With the latest development of the questioned reasonableness of fairness or justice arising from the end of extended 14 days or less remand of four suspects in the Sabah Water Department who were held in the so-called biggest bust by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) for investigation, it would give the impression that it can be the biggest disgrace or dangerous precedent on the legal front when the bail (deposited or otherwise) of a total of RM1,550,000 cum sureties for such a mega theft of any dimension in the context of alleged criminal breach of trust (CBT), misappropriation, embezzlement, corruption, money-laundering, graft, briberies, frauds, abuses of power, etc while holding high offices.

It was revealed that the four suspects were investigated under several critical sections of various statutory laws in the nation, and yet such mild treatment was dished out.

Another ‘weird’ development as reported was when more than 80 witnesses have had their statements recorded by MACC, including three department employees who ‘voluntarily’ surrendered about RM1 million allegedly taken in the process of approving water projects under the RM3.3 billion federal allocations. Would these three employees be charged later following admission of some sort of guilt?

After state secretary Wakiman clarified that the director and deputy director would be suspended by the Public Services Commission (PSC), under what or which category would this take place? Is it one of these such as 1. Where the director of public prosecutions advises no further action against the public officer following a criminal investigation, the responsible officer shall, where the officer was under interdiction in connection with the criminal investigation, reinstate the public officer and inform the secretary of PSC accordingly, or 2. Where the director of public prosecutions decides to discontinue criminal proceedings against a public officer, the responsible officer shall reinstate the public officer and inform the Secretary of PSC accordingly or 3. They were not allowed back in offices to disturb or destroy records or evidence under investigation or 4. Any other good reasons like questioned political intervention for passage of time to thwart trials?

The state infrastructure minister had made statements like “innocent until proven guilty” despite piles of evidence of massive embezzlement, seeming playing down such heinous crimes when there is a growing need for water infrastructure in Sabah, especially in the rural areas. Such massive funds meant for action were instead retained in some rooms and safe deposit boxes.

The suspects had allegedly been given ‘lenient’ bail conditions, including monthly reporting to the police station. when such a case should warrant more regular attendances.

Would all the punitive provisions under critical laws for investigation be thrown out of the window after all the hoo-ha and shock over the case - the Sabah mini version of 1MDB? Please don’t let it appear that such crimes do pay well in terms of ill-gotten gains.

Premature end to probe?

Would it lead to a premature end of the investigation into the RM3.3 billion allocation for the water project in Sabah, when 60 percent or nearly RM2 billion is alleged to be missing. Also why is investigation into this case being conducted over RM3.3 billion when several billions more had also allegedly been incurred for decades in the water infrastructure?

Would these suspects still be brought to the courts soon? What are the chances of reaching a closure for such a massive fraud case in the courts after several decades of alleged malfeasances in the Water Department?

Would such crimes really pay off for the suspects with short stints with free treats of ‘curry rice’? That treatment so far pales compared to how the authorities treated me as a whistleblower in the Usno era on my straightforward exposure of similar alleged crimes committed by politicians and civil servants.

I could feel some powerful people were very hurt with my many audit queries while working as a young examiner of accounts at the Federal Audit Department on cases worth anything up to RM40 million. I cannot disclose the details as the works have been placed under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).

I was detained without trial for 11 months for whistleblowing against the allegedly corrupt government then and its ‘little Napoleons’. Today, unfortunately misinformation on my past episode still leaves a nasty stigma among some quarters.

Yet I have survived against all odds with divine protection to keep me going in this anti-corruption crusade. My case was being ‘penalised for doing ‘good deeds’, and hopefully the Water Department case will not result in some sort of ‘reward’.

Today, with the suspension of the officers and if the case drags on as is usually the case, the two senior officers would be paid half pay for doing nothing, and so MACC should expedite the case to bring about a prompt conclusion to revive the morale of the civil service at large and faith in the MACC.

The Sabah Water Department case is a blessing in disguise albeit much delayed for Sabah to rid the corruption culture allegedly prevalent not only in Sabah but nationwide. The impact of the latest action by MACC must be substantial and perpetuated with support all round.

We need to pray hard to set the nation free from the culture of corruption with the devastation thereof.