MACC Abu Kassim among 100 influential people in business ethics
February 28, 2011
Bernama reports: MACC’s Chief Commissioner named one of the 100 influential people in business ethics
Abu Kassim Mohamed, the Chief Commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), has been named one of the 100 influential people in business ethics for 2010 by the New York-based Ethisphere Institute.
Ranked fourth in the eminent list, he was adjudged for his role in the government and regulatory practices category. The other eight categories are thought leadership; business leadership; corporate culture; investment and research; design and sustainability; media and whistle blowers; NGOs; and philanthropy.
Ethisphere said Abu Kassim, who joined the Anti-Corruption Agency in 1984, has been instrumental in spearheading the anti-corruption programme in Malaysia, which is leading the way in such efforts in South East Asia.
The anti-corruption crusader, the only Malaysian in the list dominated by mostly Americans and Europeans, has been selected along with 99 others who are said to have made a significant impact in the realm of business ethics over the course of the year, said the research-based Ethisphere Institute.
The institute is an international think-tank dedicated to the creation, advancement and sharing of best practices in business ethics, corporate social responsibility, anti-corruption and sustainability.
Two UK anti-graft MP’s on the list
It said, although many of those listed deserved a lifetime achievement award, the 2010 list recognised those who made a significant impact, specifically during the year.
“Some are world famous and some are unknown, but from designing sustainable packaging to recovering billions of dollars from ponzi schemes, the following 100 individuals have impacted the world of business ethics in ways that will continue to resonate for many years,” added Ethisphere.
Two United Kingdom (UK) parliamentarians, Lord Willy Bach of the UK House of Lords, and former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, tied for first place for having introduced the UK Anti-Bribery Act. Third place went to Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the US Federal Trade Commission, also for government and regulatory practices.
Others in the list include Indra Nooyi, CEO Pepsi; Paul Volcker, Chairman, US Economic Recovery Advisory Board; Bill Gates, Co-founder, The Living Pledge; Warren Buffet, Co-founder, The Living Pledge; Jeff Bezos, CEO Amazon.com; Robery Zoellick, Chairman, World Bank; Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund; Mary Schapiro, Chairman, US Securities & Exchange Commission; and Peter Loscher, CEO Siemens.
Prince Charles, who recently released a documentary, ‘Harmony: A New Way of Looking at our World’, made it into 92nd place for environmental stewardship.
Ethisphere, which was founded by Alex Brigham, a well-respected voice in the ethics and compliance field, also publishes Ethisphere Magazine, which issues the globally-recognised World’s Most Ethical Companies Ranking.
Syabas Datuk Abu Kassim. It’s thumbs-ups for the MACC which got much beating from our people.
I have always trusted the MACC in upholding the integrity of our country.
Hope you guys will do the same. Please stop discrediting the MACC in Teoh Beng Huat’s case.
Pak Abu - February 28, 2011 at 10:12 pm
It’s a meaningless, worthless listing. Influential does not mean capable, ethical or man of principle.
Until he proves himself, he must be regarded as just another scrotum carrier who’s part of the sytem involved in the TBH cover up and many others like the persecution of Rosli Dahlan, MAS fraud etc.
dpp
we are all of 1 Race, the Human Race
donplaypuks - February 28, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Hahaha..! Burp!
Ethisphere wins the Flatulence Award of the year.
What a Mockery! What an Idiot! Where’s the Humor?!
C.L. Familiaris - February 28, 2011 at 10:28 pm
I wonder if this helps–
From–http://www.slate.com/id/2248033/
It’s All Good
Beware of corporate consulting firms offering awards for corporate ethics.
By Will Evans
Posted Friday, March 19, 2010, at 5:50 PM ET
sam - February 28, 2011 at 10:50 pm
In PoobLand, we don’t recognise international awards for the simple reason that poobas do not understand what they mean. In Malaysia, you guys make such a big do over them. Fancy your former Prime Minister Mr Badawi Abdulla was given an award and a generous sum of money by the Saudi Government for being a poet (and what a joke) and the most hated woman in your country was honored by The City of Ankara with Turkey’s prestigious ‘Award of Social Responsibility’ for her social work. What the heck is that!! Don’t these countries do some research before they decide on who deserve their awards.
Poobas judge those in positions of high responsibility by their achievements at home. Action speaks louder than words. So it would be great if Mr. Abu Kassim could investigate the Attorney-General a Mr Patail (pronounced Patel in India) for his links to shaddy characters like Mr Shahidan Shafie and Mr. Vincent Lye of Ho Hup (read Mr. Din Merican on this subject), and recommend to the Prime Minister to take action against Mr Patail for conduct improper of the highest ranked legal man in our country. If Mr Abu Kassim has the guts to do that, he deserves a high title from your King. Until then, he is just a functionary of no consequence.
