Commentary by Mustafa K. Anuar

RECENT developments related to certain government agencies suggest there is a serious disconnect between the institutions and the people.

It is as if these government-funded bodies are not accountable to the very people who pay taxes that, in turn, would ensure their sustainability.

What is equally important for us to remember is that these agencies have been entrusted to perform important roles meant to serve the interests of the common people and the nation.

That is why there is a hue and cry when, in particular, the Securities Commission (SC) recently made decisions that were as baffling as they were concerning the ordinary people.

When faced with the task of probing Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Azam Baki, who was accused of having committed impropriety in buying millions of shares, the SC made two separate declarations that were contradictory to each other in a very short span of time.

On Tuesday, when many Hindus celebrated Thaipusam, the SC publicly announced that it was “not able to conclusively establish” whether Azam had breached the law in allowing his trading account to be used by his brother Nasir for shares purchased in 2015 and 2016.

But by the next day, the SC declared that its inquiry showed that Azam was the named account holder and had control over the said trading account, and hence, there was no breach of section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991.

According to the SC, “section 25(4) of the Act provides that a trading account must be opened in the name of the beneficial owners or authorised nominee”.

The second SC statement obviously did not sit well with what Azam had been saying all along, that his brother had bought shares using his trading account.

While some may be impressed by the apparent efficiency of the SC in probing and making supposedly definitive conclusions within a short spell, others may still find it difficult to wrap the final findings around their heads.

That is why there had been calls for the SC probe to be made public, given that the case involved the head of the anti-graft agency, whose reputation is expected to be impeccable. Such transparency is also vital for the integrity of the SC as a regulatory body.

The SC conclusion has instead become inconclusive for the ordinary people because it raised more questions.

At the very least, people wondered why the status of Azam’s share ownership differed between what was declared by the SC and what he told to the MACC oversight board earlier.

Another question asked: if Azam did lie, why did he lie? If he lied, did he flout civil service rules as far as his position as a public servant is concerned?

An inquisitive mind would even venture to ask, where did Azam get the money to buy such a huge amount of shares?

Such questioning is indicative of general dissatisfaction of the public over the clarification made so far, despite Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s insistence that such queries should stop at the SC’s door.

In fact, there were online petitions to demand Azam to resign and ones that asked him to take leave while an independent investigation on him is carried out.

A #TangkapAzamBaki (#ArrestAzamBaki) rally is also planned in Kuala Lumpur tomorrow aimed at raising public awareness about the importance of integrity and accountability to an anti-graft body.

Such emerging questions are examples of what can happen when institutional transparency and accountability are perceived to be lacking, which could then lead to an erosion of public trust.

It can also happen when “explanation” from officialdom is deemed by some to be insulting the people’s intelligence.

This episode also indicates that it is not enough for such important institutions as the SC and the MACC to have, for instance, huge operating funds, expensive buildings and sophisticated equipment to evoke pride among the officers concerned and at the same time gain public recognition.

At the end of the day, these institutions must also be built on integrity, accountability and public trust. – January 21, 2022.