Gomez’s resignation a storm in a teacup

Updated 2 years ago · Published on 30 Dec 2021 9:46AM · 6 Comments

THE recent articles published in relation to the purported “forced” resignation of Edmund Terence Gomez appear to raise a number of issues around Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission members holding shares in various entities, but there are a few points that really must be pointed out.

First and foremost, no-one “forced” his resignation. He resigned merely because no one responded to him within the timeframe he imposed in his letters. 

So what possible reasons could there be for the lack of a response? Let’s take a look.

There is no prohibition on MACC members holding shares in a company or any other type of entity.

None of the companies or entities in which MACC members hold shares are the subject of MACC investigation.

The shares held are low in value and do not represent a suspicious store of hidden wealth.

Absolutely no influence is required to be exerted to procure shares – just money. The share purchases were just that – share purchases and not some backroom deal.

So what is the issue that Gomez is trying to raise?

It is entirely reasonable for MACC members to have shares in their investment portfolios – members are typically people who have risen in the community to a position of standing and have acquired assets over the years.  Why is it a problem for them to own shares or have some level of wealth?

The members concerned have never hidden the details of their portfolios. 

No conflict of interest exists in the portfolios, and this person’s attempt to create an issue is more than a little disingenuous. 

His resignation is welcome under these circumstances, considering his efforts to smear the MACC. We can do without people stirring up issues that do not exist due to personal clashes. – December 30, 2021.

* Kali reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.

Sign up or sign in here to comment.

Comments

  • So many holes in this writer's piece, that one does not know where to start.
    Written anonymously of course.

    Posted 2 years ago by Arul Inthirarajah · Reply

  • Although I respect the writer opinion, he definitely miss the forest for the tree.

    In other credible country or government , a mere suspicion will initiate a full investigation. In this case nothing be done - this not only disadvantage to the MACC Commissioner but also will keep this issue continue to be discussed in public.

    Posted 2 years ago by DENGKI KE? · Reply

    • Cant agree more.

      Posted 2 years ago by Rupert Lum · Reply

  • So which corrupt specimen got this psycho to write a hit piece? The MACC chief has huge numbers of shares. Investigate him. Don't shoot the messenger.

    Posted 2 years ago by Simple Sulaiman · Reply

  • Paid in shares in lieu of cash???

    Consider-lah!!

    Posted 2 years ago by Malaysian First · Reply

  • So what's the problem if the MACC chief is asked to explain the source(s) of the money with which he bought the shares?? Isn't there such a requirement in the Anti-corruption laws? When a government servant is seen to be living beyond his means (beyond what he could do with his "gaji") isn't he required to explain how he is doing it? Maybe the money was a lottery win; from inheritance, etc. Just show the evidence and clear himself! But why doesn't the chairman of the Advisory Board want the MACC chief to explain?

    Posted 2 years ago by Ravinder Singh · Reply