KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 13 — Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief Tan Sri Azam Baki said he believes he has made enemies throughout his 37-year career of fighting corruption.
He also told local newspaper The Star in an interview published today that he was made the target as part of an attack against the institution.
In the interview, Azam said that the controversy regarding his share purchase account was heavily politicised and that many had already passed judgement before any investigation was made, adding that there were those who refused to accept the Securities Commission’s subsequent findings which cleared him of any legal breaches.
“I believe there is an agenda, a well-designed and well-planned attack, to undermine the MACC and it was done by making me the target. They want to paint a picture that says if the chief commissioner is corrupt, this country’s administration has no control, is weak and there is no one that the people can depend on.
“This is the cost that I have to bear as the head of an anti-corruption authority. This episode has served as a bitter lesson for me. I found myself with many enemies but, equally, many friends and people who are with me and support me.
“However, this episode has only strengthened my resolve to carry on the responsibilities and mandate of the MACC. I will not be cowed by these external pressures,” he said in a transcript of the interview published by The Star.
“In my 37 years as a law enforcement officer, I have arrested and prosecuted many people — politicians, government officers, syndication members, you name it.
“I expect there are people who are angry with me and want to settle some scores.
“And I was told there will be more attacks against me. Like I said, this is the cost I have to bear,” he replied when asked if he had any enemies.
Azam told the newspaper it would not be easy for MACC to rebuild its reputation but that it will do what it takes to do so, urging the public to believe in the institution to carry out what had been entrusted to it.
“I hope that by now, people realise the accusations against me are unfounded,” he was quoted saying.
As for cases involving MACC officers, Azam pointed out that he had repeatedly assured no compromise on their wrongdoings, and that the suspects had been handed over to the police for investigation to ensure transparency and that dishonest officers be brought to court.
He said MACC’s focus is still on fighting corruption and power abuse, and that it also wants to help the economy by plugging leaks that are a result of factors such as uncollected revenue and inflated project costs.
About garden leave and investigations
Explaining why he did not go on garden leave amid the share trading controversy, Azam said he would have gone on leave if his own agency — the MACC — was investigating him for allegedly committing a crime, and that he would have in such a situation taken leave to allow his deputy to carry out an investigation against him, adding: “I should not be at work as my presence may interfere with the investigation.”
However, Azam said the share purchase issue was being investigated by others.
“But in this case, the matter was handled by another authority and there is no issue that my presence in the office would interfere with their probe,” he said.
Responding to demands for an independent body to investigate him, Azam said he had cooperated with the Securities Commission, the police and the MACC anti-corruption advisory panel as he wanted to be transparent.
“The highest enforcement authority on Securities issues, the SC, made a thorough inquiry into my case and found that I did not breach any laws. They actually cleared me twice through their statements dated Jan 18 and 19. When the six anti-corruption advisory panel members proposed this matter be brought to an independent committee or other bodies, I agreed and voluntarily submitted to this process, without any force or pressure. I have no issue about this at all,” he said.
In the interview, Azam also said he had already presented his case to Parliamentary Special Committee on Corruption chairman Tan Sri Rais Yatim, and had also cooperated in the MACC Complaints Committee’s self-initiated inquiry — which he noted was initiated without any instructions from him and with no report of misconduct lodged against him then.
“I even agreed with the said committee about referring my case to the Chief Secretary to the government if they wished to do so and have never interfered in their process. I believe that they should be given a free hand to conduct their own inquiry.
“I have always acted fairly and in a transparent manner, yet there are those who are still not satisfied. I believe that I have done my part and sincerely urge all parties to trust the process and authorities that are currently doing their job looking into the matter,” he said.
Azam also cleared the air over a parliamentary select committee (PSC) meeting on the share trading controversy that was postponed, noting that it involved an invitation for him to attend and it was not a subpoena, adding that he would have attended if it was a subpoena.
“It is not that I refused to attend but I merely pointed out to the Parliament secretary that under Procedure 83 (4) of the Dewan Rakyat Standing Order, the deliberations of a select committee shall be confined to matters referred to it by the House.
“If there is a referral from the House, I would have certainly attended the meeting. I believe they understood my point and that was why the meeting was postponed,” he said.
Asked to explain the seeming contradiction between the SC’s statement and Azam’s own remarks in an earlier January 5 press conference, Azam said he had chosen to explain the highly technical matter — involving jargon such as “beneficial ownership” and “nominees” in simple, layman terms during the press conference and that his statement should be taken as a whole to understand its context.
Noting that the SC started its inquiry after his press conference, Azam said: “If we look at the laws enforced by the SC, it clearly states that all transactions must be made by the owner of the securities account. In this case, the account is under my name, and transactions were made by me, the owner of the account, on behalf of my brother. The statement explained that the SC found that I have full control of my securities account and that it was not used by another person.”
“All activities were done according to the law and in compliance with the procedure, and all these have been declared properly and in accordance with the applicable laws and rules.
“The SC carried out its inquiry very professionally and thoroughly, and declared twice that there were no breaches of the provisions in the CMSA,” he was quoted saying, referring to the Capital Markets and Services Act.
