GEORGE TOWN, March 28 — DAP should have opposed the passing of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act (MACC) 2009 in Parliament back then instead of challenging its constitutionality in court now, Penang Gerakan said today.
Penang Gerakan acting youth chief Jason Loo said there was no logic in DAP’s Lim Guan Eng challenging the constitutionality of the act in court now when DAP MPs could have opposed to the act being passed back in 2009.
“Where were Lim Kit Siang, Gobind Singh Deo and Lim Guan Eng when the MACC Act was passed in Parliament back in 2009?
“Why didn’t they debate or challenge that the MACC Act was unconstitutional last time but now only they make noise?” he asked.
Loo was referring to Guan Eng’s appeal to the Court of Appeal on his application that Section 62 of the MACC Act 2009 is unconstitutional.
Guan Eng’s initial application to the High Court that the Section 62 was unconstitutional was thrown out of court early this month and through his chief counsel, Gobind Singh Deo, he had filed an appeal against the decision.
He was also granted a stay of his corruption trial pending his appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Loo claimed that Guan Eng had delayed the corruption trial using the basis that the law was unconstitutional.
He pointed out that Lim himself, Kit Siang and 35 other DAP MPs were in Parliament when the law was passed back in 2009.
“The law has been there for so many years and even the former Selangor Mentri Besar Mohd Khir Toyo was found guilty under the MACC Act but maybe DAP was not bothered then because it had nothing to do with them but now, it involved their Secretary-General so they are to court against it,” he said.
Loo also claimed that Guan Eng had openly said he will reveal the truth in court which meant he was confident with his case.
“If he is so confident with his case, why is he delaying the case,” he asked.
Guan Eng, along with businesswoman Phang Li Koon were charged with graft over his house purchase deal last year.
The trial was initially fixed to start this week but the High Court postponed the trial dates pending the appeal to the Court of Appeal.