Who is this Mr. Pak Abu? He seems to be someone who can’t think for himself. With people like him around, Malaysia does not need enemies. Mr. Pak Abu will lull MACC into a state of hubris and complacency.
The Teoh Beng Hock Royal Commission Inquiry (RCI) is turning out to be a real sham. In any case, your Government does not respect RCI recommendations. Under your poet Badawi Abdulla, there were two RCIs (One on the Royal Malaysian Police and the Other on the Lingam Video Clip). But their recommendations were ignored by your government because Mr Badawi Abdulla went to sleep!
In PoobaLand, we think it is waste of time and money to have RCIs. Everything will be brushed aside. What a joke! Are you Malaysians a bunch of jokers?
Abbot of Grand Pooba - February 28, 2011 at 10:57 pm
“New York-based Ethisphere Institute.” Never heard.
___________
Mongkut Bean, go check this out:
About Ethisphere
The research-based Ethisphere Institute is a leading international think-tank dedicated to the creation, advancement and sharing of best practices in business ethics, corporate social responsibility, anti-corruption and sustainability. The Institute’s associated membership group, the Ethisphere Council, is a forum for business ethics that includes over 200 leading corporations, universities and institutions.
The Ethisphere Council is dedicated to the development and advancement of individuals on its membership council through increased efficiency, innovation, tools, mentoring, advice, and unique career opportunities.
Ethisphere Magazine, which publishes the globally recognized World’s Most Ethical Companies Ranking™, is the quarterly publication of the Institute. More information on the Ethisphere Institute, including ranking projects and membership, can be found at http://www.ethisphere.org.
Ethisphere Magazine Mission Statement
In an age of deeper government scrutiny of business operations, increased civil and criminal penalties for compliance failure, and heightened consumer awareness and sophistication, organizations that want to lead realize that there is a direct link between ethics and profits. Ethisphere Magazine was created to illuminate this important correlation.
Our mission is to help corporate executives guide their enterprises toward gaining market share and creating sustainable competitive advantage through better business practices and corporate citizenship. Thought-provoking, entertaining, informative and at times irreverent, Ethisphere Magazine is the must-read publication for all things ethics and compliance.
Contact Ethisphere
Email: support@ethisphere.com
Phone: 800.369.7583
Address: 1133 Broadway, Suite 708, New York, NY 10010
Mr Bean - February 28, 2011 at 10:59 pm
” Under your poet Badawi, there were two RCIs (One on the Royal Malaysian Police and the Other on the Lingam Video Clip). But their recommendations were ignored by your government because Mr Badawi Abdullah went to sleep.” Abbot of Grand Pooba
Techinically that is not possible. How could somebody who is never really awake go to sleep?
Mr Bean - February 28, 2011 at 11:04 pm
HA!HA!HA! Must be article re-produced from MAD
Zorro Fat - February 28, 2011 at 11:07 pm
“What a joke! Are you Malaysians a bunch of jokers?” Abbot of Grand Pooba
No, they are not. They are a bunch of misguided jokers.
Mr Bean - February 28, 2011 at 11:07 pm
If anybody has earned the title, it is Robert Phang.
Was it not Phang who raised the issue about Gay Patel having to take it on the chin like a man and come down to the field to explain why he did what he did i.e. put himself in an uncompromising position in a hotel room with a police officer investigated earlier for corruption who later became the frontman for Tajuddin, my pal from Kg. Kangkong and Malaysia’s fly by night merchant who came crashing down to earth at a cost unimaginable even in Poobaland to the taxpayers?
Mr Bean - February 28, 2011 at 11:20 pm
ooops … compromising
Mr Bean - February 28, 2011 at 11:23 pm
The Macc has not investigated the RM1 billion bribe which was paid as ‘commission for the purchases of Scorpene and Sukhoi.
It has not been able to press corruption charges against both Musa Aman and Taib Mahmud for plundering their state’s wealth. Musa and Taib could thumb their noses at the Macc. So how lah?
Not to mention the Mas scandal.
La - February 28, 2011 at 11:48 pm
ha2, ha2, Taib you takut kah?
mmc - February 28, 2011 at 11:53 pm
some guys wasn’t even nominated to the list of their kampong awards.
comment is cheap bro.
even a parrot can talk talk talk.
rotiarab - February 28, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Comparable in stature to the
“International Stalin Prize for Strengthening
Peace Among Peoples”?
Phua Kai Lit - March 1, 2011 at 7:42 am
Makan roti arab cakap berbelit macam serban arab. Aiyah go straight to the pointlah, why talk in circles and riddles. Who’s the guy wasn’t nominated and for what award?
The Oscars were awarded yeterday and I was disppointed that the BN leaders didn’t get Best Actor award.
