Jika ini bukan konflik kepentingan, maka apakah erti tersebut? Menteri Undang-undang Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar berkata saham yang dimiliki oleh Azam “tidak mahal” apabila ia diperoleh pada 2016 — berharga antara 30 sen dan 33 sen setiap satu — dan bahawa satu juta unit bernilai RM330,000 pada masa -
https://www.theborneopost.com/2022/01/08/wan-junaidi-azam-bakis-saham-hanya-rm330k-mampu-dan-tidak-mahal/
Kami mohon untuk tidak bersetuju sebagai MP Sungai Buloh R Sivarasa memberitahu FMT bahawa "Menteri Undang-undang Wan Junaidi telah salah fakta dan undang-undangnya dalam mempertahankan penyerang rasuah Azam Baki atas pemilikan saham korporatnya". Ringkasnya, Wan Junaidi silap mengenai nilai saham yang dimiliki Azam, begitu juga dengan undang-undang pemilikan saham oleh penjawat awam.
Rekod menunjukkan bahawa saham dan waran telah dibeli di bawah nama Azam antara 2015 dan 2016 dalam dua syarikat senarai awam. Menurut Sivarasa, nilanyanya kira-kira RM2 juta.
Untuk rekod, Azam berkata dia tidak membeli saham tersebut. Sebaliknya abangnya telah menggunakan akaun sahamnya untuk membelinya. Sivarasa berkata Wan Junaidi juga tidak mengendahkan Pekeliling Perkhidmatan 3/2002, yang menetapkan had RM100,000 ke atas nilai saham yang boleh dimiliki oleh penjawat awam dalam satu syarikat.
Beliau juga berkata tiada lagi rekod pemilikan saham Azam selepas 2016, menunjukkan bahawa saham itu telah dilupuskan. “Di mana wang itu?” katanya, sambil menambah perkara ini perlu disiasat.
Suruhanjaya Sekuriti (SC) telah menjelaskan bahawa ia tidak menemui bukti dagangan proksi oleh Tan Sri Azam Baki kerana ketua pesuruhjaya Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia mengawal sepenuhnya akaun dagangan saham yang didakwanya membenarkan abangnya menggunakannya.
Penjelasan itu adalah untuk kenyataannya pada 18 Januari 2022 di mana ia berkata Azam tidak melanggar Seksyen 25(4) Akta Industri Sekuriti (Depositori Pusat) 1991.
Suruhanjaya Sekuriti berkata kesimpulan ini adalah kerana Azam dinamakan sebagai pemegang akaun dan mempunyai kawalan ke atas akaun dagangan tersebut.
Kedua, ketua pesuruhjaya SPRM dikatakan telah mengendalikan akaun tersebut, "di mana beliau telah memberi arahan untuk membeli, menjual dan memindahkan sekuriti daripada akaun tersebut."
“Oleh itu, SC membuat keputusan bahawa tiada pelanggaran seksyen 25(4) Akta Industri Sekuriti (Depositori Pusat) 1991,” kata pengawal selia secara ringkas. Memandangkan Suruhanjaya Sekuriti telah secara rasmi menyatakan bahawa tiada bukti muktamad bahawa seksyen telah dilanggar, maka secara inferens, Azam adalah pemilik benefisial dengan berdagang secara sah dalam akaunnya sendiri. Oleh itu, tidak diragukan lagi bahawa Azam berbohong kepada Lembaga Penasihat Pencegahan Rasuah bahawa abangnya menggunakan akaunnya untuk membeli saham dan saham itu adalah milik abangnya. Dipendekkan cerita, - jika Azam telah memberitahu kebenaran dari awal, maka dia tidak perlu mengingati apa-apa dan tidak juga 'perlu bercakap satu lagi pembohongan untuk menutup pembohongan pertama, kemudian pembohongan lain, dan seterusnya. Bukankah lebih mudah untuk memberitahu kebenaran daripada berbohong?'
Ahli Parlimen Damansara Tony Pua merumuskannya dengan terbaik apabila beliau dipetik sebagai berkata bahawa "tidak hairanlah ketua pesuruhjaya SPRM Azam Baki tidak mahu hadir di hadapan Jawatankuasa Pilihan Parlimen (PSC), kerana Azam "tidak dapat meluruskan ceritanya".
“Pertama, (Azam) mendakwa saham itu milik abangnya, yang menggunakan akaunnya.
"Kemudian, apabila SC menyiasat, mereka mendapati tiada salah laku kerana mereka mendapati tiada dagangan proksi kerana Azam menjalankan urus niaga saham itu sendiri," Yang berkata, dua kesalahan juga tidak menjadikan satu betul. Akibatnya, dakwaan Azam bahawa dia telah memindahkan saham kepada abangnya juga disyaki. Jika dia benar-benar melakukan itu, Azam mungkin mahu membebaskan dirinya daripada menjelaskan bagaimana dia mempunyai cara untuk membeli saham itu dan melanggar peraturan perkhidmatan awam.
Jadi, ia kembali kepada perkara pertama mengenai caj konflik kepentingan. Tambahan pula, kini nampaknya Azam seolah-olah berbohong untuk melarikan diri dari sebarang siasatan lanjut. Oleh kerana itu, keputusan SC hanya membawa kepada siasatan lanjut mengenai kemungkinan pelanggaran 'undang-undang dan peraturan lain'.
