I lodged a report at MACC Johor Headquarter on April 20, 2015, urging them to probe into the allegations of The New York Times in their article dated February 8, 2015[1], which included:
- A series of photos that showed FLOM Rosmah holding at least nine Birkin bags, which typically cost between US$9,000 and US$150,000 a piece, though Najib earns an annual salary of about US$100,000 as prime minister;
- Invoices and other documents obtained by The Times showed millions of dollars in jewelry ordered for Rosmah in Hong Kong in 2008 and 2009; and
- Najib’s 38 year old step-son, Riza Aziz, a junior-level banker at HSBC, bought an apartment in Park Laurel, New York for US$33.5 million and a house in Beverly Hills worth at least US$17.5 million in cash.
It is obvious that the lavish lifestyle of Najib and his family clearly does not commensurate with his official emoluments.
Nevertheless, I received a parliamentary reply from YB Senator Datuk Paul Low Seng Kuan, Minister in the PM’s Department on May 28, which stated as follows:
“Memiliki harta mewah bukanlah merupakan satu kesalahan di bawah Akta SPRM 2009 kecuali pemilikan harta-harta ini adalah hasil dari kesalahan rasuah oleh seseorang (yang juga dirujuk sebagai ‘predicate offence’).
SPRM tidak boleh menyiasat seseorang yang dikatakan mempunyai harta mewah yang berlebihan tanpa mempunyai asas siasatan di bawah Akta SPRM 2009.
Setakat ini, SPRM tidak menemukan sebarang ‘predicate offence’ yang dapat memenuhi kehendakan di bawah Seksyen 36, Akta SPRM 2009. Oleh itu mana-mana pihak atau individu yang mempunyai sebarang maklumat serta bukti kukuh berkaitan isu ini, bolehlah melaporkan kepada SPRM untuk tindakan lanjut.”
If that is the case, then it is time for us to amend MACC Act to provide bigger investigating power to MACC.
For example in Hong Kong, Section 10 of Prevention of Bribery Odinance (POBO) says that any person who, being or having been the Chief Executive or a prescribed officer,
(a) maintains a standard of living above that which is commensurate with his present or past official emoluments; or
(b) is in control of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his present or past official emoluments,
shall, unless he gives a satisfactory explanation to the court as to how he was able to maintain such a standard of living or how such pecuniary resources or property came under his control, be guilty of an offence.
Not only that, in accordance with Section 12 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance (ICACO), the ICAC Commissioner has a statutory duty to investigate pursuable allegations under the POBO.
It is undeniable that ICAC in Hong Kong is allowed to investigate a wider range of offences, which is something we should learn from.
Being rich is of course not a sin. However as an office bearer in Government, it is important to be transparent as to the source of the fortune so that people are assured that the politician does not abuse the power and position to accumulate and build wealth.
If indeed there is nothing unusual in their wealth, Najib and his cabinet should have no difficulties to support the proposed amendment to MACC Act. So, will they support this proposal?