“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.”
– Albert Einstein
On Tuesday, the Securities Commission (SC) announced that it had completed its inquiry into claims on irregularities in share purchases by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) head honcho Azam Baki.
The SC said that it could not conclusively establish if Azam had breached Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (Sicda), which provides that a trading account must be opened in the name of the beneficial owner or authorised nominee.
Almost immediately, Azam, in what appeared to be an act of bravado, issued a statement saying that the SC found he had not committed any offences.
“I have been informed by the SC that the inquiry into the matter has been concluded. As such, it has closed the inquiry file accordingly. With that, I will continue my responsibility as the chief commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to fight corruption in the country without fear or favour,” he said in a statement.
But it appears that the chest-thumping and the jubilation were premature and short-lived. Yesterday, the SC dropped a bombshell of sorts.
The SC said evidence gathered in its inquiry into Azam’s share trading account showed that the MACC chief was the named account holder and had control of the account.
“Azam operated the account that he had opened, in that he had given instructions to buy, sell and transfer securities from the said account. Therefore, the SC arrived at the decision that there was no breach,” it said.
Has Azam’s memory failed him? Didn’t he tell journalists a different story at a media conference on Jan 4? Didn’t he say that his trading account was used by his brother? Didn’t he unequivocally state that “I did no wrong”? Didn’t he say that the shares were bought in the open market and his brother had financed the purchases on his own?
Didn’t the chairperson of the MACC Anti-Corruption Advisory Board (ACAB) Abu Zahar Ujang initially claim that Azam was cleared after a meeting on Nov 24?
So, if it was assumed that Azam told SC investigators the truth, then he was not generous with the truth on more than one occasion, not only to the ACAB but also to all Malaysians.
In a previous column, in response to Azam’s claim that his brother used his trading account, I described it as a “preposterous and ludicrous” explanation.
How many more fibs are we going to be told? How can we depend on any government agency where its head has not been forthright and forthcoming in his or her dealings?
In the case of Abu Zahar, his own board members disputed that they had participated in any discussion on the allegations against Azam.
Rock bottom
So, in view of the latest revelations by the SC, the MACC has hit rock bottom. Is there anything to salvage?
To re-cap, in October last year, a whistleblowing blog reported that Azam owned 1,930,000 shares in Gets Global Berhad (previously KBES Berhad) on April 30, 2015, worth around RM772,000 at the time.
His shareholding in Gets Global Berhad went down to 1,029,500 as of March 31, 2016, worth around RM340,000 at the time. He also held 2,156,000 warrants in Excel Force MSC Berhad in March 2016.
The share ownership in 2015 and 2016 had raised questions on whether it was commensurate with his income as a public servant. Issues of conflict of interest were raised.
Never mind that there will be calls for the Public Services Department to look at breaches of a circular which puts a RM100,000 cap on civil servants dealing in shares. Never mind that the Inland Revenue Board will be asked to investigate his source of income.
This episode stinks to high heaven. The turn of events exposes the weakness and the integrity - the lack of it - of those entrusted with responsibilities.
This may be secondary. But what is immediately needed is some form of action to redeem the credibility and integrity of the MACC.
Although beleaguered by the course of events, not only has Azam refused to pay heed to repeated calls to resign and suggestions that he be put on garden leave, but he has been defiant.
He even refused to face the Parliamentary Select Committee on the grounds that it would breach the Dewan Rakyat Standing Orders.
It is not as easy as saying, “put the past behind and move on.” Where does the MACC go from here? There’s a cloud over its image, credibility and trustworthiness.
There must be a complete change. It cannot be done on a piecemeal basis; a holistic approach has to be taken. For a start, amendments have to be made to strengthen the MACC Act.
In July 2015, several civil society groups had submitted proposals to the then attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail. On the same day, he was removed from his job. But those proposals are still in the AG’s office.
But then again, the question to ask is: Does the government have the will and determination to push for change to make our law enforcement establishments stronger and more independent? - Mkini
R NADESWARAN hopes the MACC, its management and oversight bodies take note of the latest developments and the latest statement from the Securities Commission. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.