MACC Panel disagrees with its Chairman Ramon
January 12, 2011
MACC Panel Dislaims Ramon Navaratnam’s January 4 Statement
by Malaysiakini
A Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) advisory panel has disclaimed its 
chairperson’s statement that its members were satisfied with attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail’s explanation on his alleged relationship with ex-MAS boss Tajuddin Ramli.
In a statement today, the MACC’s Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel said that it had met on January 10 and resolved that its chairperson Ramon Navaratnam’s statement on January 4 on the matter was his “personal judgment”.
“The panel also agreed that investigation by the MACC will continue where necessary to ensure the truth or otherwise of any allegations made against the A-G,” said the panel in a statement today.
Among those who attended the January 10 meet were Ramon Navaratnam, Anis Yusal Yusoff, Azman Ujang, Ishak Thamby Kechik, Zainal Abidin Abdul Majid, Prof Abdul Rahman Embong and Robert Phang.
Abdul Gani had come under fire in recent weeks after allegations surfaced on the Internet, alleging that he had links with Tajuddin, who is being investigated by the MACC.
Abdul Gani was alleged to have performed the haj pilgrimage together with Tajudin’s associate Shahidan Shafie, according to anti-BN website Malaysia Today.
Phang has been among the most fervent campaigners for Abdul Gani to publicly clear the air over the matter in recent weeks but the latter and Shahidan have remained mum.
Gani initiates dialogue with MACC
After much public pressure, Abdul Gani initiated a dialogue with MACC’s top brass, 
committee and panel members on January 4.
Following this, according by a report by The Star the following day, Navaratnam told the daily that his panel was satisfied with Abdul Gani’s explanation. This was subsequently refuted by Phang and Ishak.
Tajuddin , who was MAS chairperson from 1994 to 2001, had been blamed for the national carrier’s massive losses amounting to at least RM8 billion in the past. His legacy includes the relocation of MAS Kargo’s operations from Amsterdam and Frankfurt to a single hub in Hahn, Germany.
Then commercial crime investigation department chief Ramli Yusof had recommended that action be taken against Tajuddin but the attorney-general’s chambers did not press charges.
This was despite MAS airlines and the federal government’s decision to file civil action against Tajuddin.
Although police investigations have been completed, the MACC revealed last month that it was still pursuing a probe on Tajuddin, claiming that “new evidence” have been found.
Please read the related posts above. Nades is right about Ramon. It is sad that my friend Ramon has let us down badly. He is the proverbial lalang flower that follows where the wind blows. He seems to have this attention deficit syndrome that is pathological.
I saw him in action when he was President, Transparency International–Malaysian Chapter. Many people told me that Ramon is devoid of principle.He is a lalang flower alright.–Din Merican
dinobeano - January 12, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Huh? Lalang flower ah..
I guess it’s difficult to redeem something as transient as a monocotyledonous flower – friend or fiend.
OK boss, i’ll let Bob Dylan tell us that the Answer is Blowing in the Wind, pollen and all:
Menyalak-er - January 12, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Thank you to Tan Sri Robert Phang for unmasking this Ramon fella. Salute him man.
Anak Malaysia Kedah. - January 12, 2011 at 8:43 pm
If that’s true i.e. not only did the others distanced themselves from their Chairman but disclaimed and disavowed his claim (that he was speaking on their behalf), this guy should do the honorable thing left open to him — and step down.
Mr Bean - January 12, 2011 at 10:40 pm
This R.Navaratnam character has done well for himself in the civil service and post retirement sitting in numerous govt.sponsored panels.So he wags his tail when the TUAN beckons !!!
ken - January 12, 2011 at 10:43 pm
“This was despite MAS airlines and the federal government’s decision to file civil action against Tajuddin.”
In a civil action, the purpose is to find the defendant liable for the tort of negligence and to decide on the quantum of damages. If evidence surfaces that the defendant has been grossly and recklessly negligent, criminal charges will have to be proffered — and the AG will have no choice. It is hard, however, to see how you can make the chairperson of a company liable when he operates at the policy level and not at the management level. The hope is that in trying to mount a defense, if he is not careful the defendant may end up opening a can of worms. It is not a criminal prosecution and the defendant cannot hide under the right against self-incrimination and will have to give evidence on his own behalf.
In a criminal case, the accused may be found not guilty because the criminal standard is ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ i.e. a much higher standard than the civil standard of ‘on the balance of probabilities’. Usually, a civil action would follow a failed criminal prosecution and court transcripts in the earlier proceedings may be admitted into evidence without more. An easier task perhaps but an outcome still far from certain.
In TR’s case there appears to many to be some prima facie evidence of criminal breach of trust and fraud perpetuated on the company. But having said that what is there to prevent the AG working with a handpicked team of prosecutors ( who are nearing their retirement) from making a weak prima facie case and allow defense counsel to make mince meat of them in the preliminary hearing? Which would then give no choice to the presiding judge but to throw the case out?
Mr Bean - January 12, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Nava is talking like an Umnoputra. Ayaa.. when did you acquire such talent? Don’t tell me Al Kutty has promised you a post in Umno. Oopps..Perkasa…
Tok Cik - January 12, 2011 at 11:23 pm
Let me put this in another way:
MACC is dysfunctional and in servitude. Can we expect anything substantial to come from it? They may have some conscionable directors, but do they have any say in running it’s day-to-day operations? To be honest these directors should instead resign en-masse in protest – after seeing their chairman in a ‘compromised’ position. I doubt this will happen. So much for ‘accountability’ – and yes, its all flatulence.
Menyalak-er - January 12, 2011 at 11:36 pm
Another doggie who knows where the next chunk of bones are coming from…wooof wwoof woof !
GOOD DOG !
komando - January 13, 2011 at 1:21 am
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/prime+minister+private+investigator+murder+Mongolian+model+million+euros/3828485/story.html#ixzz15QSDp2cC
tourman53 - January 13, 2011 at 4:56 pm
“With oversight that defies imagination, no one asked either of the bodyguards during the 159-day trial who had given them the money to kill her.”
In cross-examination of witnesses, apparently there is this guideline best summed up as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (or DADT) which defense counsel taking instructions from the prosecutor will have to adhere to.
Mr Bean - January 13, 2011 at 9:10 pm
He is an emberassment with a forked-tounge !
But of course. authorities put him there with a motive : their purpose to be fulfilled, this is one of them.
Tan Sri Robert Phang is a welcome difference : upright & fearless, he enobles the oath of his office : An honest & a venerable man
Abnizar7 - January 17, 2011 at 2:51 pm