Bafia meant to protect the innocent, not the guilty

YOURSAY 'Bafia is a legislation to control those in the banking industry from revealing personal details, not for silencing those exposing a crime.'

Najib defends Bafia charge against Rafizi

your sayChangeagent: PM Najib Razak is only half right. While the protection of the legitimate right to privacy of bank clients is paramount to the success of the country's financial system, the same protection should not be afforded to crooks and illegal money launderers.

Even Switzerland, the former safe haven for dictators and crime lords, is now signatory to the OECD standards regarding the exchange of information upon request in tax and laundering matters.

As a matter of fact, Swiss banks are now systematically refusing to accept deposits from politicians if they suspect that the funds are of dubious origin.

Najib should re-state and clarify his own position on whether there is a need for Bafia to protect the privacy of people who consistently engage in corruption and money laundering.

Loyal Malaysian: Save us the rhetoric, PM. A distinction must be made whether the disclosures are for personal gain or in this case in public interests - to show the abuse of public funds in the NFC (National Feedlot Corporation) scandal.

Lim Chong Leong: Bafia is a legislation to control those in the banking industry from revealing personal details, not for silencing those placed with the responsibility of exposing a crime. Najib, you are so done this time, and only by your own misdeeds.

Starr: What Najib is trying to defend the use of Bafia against the whistleblowers is absolutely nonsensical at best, rubbish at worse.

He is either for clean government or against it, there is no two ways about it. What he did in PKR strategic director Rafizi Ramli's case is inexcusable, it shows he is not serious about transforming the government.

Anonymous #19098644: This is the most nonsensical statement there is. Bafia is there to protect the integrity of the banking system. It is there to ensure that money launderers like the Shahrizat Abdul Jalil family do not abuse the banking system to launder their dirty monies.

Because the BNM (Bank Negara) has failed in its fiduciary role of ensuring that the system is not used by corrupt crooks to transfer their monies, the whistleblower has to blow the whistle.

Brahman: I totally agree with Najib with regards to Bafia ruling, however the MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) should be independent and the investigation and prosecution of any alleged act of corruption should be decided by Parliament and not the AG (attorney-general).

The present AG should be removed and replaced, only then the system would have a glimmer of trust in the eyes of the rakyat.

Since this has not been done and the MACC and the AG are not deemed to be impartial, then the next best approach is the media. The action of Rafizi and former Public Bank clerk Johari Mohamad is very commendable under these circumstances.

Quigonbond: Najib is right in terms of law because the Whistleblowers Protection Act negates protection of whistleblowers if they do not refer the matter to relevant authorities. But that's the law.

The question is what's right? Those are two very separate issues. What's right is, if we were the best democracy in the world, it would not have mattered who the matter was brought to the attention of as long as it was done on reasonable basis and in good faith.

And Najib should honestly ask himself why people no longer bring complaints to the MACC. For every finger pointed elsewhere, four are pointing at him.

IloveBN: The Bafia Act should exempt exposes such at that of NFC. Otherwise it becomes a useless Act that protects corrupt practices.

Notifiying MACC about corrupt practices is useless. What has happened to the loads of reports against Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud?

Tholu: If the MACC had promptly acted on NFC after its wrongdoings were exposed, then perhaps the public could have had some tolerance and acceptance of the authorities' action on Rafizi.

If MACC had opened a file on the Ampang LRT extension scandal, then perhaps the public could have had some tolerance and acceptance of the authorities' action on Rafizi.

If MACC had acted on the alleged corruption involved in the Scorpene purchase, then perhaps the public could have had some tolerance and acceptance of the authorities' action on Rafizi.

Whistleblowers will not have second thoughts in approaching MACC or the police with any incriminating information and evidence against any company or entity, but alas...

Odin: In a democratic country run by politicians who may not be angels but are far better than those in the BN, then, yes, Rafizi should have gone to the MACC with the information.

But we are talking about a pseudo-democratic country run by politicians who are not only fascist and corrupt, but they also have government agencies such as the MACC serving their interest only.

Rafizi has had no choice but to make the information public.

Swipenter: Both Najib and MACC are having credibility issues. The public do not have enough trust in them to carry out their responsibilities without fear and favour.

We have seen too many cases of selective prosecution. This is another good example.


The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.