PERHAPS many are fully aware that the Badminton Association of Malaysia (BAM) is currently being investigated by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
As part of their investigation, five officers from MACC were said to have been present at the BAM headquarters in Bukit Kiara on November 26 to examine several documents. It was rumoured that the allegations could have been made due to envy.
To its credit, BAM gave full cooperation to the MACC officers involved in the investigation. I am definitely on the same page with Youth and Sports Minister Hannah Yeoh when she urged the public not to speculate and let the MACC complete its investigations into the BAM.
Yes, it would be premature to speculate at this juncture especially when the investigation is still at its infancy stage.
However, this particular story piqued my interest as it was revealed that according to a credible source, a poison pen letter was sent to MACC, alleging that a high-ranking officer from BAM had been receiving an allowance without approval from the BAM Council.
It is generally understood that the primary reason for the emergence of poison pen letters is pretty obvious, namely a fear of revenge. Hence, the authors of such letters would feel there is a need to hide their true identity.
A poison pen letter is legally considered as hearsay evidence, hence as a general rule, it would be inadmissible in any court of law unless such evidence falls under one of its recognised exemptions.
The latest trends around the globe seem to relax the strict rule against hearsay. In Malaysia, for example, a slew of new provisions have been introduced in our Evidence Act 1959 such as section 73A and section 90A apart from section 6 (the principle of res gestae) and section 32 of the same act.
In a quite recent case in the UK, namely the case of Soni v General Pharmaceutical Council, the issue of a poison pen letter arose. Specifically, the issue was whether the new evidence of an anonymous letter should be admitted for a rehearing.
The facts in that case were that Patient A attended a pharmacy, seeking the morning-after pill. She alleged Soni, an experienced pharmacist of many years, discussed the medication with her but then physically examined her breasts.
At the substantive hearing, the panel found the allegation proved and removed Soni from the register. The appellant (Soni) subsequently received an anonymous letter revealing this fact: the anonymous author purported to have known Patient A for many years and alleged she “made up the story of the harassment as she and her boyfriend knew they could make money and another pharmacist he knew… told them so. ”
It also alleged she had been coached in her evidence by her lawyers and told to fake emotions.
This letter formed the principal basis for the appeal. The appellant sought to use the said fresh evidence in his appeal by making a preliminary application before the Swift J for permission to be able to rely on the letter at the appeal.
In particular, the letter referred to the author having spoken to staff at a particular pharmacy store who could be questioned. The respondent argued that the fact it was anonymous certainly reduced its evidential value thus it should have not been admitted.
The learned judge-Swift J-however refused to summarily dismiss such an anonymous letter. He, inter alia, held: “I do not consider it can be dismissed quite so summarily as the GPC seems to suggest. This is so, in particular given the public interest at the heart of this type of regulatory disciplinary procedure – i.e. the public interest that the profession is regulated fairly, [and] properly ”.
One of my ministerial responsibilities when I was in the Prime Minister’s Department was to answer all questions in Parliament involving MACC. I was then briefed by the MACC officials that an investigation by MACC had been part of their procedure after receiving any complaint including a poison pen letter.
I know for a fact that there were some cases involving allegations of corruption and abuse of power which started from anonymous letters. To my utter astonishment, such cases were then brought to court and the prosecution in turn managed to secure conviction against the real culprits despite the fact all started with pen poison letters. – December 4, 2024
Mohamed Hanipa Maidin is former deputy law minister
