YOUR SAYS | SC’s explanation opens a new Pandora’s box for Azam.
SC unable to conclusively establish breach of SICDA in Azam Baki case
SC: No proxy trading found as Azam controls its own trading account
Dr. Raman Letchumanan: The Securities Commission (SC) investigation only happened because MACC chief Azam Baki, in his defense against the whistleblower’s exposure, said the shares were bought by his brother using his account. This was a breach of Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act (Sicda), if established.
If SC says there is no conclusive evidence that the article has been violated, then by implication Azam is the beneficial owner by legally trading on its own behalf.
Therefore, Azam lied to the Anti-Corruption Advisory Council saying that his brother had used his account to buy the shares and that the shares belonged to his brother.
Therefore, Azam’s claim that he transferred the shares to his brother is also suspect. If he did, Azam probably wanted to exonerate himself from explaining how he had the means to buy the shares and was breaking civil service regulations.
So it’s back to square one on the conflict of interest charges. Moreover, it now appears that Azam lied to escape further investigation. In my view, the CS decision only leads to further investigation into possible violations of other laws and regulations.
Sun: What does that mean? The law states that you must open an account if you want to buy or sell shares. Azam’s brother didn’t. And Azam claimed that he allowed his brother to use his account. So a breach has clearly occurred. But the SC can’t say “conclusively”?
It reminds me of the Azmin Ali case. The co-actor admitted he was the one with Azmin, but facial recognition technology was inconclusive. Fine. I can’t debate it. But what about the testimony of the co-player? Not valid?
RedWolf4463: Azam attempted to deflect the wrongdoing by saying the money belonged to his brother, citing a violation of SC regulations.
So now the SC says the account was under Azam’s control, thus pushing the guilt onto the MACC leader.
Did the SC call the brother for a statement? Did MACC call the brother for a statement? Did the police call the brother for a statement? Did any of the authorities call the brother to determine once and for all whether the shares belonged to Azam or his brother?
It’s either you’re guilty of breaking MACC rules or you’re guilty of breaking SC rules. Plain and simple.
GanMu: When SC made his first statement I was disappointed with SC as I held him in high regard in the belief that he was the public watchdog and would act in a professional manner as that is the one of the few agencies we can count on.
I’m glad SC finally came out of the “spell” and told the truth that Azam was the beneficial owner of the shares. This would mean that he admitted to SC that the shares were his, thus contradicting his press conference made earlier that the shares belonged to his brother who was using his account.
Now the ball is in Azam’s court. The public would like to know why he lied to the public? With this public lie, how will he be able to gain their trust as the head of the anti-corruption agency, where truth, honesty, integrity, top-notch professionalism, etc., are crucial in the exercise of his functions.
Tyrion Lannister: Anyone with an account has full control over their account, even if they have authorized someone to buy shares using their account. They are fully aware of what is happening with their account. Don’t they get a transaction slip every time there is a transaction?
What SC avoids is saying that Azam allowed his brother to buy shares using his account. It’s illegal.
Now Azam has to explain how he got so much money to buy so many shares? Where does the money come from? Follow the money trail!
Kawak: The SC seems to be so naïve in its investigation.
Azam apparently claims the funds came from his brother. He purchased the shares for himself in his CDS (Central Depository System) account. On record, of course, he had purchased them under his name. There is no breach of SC law.
A simple investigative technique simply requires tracing the money trail to the source of the funds. If the funds came from his brother, SC can conclude that Azam was a candidate.
Vijay47: It is mind-boggling that the agencies and figures charged with the good governance and administration of the country blatantly and arrogantly make decisions that completely contradict even a minimal measure of honor and integrity.
They seem oblivious to the fact that every excuse they come up with is worse than the last, that their conduct has met with universal contempt and derision. Such approaches are perhaps understandable when survival is at stake.
Alarm bells must have been ringing furiously that the SC’s absolution actually amounted to a condemnation of the poor lad in the dock.
Desperately, SC pulls out their latest statement, a winner by all accounts. He piously announces that Azam has not carried out any proxy-trading, he has always been lord and master of his account.
Business first: Now we have the head of MACC giving two different versions to two different organizations.
Common sense dictates that unless an explanation is given to clarify these inconsistencies, one story is wrong and action should be taken immediately.
While some politicians and special envoys believe that lying may be in accordance with religion, the head of MACC must be a person of impeccable reputation. If this is not clarified, then either he resigns or he is impeached.
Moreover, if it is true that he lied, then his deputies who supported him also made serious errors of judgment and must also be replaced.
FairMind: So, the MACC advisory board, how? Previously, you exonerate Azam because you accepted his explanation that his stock trading account belongs to his brother.
Now the SC has concluded that Azam controlled his account and used it for trading. Are you going to withdraw your exoneration and re-investigate or just remain silent as before?
The next step is an independent investigation into whether Azam breached civil service rules that a civil servant cannot hold more than RM100,000 worth of shares and the sources of the fund to purchase those shares before.
Azam will not appear before the committee because he cannot understand the story – Pua
COMMENT | The MACC saga – when the truth emerges, the lies are erased
All parties must accept CS decision on Azam – PM
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini the subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past year, Malaysians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.
These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to present these views as facts.