KEPONG MP Lim Lip Eng has expressed his dismay over Malaysia Anti-Corruption (MACC) chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki’s refusal to attend the Parliament Select Committee (PSC) inquiry into his share ownership issue. 

“One of the reasons Azam gave for objecting to the PSC inquiry was that it might be considered sub judice to a defamation suit filed by him against whistleblower Lalitha Kunaratnam,” he said. 

“If this is true, why did Azam attend the inquiry set up by the Securities Commission?” 

In a brief statement yesterday (Jan 18) the SC had said that it had not been able to establish that there was a breach of regulation in Azam’s acquisition of public shares. 

“Now that the SC has announced its decision to clear Azam of any wrongdoing under Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (SICDA) when he allowed his brother to use his share trading account, I have two simple questions to ask the SC pertaining to its probe outcome. 

“First, how many offenders had been charged or given compounds for being in breach of Section 25(4) of SICDA since the implementation of the said Act? 

“Secondly, following SC’s decision on this issue, can any individual allow their trading account to be used by relatives and friends, free-of-charge or with a fee, without fear of being in violation of SICDA?” 

Turning a blind eye on alleged breaches 

Meanwhile, Selayang MP William Leong accused the SC of turning a blind eye to the alleged breaches involving the MACC chief following SC’s inconclusive findings. 

Leong said that the situation is similar to that of historic British naval hero Horatio Nelson in the Napoleonic wars who mistook his good eye for his blind one when using a telescope to spot his oncoming enemies. 

“That is how the saying ‘turning a blind eye’ came about. [It] seems that SC is following Nelson’s example,” he was reported as saying by online news portal The Vibes. 

Inability to perform statutory duty 

Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng also took to social media to question the SC’s decision to clear Azam of any wrongdoing. 

“How is the SC going to perform its statutory duty if the capital markets regulator cannot establish that the MACC chief had breached SICDA?” the DAP secretary-general asked. 

“This is after Azam had openly and publicly admitted that he had allowed his brother to conduct proxy share trading.” 

Lim opined that unless the SC can act against Azam, Section 25(4) of SICDA has been rendered impotent and broken. 

“Unfortunately, the repercussions for Malaysia’s capital markets are not just about the loss of investor confidence. It also raises the question as to whether the SC is capable of performing its statutory duty without fear or favour,” he pointed out. – Jan 19, 2022 

https://focusmalaysia.my/azam-baki-case-mps-appalled-question-scs-decision/