which the fine mentioned in the said paragraph (e) was imposed on such person and a person shall not be disqualified under paragraph (f) of Clause (1) by reason only of anything done by him before he became a citizen. - REPEAL THIS ARTICLE, as it creates an inequality - disqualification should end when sentenced served - no need for an additional 5 years disqualification.
Some people, with political connections, can move the government to get them PARDON to remove this additional 5 years disqualification like what happened to Anwar Ibrahim, and may again happen after GE15 if the BN return to power >> how many of them convicted BN leaders may get 'pardoned'...
So, it is my opinion, that Article 48(1)(e), Article 48(3) be repealed - leave it to the VOTERS to choose anyone to their MPs and/or Senators - and if they choose a MP who is in prison, so be it - this is DEMOCRACY.
For COMPOUNDS - acceptance and payments of compounds will be henceforth be taken as admission to CRIMES, and be recorded. It is absurd that a person can be caught even violating traffic laws so many times - and not be penalized simply because he paid the compounds - hence not tried and convicted. He/she is a danger to other road users, and he can continue putting people at risk without having his license revoked or sentenced to jail - just pay and pay that compound. Likewise Covid SOP breach - because of money, the richer can continue breaking the law with no consequence save for paying some money, which is nothing much for the rich.
Ahmad Maslan allegedly paid a RM1.1 million compound - but for which offence, it is uncertain. Was it for all offences - if so, how much for each of the offence? Did he settle his 'unpaid taxes'? Making 'false statement' is an even more serious offence for a peoples' representative...and certainly a bad example >>> Not convicted but acquitted? Innocent or guilty is uncertain...
So, REPEAL Art.48(1) (e) and no more added disqualification period after sentence served by repealing Article 48(3)
COMPOUND laws - make acceptance of and payment of compounds an admission of guilt, and set minimum amounts of compound for offences, with an increase in compound sums for repeated/subsequent offences under a particular Act. Consider giving the judiciary to set the compound amount - and no more let it be an arbitrary power exerciseable by public officers/Ministers.. See, for Covid SOP violations, compound amounts was influenced by government...
An innocent person ought to prove his/her innocence in court - and will not simply pay a compound to avoid a TRIAL. For small offences like speeding, not wearing mask - one pays compound as its saves monies/times going to court > but compound for serious offences ought to be abolished. A person when charged in court can always plead guilty, and it will MITIGATE the sentence that courts will impose.
Ahmad Maslan too could have simply pleaded guilty, and may have got a just sentence > but he chose to pay the COMPOUND of RM1.1 million and avoided the trial, a prison sentence, or a fine that may lead to him being disqualified as a MP - without the possibility of being a Parliamentarian for 5 more years --- so, repeal Art.48(1) (e)
Ahmad Maslan’s money laundering, false statement case transferred to High Court
.jpg "Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Ahmad Maslan is pictured at the Kuala Lumpur High Court March 11, 2021. — Picture by Yusof Mat isa")
KUALA LUMPUR, July 13 — Pontian Member of Parliament Datuk Seri Ahmad Maslan, who is charged for failing to declare RM2 million received from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) and giving false statements to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), will have his trial heard in the High Court here.
This followed a decision by Judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah today in allowing Ahmad’s application to have his case transferred from the Sessions Court to the High Court.
Ahmad’s lawyer, Hamidi Mohd Noh when contacted today via the WhatsApp application, said the decision was made because there were serious legal issues that arose, especially in the charges faced by his client under Section 32 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001.
On the charge of money laundering, Ahmad was alleged to have violated Section 113(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967 by not stating his real income on the RM2 million he received from former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in the Income Tax Return Form for Assessment Year 2013....
...He is alleged to have received the money, believed to be proceeds of illegal activities, via a check from AmIslamic Bank Berhad dated November 27, 2013 which he personally cashed on the same day.The offence was allegedly committed at the IRB, Duta Branch, Government Office Complex, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Halim, on April 30, 2014.
The charge, framed under Section 4(1)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, provides a maximum fine of RM5 million, or imprisonment for up to five years, or both, if found guilty.
The other charge was for giving
false statements to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) when
questioned by MACC investigating officer, Principal Senior Assistant
Superintendent Mohd Zairi Zainal, over the issue at the media conference
room, Parliament Building, Jalan Parlimen here, between 2.45pm and
3.30pm on July 4, 2019.The charge, framed under
Section 32(8)c) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing
and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, provides a maximum fine of
RM3 million, or imprisonment for up to five years, or both if found
guilty. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 13/7/2021
Ahmad Maslan acquitted of money laundering charge
KUALA LUMPUR: Umno secretary general Datuk Ahmad Maslan has been acquitted and discharged of his money laundering and giving false statements to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) charges.
High Court judge Datuk Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh made the decision today after the prosecution told the court that they had withdrawn the charges against the former deputy finance minister.
The law firm representing Ahmad, Messrs Shahrul Hamidi & Haziq, issued a statement about its client's acquittal.
It said the prosecution had withdrawn the charges against the accused as he had paid a RM1.1 million compound.
"This settlement process took almost a year before it was accepted and recorded in court today.
"This settlement is not Ahmad's guilty plea to all charges against him.
"It was done in accordance with the law and has gone through a transparent and orderly process.
"This (settlement) is solely for the purpose of this case and has nothing to do with any political factors," the statement read.
It went on to state that the settlement was a win-win situation for all parties in line with the law.
Ahmad, 53, was facing a charge of money laundering by not declaring his real income to the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) on the RM2 million he received from former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
This is a violation of Section 113(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967.
The Umno secretary-general purportedly received the money from Najib via a cheque dated Nov 27, 2013, which he (Ahmad) personally cashed the same day.
The offence was allegedly committed at the IRB Duta branch, Government Office Complex, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Halim on April 30, 2014.
The charge under Section 4(1)(a) of Amlatfapuaa, carries a fine or five years' jail, or both, if convicted.
The Pontian Member of Parliament also faced another charge of giving false statements to the MACC when he was being questioned by the agency's investigating officer, Mohd Zairi Zainal over the matter.
He allegedly committed the offence at a media conference room at the Parliament building on Jalan Parlimen, here, between 2.45pm and 3.30pm on July 4, 2019.
The charge, framed under Section 32 (8)(c) of the same Act, carries a
maximum fine of RM3 million, or imprisonment for up to five years, or
both, if convicted. - NST, 29/9/2021
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment