Media statement by Dr. Hiew King Cheu in Kota Kinabalu on Tuesday, 15th November 2011:
MACC should be more independent
The role of the MACC should be more efficient and truly independent to probe and investigate into numerous cases allegedly involved in corrupt practices and abuse of power. They must also to be seen as neutral and not bias towards their investigation. It is very true that the chairman of the MACC said recently that they will execute their job no matter who the person is.
The MACC should live up to and discharge fully on their duties entrusted by the people. It is not easy for the MACC to investigate on cases when it is a "high profiled case" involving someone on the top. These cases are usually involving huge sum and serious abuse of power, but none the less it is a job has to be done, and it must be done well at all cost, even on losing their job as a MACC investigating officer.
The MACC had received many complaints and report on alleged corrupt cases, but it seems that very few people had been charged and punished. The public are gradually losing confident and trust over the performance of the MACC. The usual excuse used by the MACC is that "not enough evidence" and case closed. We do understand why the investigation is so difficult especially when you are dealing with "smart crook", "cunning fox" and people with high authorities who can twist and swing the matter into "no harm done"! The case of the Binoculars which was bought with a very high price could be one typical example.
I appreciate the MACC's concern over the reported case of some allegedly highly priced Rural Development projects which was brought up in the Parliament recently. The total number of Rural Development for 2011 and 2012 were 49 projects. These are with very high price awarded projects from the normal range of prices. It is the right and of public interest to find out whether there are irregularities in the award of these projects that might be involving corrupt practices. The explanation made by the department and its Ministry can not be taken as correct and acceptable, therefore it is time for the MACC to come into action to find out and to give the people a true answer. Meanwhile, there could be some more information and details to be disclosed by MACC after their investigation done.
It will be interesting to find out more from the many contractors who had participated in the so called "tendering process". It is a known practice that during open tendering, a group of contractors can submit jointly up to ten or twenty tender documents with close differences in the pricing to mislead the department to award the job, but in fact they are the same people. This is known as the "Kap Piau" or "Kap-sit" (in Chinese Hakka).
I will be submitting the document to MACC KK office to assist in their investigation.
* Dr Hiew King Cheu, MP for Kota Kinabalu