Parrot can talk – polly wants a cracker. So waht are you trying to tell us here?
semper fi - March 1, 2011 at 8:28 am
Somewhere between Pak Abu’s sycophancy and the Abbot of Grand Pooba’s cynicism, there must be something the MACC is doing right. One thing we must realise is that the MACC has no prosecutorial powers, that is with the A-G, a position now held by the controversial Gani Patail.
I have been rather critical of the A-G. This is because I believe he has a vital role to play in the Rule of Law and the administration of justice. His conduct must be beyond reproach and he must choose his friends carefully so that he is seen to be impartial and fair to all. If he can do that, then he has the chance of re-establishing his credibility with the Malaysian public. I do not know Gani Patail personally, but I assess him on how he conducts his duties under Article 145(3) of our constitution. So there is nothing personal in this.
Dato Seri Abu Kassim of MACC has been instituting some internal changes, for which he is being named as one in the 2010 list of 100 influential people in business ethics by New York-based Ethisphere Institute. That recognition should encourage him to do better for MACC and our fight against corruption and abuses of power.
It is unfortunate for the MACC Chief that the Teoh Beng Hock’s case hangs like an albatross around his neck. Let us hope the RCI now sitting will come up with a clear picture of the cause of Beng Hock’s demise, and make some recommendations about MACC’s role and organizational structure including changes to the MACC Act, 2009 as it deems fit. The Government itself must have the political will to implement them. Execution is everything, it is the only thing.
Right now ,the MACC is, in my humble opinion, free and independent to conduct any investigation on bribery and corruption without having to refer to any person including the Public Prosecutor but it has no power to charge any offender without the consent of the Public Prosecutor.
This is clearly stated in Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution which states that the Attorney General who is also referred as the Public Prosecutor has the power exercisable at his discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Muslim court, a native court or a court martial.
The provision of the said article 145(3) also implies that before prosecuting anybody in the ordinary courts, the Attorney General is not legally obliged to consult anybody; this is to ensure his independence. Likewise, section 58 of the MACC Act 2009, states that a prosecution for an offence under the Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Public Prosecutor.
So, it is clear to me that the MACC is independent in instituting an investigation on bribery and corruption but has no legal power to institute a charge against the offender. The MACC could only make a suggestion to the Public Prosecutor to charge the offender on evidence gathered but it is the prerogative of the Public Prosecutor whether to prefer a charge or otherwise on the offender without having to give a reason for his decision.
Having commented on the powers of the MACC and the legal requirement of the law in instituting charges against the offenders, I now have no qualms but to admit that the MACC is truly independent in preferring to investigate any bribery and corruption matters but the provision of the law restrains any prosecution without the consent from the Public Prosecutor by himself or by empowerment to his deputies.
I welcome comments on the above from my blogger friends and readers.–Din Merican
dinobeano - March 1, 2011 at 9:07 am
It is not a matter of sycophancy. It’s a matter of giving praise when it’s due.
There’s only so much the MACC can do. They need full cooperation from the people and the government.
People talk so much about this and that leader is corrupted. But do they have the evidence?
The MACC can investigate them, but if there is not enough proof to prosecute, what then?
If they are prosecuted, they will be scot-free if there are loop-holes in the investigation.
The Teoh Beng Hock case is an albatross around the neck of the government especially the MACC.
It is clear as day that it is simply to discredit the MACC which to some is regarded as a Malay establishment.
We have wasted millions on this case which has been politicised to the hilt.
The Teoh family will not be dong what they are doing now if not for the meddling from the opposition people with vested interest.
Pak Abu - March 1, 2011 at 9:26 am
How many time we have to point out to you that the Macc do have prosecutorial powers ie to institute a charge against anyone.
Whilst s.58 states that a prosecution cld only be instituted with the consent of the PP, the consent in practice is issued by the Dep.PPs who can exercise the powers of the PP. And Abu Kassim as Chief Comm. u/d s.5(6) of the Act has the powers of a Dep.PP. So Abu Kassim can issue consent to prosecute.
As I understand, the Macc has about 30 Dpps seconded from the AG’s Chamber. They make decisions whether to issue consent to prosecute or not independently of Gani Patail. It is only in cases where Gani Patail has an interest that he called for the IPs and cold-storaged those IPs or make decisions like NFA. Actually the Macc in particular Abu Kasim shld not be sending its papers to Gani Patail. He must have balls to stop Gani’s nonsense.
And I think one must understand the duties and powers of the AG and the Public Prosecutor. All prosecutions that goes to court are made independent of Art.145(3) and is made in the name of the PP and not the AG. The confusion lies because Gani Patail is both the AG and PP. And as AG he has prosecutorial powers u/d A.145(3) and as PP he has prosecutorial powers u/d the Crim Procedure Code. Cases are cited as PP v Anwar Ibrahim for e.g and not AG v Anwar Ibrahim. This means it is the PP and not the AG who institute proceeding.
