Will the superpaid Ministers be like the proverbial three monkeys – ears that hear not, eyes that see not and mouths that speak not – at the jumbo-sized Cabinet meeting today on the Azam-gate?
Has the Securities Commission made history by ending an investigation which will spark a thousand other investigations?
In declaring that the Securities Commission (SC) “is unable to conclusively establish that a breach under Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (SICDA) has occurred” with regard to the shareholding case of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner Azam Baki, the Securities Commission has left open the question under what circumstances the SC will be able to “conclusively establish” whether SICDA has been breached or not.
The Malaysian people are entitled to know why the SC is unable to “conclusively establish” whether SICDA has occurred in the Azam Baki’s case.
The SC statement is both unsatisfactory and unconvincing.
The SC has not fully cleared the MACC Chief Commissioner of any wrongdoing under SICDA and has therefore undermined the authority, legitimacy and credibility of Azam Baki as MACC Chief Commissioner, as he has failed to be a public example of integrity and accountability as required by the MACC Act 2009.
As MACC Chief Commissioner, Azam has failed to be “whiter than white”, and unless he can so acquit himself immediately, he should resign or go on leave until he can present a “whiter than white” integrity and accountability.
The executive director of Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4), Cynthia Gabriel, has urged the SC to explain how it could not “conclusively establish” if Azam broke the law over the ownership of shares by making public the SC inquiry findings.
She said: “This vindicates further our position from the onset that only a full and independent probe will suffice, as it will also establish any potential breach of the public servant asset declaration laws and circulars as well as reveal the source of funds.”
Lawyer and legislator Sivarasa Rasiah has asked the police to probe Azam after the Securities Commission concluded that it had not been able to determine if there was a breach of share trading rules.
Sivarasa said the police probe must include checks into bank accounts, bank statements and “who gave money to the remisier”.
DAP Secretary-General and MP for Bagan, Lim Guan Eng, has questioned how SC could perform its statutory duty if the SC can’t establish that Azam had breached Section 25(4) of SICDA when Azam had openly and publicly admitted that he had allowed his brother to conduct proxy share trading?
Today, we have another question – whether the super-paid Ministers in the jumbo-sized Cabinet will act like the proverbial three monkeys – ears that hear not, eyes that see not and mouths that speak not – at its meeting today on the Azam-gate?
Will the Cabinet initiate contempt proceedings against Azam in Parliament tomorrow for his refusal to appear before the Parliamentary Special Select Committee on Agencies under the Prime Minister’s Department to clear himself of the conflict-of-interest allegations?
Will it take prompt and effective action to end the worst crisis of confidence in the anti-corruption agency in the nation’s history – caused by none other than the agency’s No. 1 officer who is not prepared to be an exemplary public example of integrity and accountability in the public service?
Is the Cabinet aware of the new infamy Malaysia will suffer internationally as a result of this MACC scandal caused by the MACC Chief Commissioner?
Has the Prime Minister Ismail Sabri a stand on the Azam-gate and if so, what is it?
What has his predecessor, Muhyiddin Yassin, got to say on the Azam-gate?
It will be interesting to know the stand of the four Prime Ministers in Malaysia in the last four years on Azam-gate!