Could the Parliamentary Special Select Committee on Agencies under the Prime Minister’s Department meet next week and table a report on the conflict-of-interest allegations against the MACC Chief Commissioner in Parliament by January 20?

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commissioner (MACC) Chief Commissioner Azam Baki has opened the Pandora’s Box.

Azam has not only plunged the MACC into its worst confidence crisis, not only in the 12-year history of MACC and 55-year history of Malaysia’s anti-corruption agency, he has raised the question about the usefulness of the five purportedly “independent” committees to ensure the MACC’s integrity and performance and to protect the citizens’ rights.

There is the MACC’s Anti-Corruption Advisory Board which allegedly cleared Azam of interest-of-conflict allegations publicly made more than two months ago without conducting any investigations but purely on Azam’s explanation, acting completely outside its statutory powers under the MACC Act 2009.

Two questions arise:

Firstly, what made the Chairman of the MACC Anti-Corruption Advisory Board Chariman Abu Zahar Ujang and the other Board members believe that they have the power to declare that the MACC Chief Commissioner innocent with regard to the conflict-of-interest allegations made publicly more than two months ago – and shockingly, without any investigation?

Secondly, what made Azam Baki believe that the MACC’s Anti-Corruption Advisory Board has such powers to declare him innocent with regard to the conflict-of-interest allegations, prompting him to declare that he was only answerable to the MACC Anti-Corruption Advisory Board and dismissing in the process the respective roles of Attorney-General, the courts, Parliament and the people of Malaysia!

When the Chairman and members of the MACC Anti-Corruption Advisory Board and the MACC Chief Commissioner could be so blur and confused about powers of the MACC Anti-Corruption Advisory Board under the MACC Act 2009, how could Malaysians expect the MACC to be a world-class anti-corruption agency?

It is clear that the MACC’s Anti-Corruption Advisory Board does not and cannot have the last say whether Azam is cleared of the conflict-of-interest allegations.

Azam’s demand for RM10 million damages and a public apology from the whistleblower, Lalitha Kunaratnam does not ipso facto clear him of innocence of the conflict-of-interest allegations.

Is Azam prepared to go on leave until this legal suit against Lalitha Kunaratnam is completed?

I agree with academician Edmund Terence Gomez that Azam should withdraw the letter of demand against Lalitha and instead appear before the Parliamentary Special Select Committee on Agencies under the Prime Minister’s Department to clear himself of the conflict-of-interest allegations. Is Azam prepared to do so?

Prime Minister Ismail Sabri is convening a special parliamentary meeting on January 20, 2022 on the floods disaster in the country.

Is the Parliamentary Special Select Committee on the Agencies under the Prime Minister’s Department capable of meeting next week so that its report on the conflict-of-interest allegations against the MACC Chief Commissioner could be tabled in Parliament on January 20, 2022?

The Parliamentary Special Select Committee on the Agencies under the Prime Minister’s Department should invite NGOs concerned about the issue, whether Bersih, Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4), Transparency International Malaysia, Rasuah Busters or Suaram to send representatives to participate in its hearing on the conflict-of-interest allegations against the MACC Chief Commissioner.