Perhaps malaysians cld understand this difference better if the post of AG and PP are held by different persons as in UK and most commonwealth countries The AG is first and foremost the principal legal advisor to the government and is seldom involved in prosecution. Read Art.145(2). That is his main duty and not prosecution which comes u/d the domain of the PP.
La - March 1, 2011 at 9:41 am
This is hilarious. But like the Oscar there is always an opposite. The Razzies Awards rival the Academy Awards in one way. The awards are for the worst movies and actors of the year.
Ethisphere is the equivalent of the Razzies. So the likes of Abu Kassim are in the forefront of the ceremony.
Wonder why the Tamparuli tamu petai seller was not nominated?
Tok Cik - March 1, 2011 at 12:14 pm
ha! a dubious award given by an unknown body that probably was funded by our well known Malaysian ‘fixer’ in NY. Its akin to getting an award from Libya.
This is done to pull the wool over the eyes of the simple folks back home no less but the gomen can’t fool the right thinking folks in the cities!
third eye - March 1, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Abu Kassim got the award for longevity, note
“Ethisphere said Abu Kassim, who joined the Anti-Corruption Agency in 1984″, 27 years and moving up the ranks to become Chief that’s all, no record of achievement to show for except administratively. The late Hassan Ibrahim and Harun Hashim deserves to be recognized for their effort and achievement in tackling corruption. Just the mention of their names will send shivers down the pants of corrupt givers and receivers.
semper fi - March 1, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Yup Tok,
Razzies, Crazzies, whatever..
Let’s call this spade a ‘cangkul’!
Nothing to do with A.G per se, though i’d recommend him for the ‘ignoble’ prize.
I wonder how much PMO paid Apco to get this Prize? There’s no such thing as a free advert.
C.L. Familiaris - March 1, 2011 at 1:39 pm
I have always trusted the MACC in upholding the integrity of our country.
Hope you guys will do the same. Please stop discrediting the MACC in Teoh Beng Huat’s case – pak abu???
But I don’t trust and have confidence in this so called LEMBAGA – The only LEMBAGA is HANTU JEMBALANG?
U r one of the most influential? in what category? bungee jumping ka? don’t play-play sandiwara wayang kulit dah?
malaun - March 1, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Apparently la is a member of the legal fraternity to be able to write with such authority on the Criminal Procedure Code.
Investigation papers (popularly referred to as ‘the bundle’) are forwarded by the police once investigation is in their opinion complete. The AG looks at the evidence to see if there is sufficient prima facie evidence to mount a successful prosecution. Prosecuting on mere prima facie evidence simply because they qualify as prima facie evidence is not something the AG would want to do as it would lead to a waste of state resources and taxpayer money. Surprise. Surprise. One thing that is often overlooked is that those trials cost millions to the taxpayers. The AG would have to find a balance and not prosecute cases if the chances are not good. Send the bundle back to the police for more investigation. The AG derives his powers from the Federal Constitution: Article 145. Discretion is given to him alone to decide but the use of such discretion is not without limits. I know of no cases when the limits of this discretion have been tested.
Victims of prosecutorial misconduct like Ramli and Rosli could theoretically speaking commence action against the AG and have him disbarred. I doubt if they will win though.
It matters not if actual institution of proceedings are by the DPPs. But it is the AG who decides, using his discretion given to him by the country’s Constitution.
MACC as an investigative agency may be independent in its internal workings but has no prosecutorial powers to call its own. It has to depend on the AG. I would have to disagree with la that it could use the many DPPs working under it and their delegated powers to institute proceedings independent of the country’s Attorney General as top prosecutor. I understand where la is going but such novel use of ‘concepts’ will not withstand the weight of legal scrutiny.
The use of the term ‘Public Prosecutor’ is found in the Criminal Procedure Code and not the Federal Constitution because the later is where the power comes and the CPC or Criminal Procedure Code is about how that power is to be used.
Mr Bean - March 1, 2011 at 9:33 pm
“So, it is clear to me that the MACC is independent in instituting an investigation on bribery and corruption but has no legal power to institute a charge against the offender” Din Merican
That is because MACC is conceived, formed, organized and structured as an investigative agency. It alone is responsible on how it uses its power of investigation. Of course, political masters wield their power through the power of appointment of its top executives.
Ordinarily having to depend on the AG for its power of prosecution (as opposed to investigation) would not present problems. But when the AG is susceptible to political wrangling and manipulation coming from the very top, it could be a problem.
Mr Bean - March 1, 2011 at 9:51 pm