A twenty-seven-year-old car park attendant has alleged that he was tortured during interrogation by police who beat him with a rubber hose and splashed boiling hot water on his body.

Why some Government Officers become corrupt

The policeman working hard to protect the rakyat is paid a meagre RM1500 and the PM spends RM6 Million in rental alone for himself, another RM4 Million by the deputy and multi million dollars by the others in power, is this what we call fair management, a government with the rakyat in mind, no...no..., we have a very corrupt government running on deficit yet spending free.... therefore the cause for corruption is the government itself and none other...

Why some Government Officers become corrupt

Sun 28 Dec 2008 22:11

Posted by James Ooi

Letter by R. Ganesh as published in Lim Kit Siang’s blog:

I was utterly shocked when I read today’s NST dated 2008/12/27, article entitled “ACA officers feel ‘demoralised’ over new salary scale”. In the article, it was stated that Grade 29 officers would be offered a basic salary of RM1,482.85 and RM3,246.48 when they reached the top of the scale. “The maximum year between the basic salary and top of the scale is 22 years while the yearly increase is only RM80.17.”

Police officers in the same grade receive a basic salary of RM1,423.50 with a maximum of RM3,282.77. However, the maximum number of years getting to the top is only 18 years with a yearly increment of RM103.29, the article said.

My question here is this, how do you expect an individual in power to refrain from being corrupted when he merely earns RM1500? Nowadays, one can barely survive with RM1500 if one has 3 or 4 mouths to feed at home.

After paying your housing loan, car loan, study loan, EPF, income tax, medicine and supplements, Astro bill, water bill, electric bill, insurances (health, car, home etc), education cost for your children, how does the government expect one to survive with RM1500?

Can you blame an officer if he becomes corrupt?

Those days, corruption meant satisfying your wants and desires illegally. In other words, buying your luxuries with illegally obtained money. But I think these days, people become corrupt merely to survive ie to make ends meet.

It is high time the government revise the salaries of government servants in Malaysia.
Malaysia is a super rich country blessed with abundant natural resources.

We are thousand times richer than Singapore with oil, palm oil, rubber, tin, iron ore, timber, natural gas, copper, bauxite, coal and even Gold!, and yet, Singapore is far more progressed, richer and first world status. Both countries also Merdeka around the same time.

Singapore has zero natural resources, so how can they be richer than us with a higher GDP than us? Even low level government servants there earn Singapore $4000 a month and you can buy loads of food for the family of four in the supermarket for one whole week for S$100.

Here, the same items in the supermarket, cost around RM400 a week to feed a family of four.

And yet, the government expects their officers to earn RM1500?

Bank Negara says direct-selling and enforcement of Direct Sales Act not its duty

If it is not the duty of BNM to monitor the activities of banks, who else is responsible?

Of late the action of BNM to approve late payment charges to credit card loans up to 1% or RM100.00 whichever is higher every month is a major setback on its responsibilities to protect the rakyat from scrupulous bankers who put profit above anything.

The rakyat is already suffering due to the recession and this charge is an extra burden to those who have credit balance and couldn't meet the monthly dateline or due date for payment.

Bankers are charging customers without mercy. Some of the loans are made before the approval and with a short notice the banks a charging customers this new rate.

We, the rakyat appeal to BNM to immediately reverse the late payment penalty to that practiced earlier.

NST Online reports :

ACCORDING to Bank Negara, the business of direct-selling and the enforcement of the Direct Sales Act 1993 does not fall under its purview.

"Hence, we are unable to comment on the protection of customers of the direct-selling companies," it said.

It added that for a payment by credit card, the card holder would need to authorise the issuer to make payment to the parties concerned.

To a question on why banks provided credit card machines for companies whose licences have been revoked, and as to when a consumer could revoke a credit card transaction, the central bank said: "Generally, the payment authorised by a card holder would be for purchase of goods or services from a merchant.

"As such, subject to the consent of the merchant after agreeing on another mode of payment or return of the goods or services by the card holder, the merchant and/or the card holder may inform the credit card issuer to reverse the credit card transaction.
"The agreement between a merchant and a credit card issuer may include provisions on chargeback in addressing any disputes from card holders. The credit card issuer could exercise the chargeback as provided under the agreement after notifying the merchant."