Paying a high price

The country's top graft buster Tan Sri Azam Baki

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki sat down with Sunday Star to talk candidly about his recent stock-trading controversy and his plans to build back the image of the anti-graft agency.

MALAYSIA’s top graft buster Tan Sri Azam Baki has faced intense scrutiny over his stock-trading controversy.

Although the Securities Commission (SC) has stated that it has not found any evidence that he has breached any laws, there are still calls for action to be taken against Azam.

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief commissioner sat down with Sunday Star recently to explain what happened, including how he surrendered his case to various bodies in the name of transparency, why he did not go on leave while being investigated, and his decision to file a defamation suit.

> People have actually taken to the streets to demand action against you. How do you feel about that?

It is very unfortunate and I don’t think this has happened to any other senior civil servant. My shares issue was heavily politicised.

Even before any investigation was made, people had already passed their judgement.

And when the Securities Commission made known the findings of its inquiry and cleared me, there were those who refused to accept the decision.

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

> Do you have enemies?

I think I do. 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.

> There are still demands for an independent body to investigate you. What do you say to this?

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.

I wanted to be transparent, and therefore I cooperated with the SC’s inquiry, the police and the advisory panel.

Further, I have also met with the chairman of the Parliamentary Special Committee on Corruption, Tan Sri Rais Yatim, and presented my case to him.

I have also cooperated and participated in the inquiry initiated by the MACC Complaints Committee on their own without any direction from me. I also would like to emphasise that there was no report of misconduct lodged against me at that point in time.

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.

> How did your staff respond to the situation their boss was in?

They were stressed and demoralised. But my officers were with me throughout, and I am grateful for that.

I told them how sorry I am for having to put them through this. I asked them to bear with me and be strong.

I gave them my assurance that I will settle the case and we will move on.

> There was pressure for you to go on garden leave but you refused. Why?

I would have gone on leave if I was being investigated by my own agency for committing a crime. If that was the case, I would have to take leave to allow my deputy to carry out an investigation against me. I should not be at work as my presence may interfere with the investigation.

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.

> Your decision to sue a whistleblower has drawn flak. Why did you do it?

First and foremost, the definition of a whistleblower must be defined rightly and according to the law.

Under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010, those who come forward to report wrongdoings or corruption to the authorities – and let me repeat, to the authorities – will be given protection. Your identity will be protected and guarded. The Act is clear about the definition of “whistleblower” and to whom the report should be made, which is to law enforcement agencies.

However, one cannot claim to be a whistleblower if you expose your own identity.

As for my defamation suit, I believe it is necessary for me to exercise my legal right to defend my personal, family and professional reputation. Under the law, it is the right of every citizen to defend themselves. I am compelled to initiate this suit in order to clear my personal, family and professional standing. I value this very much.

As the matter is pending in court, we both have an equal opportunity to present our case in court.

>A statement by the SC stating that you have control of the trading account seems to contradict your earlier explanation. Can you explain this?

It depends on how you want to view this. The issue is very technical and it involves technical jargon like “CDS account”, the concept of “beneficial ownership”, “nominees”, etc. As such, at the press conference, I chose to explain it in simple, layman terms for easy understanding.

You should read the whole statement to understand its context and not take out sentences in isolation and highlight this as an issue. This is not fair.

You will also note that it is pursuant to the press conference that the SC initiated its inquiry.

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 (Capital Markets and Services Act).

> There are allegations that cases being investigated after the shares issue arose is a form of threat by the MACC.

Again, this is a matter of perception. Does the public actually not want us to probe allegations of corruption and misconduct? Do they want them to be swept under the carpet just because I had to face this issue and subsequent actions would be deemed as threatening people?

If I don’t take action, then the accusation will be the other way around, that MACC does not do its work.

If at all the allegations are true, do you think that I can simply take action against someone? When investigation papers are presented to prosecutors, don’t you think they will not point out to me if there is no case?

MACC’s work in fighting corruption will not falter because of this issue or other issues that come along.

> Why did you refuse to appear before the Parliamentary Select Committee special meeting?

Let me be clear that it was an invitation for me to attend the meeting and not a subpoena as claimed by certain lawmakers.

If it was a subpoena I would have attended because as an enforcement officer, I know the law and must respect it

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.

> The outcome of certain cases probed have not been made public and people are asking why.

Cases where the probe ends with the suspect being charged, we make public.

There are also cases where we have to answer to Parliament, such as investigations into the littoral combat ship and “uCustoms” scandals. The public is also updated on the latest developments involving 1MDB because it is a policy set.

In some cases, the probe ends with internal action and other punishment for misconduct but this is not announced.

>The shares issue and the latest criminal breach of trust charge against a senior officer has somewhat tarnished MACC’s image. How can you build back its image and regain people’s trust?

To do this will not be easy. To destroy a reputation doesn’t take much effort. Never mind, we will do what it takes.

But I urge the public to believe in the system, in the institution, to carry out what has been entrusted to us.

I hope that by now, people realise the accusations against me are unfounded.

For MACC, our focus must remain on our work to fight corruption and power abuse and not let issues distract us. We must have strategies in place to ensure effective methods of investigation, as previous strategies may no longer work now, especially if we want to plug leaks, which is another area we are focusing on.

The MACC also wants to help the economy by plugging leaks that are caused by uncollected revenue and inflated project costs, among others.

As for cases involving my men, I have repeatedly given my assurance that there will be no compromise on their wrongdoings. We have taken dishonest officers to court.

And to ensure transparency, suspects were handed over to the police for investigation.

I am not proud of having to take action against my men but I will not tolerate any wrongdoing.