The MACC Review Panel reportedly reject the video evidence as sufficient to prosecute the vote buyers, ignoring a number of factors involved in the supply of the video evidence. The foremost of them is that the accused had admitted on his own accord that he and all other candidates in the 10th Sarawak state elections, had paid-off the voters-he only disputed that the money was for vote buying. He claimed that the money was for transport, campaign work and as consolation. So the fact of paying voters was not disputed-only that someone need to arbitrate if the payment was for those reasons mentioned by the politicians, or for buying votes!
Secondly the video evidence was given along vouchers and cheques from the Chief Minister’s Office-should the MACC be a bit proactive to check on the authenticity of these cheques to see if they were given out for vote-buying purposes? By isolating the video evidence, and speculate about it as the work of actors, shows a less than positive attitude towards provider of vital information of corruption in elections! Wonder why they never made similar speculation of the purported Anwar’s sex video to cast doubt over the video?
3rdly the evidences were exposed to gain publicity as pointed out by the MACC Review Panel, but this purpose is not incompatible with the wish to get the information investigated and the culprits prosecuted. The MACC Review Panel members seems to imply that the 2 objectives are incompatible! He even claim that the exposure of the evidence would disqualify the information provider from protection as whistle blower-reflecting a less than welcoming attitude towards supporters of public interests who made the effort to come out with the evidences!
4thly the stands of the MACC Review Panel members expose the less than encouraging policies towards complainants to the MACC: they are prohibited from speaking about the corruption case once they submit the case to MACC; 2. they are also not guaranteed to get update on the investigation by MACC-opening opportunity to MACC to deal with the corrupter with the evidence provided; Compare these 2 restriction to police reports where there are no such restriction.
No wonder the MACC has no good records to show their effort and resolve to go after big time corrupters!