I read this in the Sun online news:
SHAH ALAM (Sept 2, 2010): The High Court here today acquitted and discharged former Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) enforcement director Capt (R) Abdul Kudus Ahmad of bribery involving RM59,000 after it set aside the jail sentence and RM370,000 fine imposed by the Ampang Sessions Court, which had found him guilty of the offence.
This must be the best news for Abdul Kudus, and he is blessed with a nice Hari Raya holiday. Congratulations Sir.
But the following statement by the Judge Mohd Yazid Mustafa, disturbs me –
“I conclude that it was SP4 (Steven) who initially attempted to bribe the accused who was the MPAJ director and not vice versa.
“I found SP4 a participis criminis/accomplice because he was involved actively and directly in all the 24 transactions involving the accused,” he added.
This guy Steven must be a goat. He just gave away $59,000, but for all intends and purpose, Kudus was not even aware they were bribes. Perhaps Kudus thought Steven was being charitable , or perhaps it was his sympathetic nature that prompted him to help Kudus, now that the cost of living has gone up, and the same dollar has lost its value compared to by-gone days. Whatever good intentions Steven had, he must be damn happy that the Police are not going to charge him offering bribes, not once, but 24 times. Secondly, Kudus always intended to pay back his debts to Steven, but now that the case is over, Kudus is smiling that one big debt is over, and in any case he has spend the money.
Another interesting development is the learned judge said “attempted to bribe the accused” and here again Steven the goat remains a goat, after 24 times, did he not think that Kudus was bribe-proofed, poor Kudus was made a Satan when he was an angel.
Can you imagine Kudus asking for a bribe. No Sir, MPAJ directors don’t do that, and I am sure the learned judge, did not really mean what he said viz: “I conclude that it was SP4 (Steven) who initially attempted to bribe the accused who was the MPAJ director and not vice versa.
My understanding of Vice Versa is “another way around” or the opposite, Kudus, the exemplary civil servant, was and did not bribe Steven. Thank you judge you made my day.
The Judge must be thanked again, Steven “actively and directly” bribed Kudus, and Kudus being the loyal servant, did not take part, but drank his Chinese tea(more than that it is wrong) and for the sake of good government relations with the public, kept quiet.
A good ending, though.