Azam Baki controversy: A question of integrity

 

The share trading controversy involving Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Azam Baki is not just about him or the trustworthiness of the MACC. It is about the integrity of our institutions.

An individual can come and go but the institution remains. The degree of trust that an institution commands depends largely on the integrity of its head and officers, and its ability to act independently, fairly and swiftly.

The question, therefore, is how the MACC measures up. Not well, it appears.

There are calls for Azam to go on leave or resign in the wake of the controversy over shares that were traded with his account in 2015.

Coming out in the open on Jan 5, weeks after the allegations swirled on social media, Azam denied committing any wrong or that there was a conflict of interest on his part.

“I explained to the board (the MACC’s anti-corruption advisory board) that my trading account was used by my brother for his shares trading and I have no interest nor have any part in this. The shares were bought in the open market and my brother had financed the purchases on his own.”

It doesn’t look good on Azam because he defended himself in public only after academician Edmund Terence Gomez resigned as a member of the MACC’s consultation and corruption prevention panel on Dec 27 – after claiming that the panel had failed to discuss the allegations against Azam – and the subsequent public pressure.

Azam’s answer raises an important question: Why did his younger brother Nasir use his account to trade in shares?

Individuals and groups were quick to call on the Securities Commission (SC) to investigate whether Azam had breached stock ownership laws when he let his brother use his share trading account.

Yesterday, the SC issued a statement saying it would call Azam and others involved for an explanation and to gather evidence. I must say the SC is acting fast.

Azam’s answer to the question as to why he had taken time to respond to the allegations has also caused some concern. He reportedly said he didn’t have to explain anything to others as he had already explained to the advisory board.

Enforcement agencies such as the MACC and police often forget that they must not only uphold integrity, they must be seen to uphold integrity. And that calls for transparency. Government servants also tend to forget that their salary comes from the taxpayer.

It is bad enough that the head of the MACC is under a cloud of controversy but the heads of the bodies “overseeing” the MACC – its anti-corruption advisory board and its consultation and corruption prevention panel – have made the situation worse.

They should have taken Gomez’s concerns more seriously. There was a denial of having received any “letter” from Gomez about Azam, prompting Gomez to defend himself. Gomez not only informed the media that he had sent emails to the board but also included copies of the attachments regarding Azam that he had sent.

This was before board chairman Abu Zahar Ujang held a press conference, which was attended by Azam, on Jan 5 to clear the latter of any wrongdoing.

Saying the board had called for a meeting on Nov 24 last year, Abu Zahar added: “In the meeting, Azam explained to me and the rest of the board that his brother had used his (Azam’s) share trading account to acquire the shares in 2015. The shares were bought on the open market and there is no conflict of interest there.”

Abu Zahar said the board felt that Azam did not have any pecuniary interest in the shares either, adding that Azam had told the meeting the shares were transferred to Nasir’s own trading account later that year.

The press conference, it appears, has only added fuel to the fire.

Some are asking if the board – which is empowered to advise the MACC and scrutinise reports and proposals for its improvement – has the authority to clear Azam of such allegations.

Questions have been raised as to why Abu Zahar was only now revealing information about the Nov 24 meeting.

Questions have also been raised as to how the board could decide to absolve Azam of blame after just one meeting – for a meeting is not an investigation.

Initially, people were concerned about the truth behind Azam’s shares but now they are also concerned about the way the board conducts itself and how it arrived at its decision.

The MACC is THE graft buster and people hold all its staff and officials, including those sitting on related panels, to a higher standard. This includes an expectation that the MACC will be transparent and that it will act against anyone without fear or favour.

The MACC won plaudits when it went after the big fish in 2018 and 2019. Hope soared, briefly, that the nation may just win its battle against institutionalised corruption.

Then, of course, we had reports of MACC officers being arrested for, or charged with, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation and even robbery. Questions were also raised about double standards in the past year or so.

And now we have this controversy.

For an enforcement agency to be effective, people must respect it enough to cooperate with it or accept its findings or decisions. An institution and its leadership must demonstrate moral integrity for the people to give it their full trust.

Does the MACC enjoy such trust?

The much-respected G25, in pointing out on Jan 3 that addressing the controversy was essential for the MACC to maintain public confidence and urging it to emulate anti-graft bodies in Hong Kong, Singapore and Indonesia that had gained much respect for going after high-ranking officials, added: “But first, it must clean up its own house”.

The G25 is made up of former top Malay civil servants for whom integrity matters.

Then there was the remark made by the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA) in criticising the MACC’s choice of material on how to recognise corruption in everyday places.

MMA president Dr Koh Kah Chai said the MACC video clip showed how a medical chit could be bought from what appeared to be a doctor’s office or health clinic. He said this was an insult to the “sanctity and image” of the medical profession.

“MMA demands that MACC issue a public apology for the video, which we feel is done in poor taste, and while they are at it, clean up their own backyard. From the long thread of comments by netizens in response to the video, it appears that MACC has issues about its own reputation to address.”

Ouch! That would have hurt.

But then, didn’t the MACC lay itself open to such remarks?

As I said earlier, in the final analysis it is not about Azam or Abu Zahar; it is about the MACC, its level of integrity and how effectively it acts to reduce corruption.

I’m inclined to go along with those who have been calling for reforms to the MACC – including giving it prosecutorial independence and powers so that it need not depend on the attorney-general to begin prosecutions as at present – and to place it under Parliament.

There’s also a need to revamp the way it works to ensure there are inbuilt checks and balances as well so that controversies such as that involving Azam do not arise. - FMT

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