Integrity issues put Azam’s extension in the shade

 

Yesterday, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim told Parliament he decided against replacing MACC chief Azam Baki to break the convention that a change of guard in the agency was necessary when a new prime minister is appointed.

This is not accurate - when Ismail Sabri Yaakob took over from Muhyuddin Yassin, Azam was retained and there was no change in the MACC leadership.

Another reason he alluded to was the fact that the MACC is an independent body.

I would certainly agree with his reason on the first point but I will certainly find it difficult to concur with him on the latter.

Malaysians have had on several occasions come across claims questioning the impartiality of the MACC. Such claims were made by none other than Anwar’s comrades when they were on the opposite side.

On the brighter side to his repartee to questions from the opposition, he said he did not mind leaving it to the relevant parliamentary committee to decide if a new MACC chief should be appointed or if Azam’s contract should be extended.

This is what we had expected. Especially with so many promises made by various parties on the MACC in the lead-up to GE15.

Azam was never cleared

It is no secret that Azam’s integrity came under severe questioning 16 months ago. While he may have “survived”, thanks to Ismail Sabri who indirectly cleared him of wrongdoing by insisting the decision of the Securities Commission (SC) on Azam’s trading account should be accepted by all parties.

“The SC has made a decision… (this matter) was left to the SC as it involves the purchase of shares. So the SC has made a decision and it says there is no case against him (Azam). So we accept the SC’s decision,” he said.

But to put the issue in context, the SC never cleared Azam. It merely clarified that the independent evidence gathered at the inquiry into Azam’s trading account showed that Azam was the account holder and had control of the said trading account.

This is a contradiction - a big contradiction to what Azam initially said when confronted with the issue.

A little background: When economist Edmund Terence Gomez quit as a member of the MACC’s Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel In December 2021, it was a bombshell of sorts.

In his resignation letter which was made public, Gomez said disturbing questions had been raised about the “nexus between business and law enforcement” and a “conflict of interest” situation involving Azam and his ownership of corporate stock.

Almost immediately, Azam went on the defensive. He announced at a media conference that he allowed his share trading account to be used by his brother. But this could be construed as an admission of sorts that he breached the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act (SICDA). 

But the SC found that the trades were executed by Azam himself and not any third party.

Public service regulations

I then wrote: “To put it crudely, he was caught with his pants down for having lied to and misled the public previously by claiming ‘my brother did it’. Azam offered a preposterous and ludicrous explanation for his reported ownership of shares in public-listed companies. But he did not do himself any favour by claiming, ‘I did no wrong’.”

But even if the powers-that-be accepted his “explanation”, Azam would certainly fall foul of Service Circular Number 3/2002 - Ownership and Declaration of Assets by Public Officials, which prevents a public servant from owning more than RM100,000 worth of shares in any company.

Besides, Section 10 of the Public Officers Regulation (Conduct and Discipline) 1993 stipulates that all public servants must declare both movable properties, such as money in bank accounts, motor vehicles, jewellery, firearms, shares, warrants, stocks, bonds, and securities, as well as immovable properties, such as land, landed properties, and of course, business ownership or directorship.

Why the Public Services Department did not pursue the matter is left for us to speculate. Now that the issue is in the open again, perhaps some explanation is warranted.

But in the meantime, Anwar cannot pretend that Azam has no integrity and honesty issues. Under such a cloud, why would Anwar want to retain his services for just not wanting to break convention?

The prime minister at every opportunity highlights the need to fight corruption which is destroying the nation. Shouldn’t he be looking at good, clean candidates with integrity instead of keeping someone whose image has been tainted by his own doing? - Mkini

---

R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.