‘BRIBERY IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY’

 Example of situation or case from the past

1st Case
Invest Holdings II is a company incorporated in late 2006 as the commercial investment holding
company created to oversee and encourage regional development of South Johor.

Overview of the Case

 Investment Holdings II was to oversee infrastructure planning and master planning of a

City.

 Over RM4 billion was spent on world class infrastructure, including the upgrade of major
roads leading to South Johor, the creation of connector road, state of the art utility pipes,
sewage systems and security networks.

The Offense – Bribery & Corruption

 In December 2011, two people were charged in court in relation to corruption offence in
respects to a development project to build a boarding school in a town in Johor.
 Former vice president in one of the Investment Holdings II subsidiaries, Mr R, pleaded guilty
to soliciting for bribes over the development project. He paid a RM20,000.00 fine.
 Another Mr S was charged at the Sessions Court on three counts of soliciting and receiving
bribes from construction company D’Engineering Sdn. Bhd to secure tender worth RM40.8
million to build a boarding school in a town in Johor. He is the husband of former CEO of
the Investment Holdings II who resigned from her position in 2010 amid speculation of
alleged irregularities in the award of infrastructure contracts.

In in October 2013 , former Vice President of the Investment Holdings II, Mr M was charged in
the session court with two corruption charges. He allegedly committed the offence in 2009 and
2010.

 For the first charge, Mr M was charged under section 16(a)(A), Malaysia Anti Corruption
Commission Act 2009 for demanding gratification of 10% of the Proposed Construction and
Completion of Alternative Road for the Kg. Sungai Pendas People valued at RM2.7 million
from one Mr Z.
 For the second charge , Mr Mwas alleged to have received gratification from one Mr Z as a
reward to assist the company to get the project.
 The gratification purportedly for one individual Mr S, as an inducement to assist Contractor
Sdn. Bhd. to obtain the Proposed Construction and Completion of Alternative Road valued at
RM2.7 million.
 On Jan 2014, Mr M pleaded guilty to an alternative charge under Section 165 of the Penal
Code and was fined for RM30,000.00, in default three months’ jail by the Sessions Court for
accepting a bribe of RM25,000.00.

2nd Case
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission remains very much a toothless tiger which is dependent
on the Attorney General to prosecute cases. The PKFZ RM12.6 billion scandal namely former
Transport Ministers Ling Liong Sik and Chan Kong Koy have not been properly concluded
leading one to wonder if these cases will follow in the footsteps of the cases against former
Sabah UMNO Minister, Kasitah Gaddam, and former Perwaja chairman, Eric Chia, both of
whom were charged with corruption with great fanfare prior to the 2004 general election but who
were both subsequently released. And as long as the MACC is not independent or seen as
independent, even legislation such as the Whistleblowers Protection Act will not have any
substantive long term effect on reducing corruption.

Reference

https://www.sprm.gov.my/index.php/en/enforcement/corruption-offenders-database/81-
uncategorised/1357-case-studies

Ida Lim (2012). Malaysian firms lose deals due to bribery, TI survey shows