MACC: Targeted or under pressure for democratic accountability?

 

ONE cannot help but view with deep concern the controversy surrounding Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki over his alleged share ownership in publicly listed companies, first highlighted by Bloomberg.

Predictably, the issue has ignited a political and public firestorm, with commentators and politicians from across the divide swiftly joining the chorus of condemnation, some even demanding his suspension or resignation before any formal inquiry has concluded.

As criminologists, we assess facts, evidence, and due process, not conjecture, assumptions, or public sentiment. Guilt must be proven through lawful investigation, not declared through media narratives.

The presumption of innocence is not a mere legal technicality, but is a fundamental principle of any just and civilised system of law and justice.

Share ownership is not inherently unlawful

Purchasing shares is a lawful financial activity. Many civil servants invest, subject to regulations and disclosure requirements. Owning shares does not, by itself, constitute wrongdoing.

Here, in the first instance, we need to dissect the crux of the matter by reviewing relevant Malaysian regulations and legal principles.

Malaysian administrative regulations allow public officials to hold shares in public listed companies (PLCs) under specified conditions. The framework emphasises transparency and oversight rather than prohibition.

(Image: SPH)

More importantly, the distinction between investments in PLCs and private companies reflects differences in regulatory supervision and disclosure obligations.

Possession of financial resources to invest likewise does not imply wrongdoing if such funds are derived from legitimate sources.

Senior civil servants with long careers may accumulate quite a substantial lawful income through salaries, allowances, savings, investment returns, gratuities, pensions, and retirement benefits. Hence, wealth alone is not evidence of illicit enrichment.

Legal and regulatory framework

Malaysian public service regulations govern share ownership by officials primarily through disclosure and approval mechanism by the Public Service Department (JPA).

Civil servants may hold shares within prescribed limits, commonly cited as not exceeding 5% of a company’s paid-up capital or RM100,000 in market value, unless prior approval is obtained from the appropriate authority, such as the Chief Secretary to the Government.

Where holdings exceed these thresholds without approval, the issue would typically constitute an administrative matter rather than a criminal offence, unless accompanied by evidence of corruption, abuse of office, or possession of illicit funds.

In addition, public officers are required to declare assets periodically through formal channels, making asset transparency a central compliance requirement.

Public listed companies vs private companies

Differential treatment of PLCs and private companies is grounded in structural considerations rather than arbitrary policy.

PLCs operate within a highly regulated environment overseen by Bursa Malaysia and the Securities Commission, with continuous disclosure requirements and public reporting of major shareholdings and transactions.

Private companies, by contrast, are subject to more limited disclosure obligations through filings with the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM).

From a conflict-of-interest perspective, an official’s minority shareholding in a large PLC is typically passive and publicly visible, whereas ownership in a private entity may allow greater influence with less transparency.

This distinction informs regulatory safeguards aimed at preventing undisclosed control or preferential treatment.

In the present case, the Chief Commissioner has stated that the shares in question were declared and subsequently disposed last year, and that relevant authorities were informed. These assertions remain matters to be verified through appropriate institutional processes.

Why are the attacks happening now?

One need to understand that media reporting is not a substitute for investigation or judicial process. More so, public opinion cannot determine guilt. Any allegations of wrongdoing or misconduct must be examined through proper legal and institutional channels.

In my opinion, the incessant trial by media against Azam appears more like an orchestrated campaign to tear him down. But who are the hidden hands behind this?

(Image: Malay Mail/Yusof Mat Isa)

If one observes carefully, in the past six months alone, MACC’s enforcement actions have reached and dismantled powerful figures across multiple sectors, including unravelling wrongdoings in Defence leadership, political figures across party lines, corporate magnates, NGOs accused of misusing public donations, religious preachers, top and senior civil servants, former prime ministers and their networks.

I would offer that never before have the scale and impact of such enforcement been seen since independence.  Such broad investigations naturally disrupt entrenched interests.

When investigations are conducted “without fear or favour”, it is not difficult to see an outcome whereby the Chief Commissioner and MACC automatically create enemies across political, corporate, and institutional lines.

The simultaneous criticisms and attacks may reflect converging interests among affected parties, which is why, as I observed, few, if any at all, stood up to defend Azam.

In this matter, I cautioned that public discourse should therefore distinguish between legitimate accountability and premature conclusions regarding culpability. This should not create moral panic among the public for obvious wrong reasons.

Safeguarding due process

Criminology research consistently shows that robust enforcement often triggers attempts to discredit investigators. Targeting the enforcer is a common strategy when investigations threaten powerful interests.

MACC and other enforcement agencies are not immune to these attempts. This dynamic underscores the importance of maintaining procedural fairness, evidentiary standards, and institutional independence.

In conclusion, Malaysia’s anti-corruption efforts should not be derailed by manipulated emotions nor by speculation. Evaluate leadership based on actions, outcomes, and legal findings, not unproven claims.

Upholding these principles protects both accountability and fairness, which are indispensable to a credible system of governance. 

 Professor Datuk Dr Kassim Noor Mohamed is a criminologist and the vice-chancellor of the Enforcement Leadership and Management University (ELMU).

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.

- Focus Malaysia.