Ini menimbulkan persoalan - apa yang salah dengan seseorang yang enggan mengakui bahawa mereka telah ditangkap berbohong, seperti dalam kes Azam Baki? Mungkin Menteri Undang-undang kita mungkin ada jawapan yang lebih baik. Sekiranya kita tidak lupa, beliau juga dipuji pada September 2021 kerana merujuk bahawa "Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur bahawa anak-anak yang dilahirkan di luar negara kepada ibu Malaysia juga layak mendapat kerakyatan adalah menyerlahkan," hanya untuk kita berasa kecewa bahawa kerajaan, JPN dan Kementerian Dalam Negeri telah memfailkan usul untuk meminta penangguhan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi kerana pendengaran rayuan kerajaan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dijadualkan pada 22 Mac tahun depan di Mahkamah Rayuan. “Peguam Negara Tan Sri Idrus Harun dipetik dalam mesej teks kepada FMT pada hari yang sama bahawa notis rayuan telah difailkan pada sebelah pagi dan beliau berkata tiga menteri persekutuan, termasuk menteri undang-undang Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, telah secara terbuka menyokong keputusan itu.” Sungguh 'pertemuan rapat' jenis flip-flop. Kita tidak boleh tidak takut bahawa kisah Azam Baki ini mungkin berakhir dengan 'kesimpulan yang serupa'. Kepada Menteri Undang-undang kita Wan Junaidi. Kami berdoa agar 'episod gelap' ini disinari oleh pertimbangan yang baik dan rasa tanggungjawab dan komitmen beliau terhadap pembaharuan seperti yang dijanjikan oleh kerajaan PN2.0. Bukti telahpun dilihat dengan jelas. Kami percaya Menteri Undang-undang kami lebih mengetahui apa yang perlu dilakukan, selepas semua kebenaran ini muncul.
Walaupun Azam mampu untuk membeli saham seperti yang didakwanya, rakyat Malaysia yang berfikiran benar tidak mampu untuk mempercayai bahawa sesiapa pun berada di atas undang-undang, paling tidak ketua pesuruhjaya SPRM Tan Sri Azam Baki.
Menurut petikan daripada Lord Hewart - "Keadilan bukan sahaja mesti dilakukan, tetapi juga mesti dilihat untuk dilakukan" di Malaysia ketika kita kini berada dalam kesempitan yang teruk dan di bawah penelitian oleh seluruh dunia mengenai 'sesuatu yang benar-benar busuk hingga ke inti. '.
Konflik kepentingan menjadi persoalan dan begitu juga integriti dan kepentingan seluruh negara.
***** ENGLISH *****
If
this wasn’t a conflict of interest, then what is it ?
Law Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar was quoted as
saying the shares owned by Azam were “not expensive” when they were acquired in
2016 — priced between 30 sen and 33 sen each — and that the one million
units were valued at RM330,000 at the time -
https://www.theborneopost.com/2022/01/08/wan-junaidi-azam-bakis-shares-only-rm330k-affordable-and-not-expensive/
We beg to disagree as Sungai Buloh MP R
Sivarasa told FMT that “Law minister Wan Junaidi has got his facts and law
wrong in defending top graft-buster Azam Baki over his ownership of corporate
shares”. In short, Wan Junaidi was wrong on the value of shares owned by Azam,
as well as on the laws on share ownership by public servants.
Records show that
shares and warrants were bought under Azam’s name between 2015 and 2016 in two
public-listed companies. This, Sivarasa said, would have been worth some RM2
million.
For the record, Azam
has said that he did not purchase the shares and that his brother had used his
share account to purchase them. Sivarasa said Wan Junaidi had also ignored
Service Circular 3/2002, which sets a RM100,000 cap on the value of shares that
a civil servant can own in a single company.
He also said there
are no more records of Azam’s share ownership after 2016, indicating that the
shares had been disposed of. “Where is the money?” he said, adding this needs
to be probed.
The Securities Commission (SC) had clarified that it
found no evidence of proxy trading by Tan Sri Azam Baki as the Malaysian
Anti-Corruption Commission chief commissioner was in full control of a share
trading account he claimed he let his brother use.
The clarification was for its statement on 18th
January 2022 in which it said Azam did not breach Section 25(4) of the
Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991.
The Securities Commission said this conclusion was
because Azam was named as the account holder and had control of the said
trading account.
Secondly, the MACC chief commissioner was said to
have operated the said account, “in that he had given instructions to buy, sell
and transfer securities from the said account.”
“Therefore,
the SC arrived at the decision that there was no breach of section 25(4) of the
Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991,” the regulator said
briefly.
Since the
Securities Commission had officially stated that there was no conclusive
evidence that section was violated, then by inference, Azam was the beneficial
owner by legally trading in his own account.
Therefore, it goes without saying that
Azam lied to the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board that his brother used his
account to buy the shares and the shares belonged to his brother.
To cut a long story short, - if
Azam had told the truth from the beginning, then he didn’t have to remember
anything nor ‘have to tell
another lie to cover the first lie, then another lie, and so on. Isn’t it so
much easier to tell the truth than it is to lie?’
Damansara MP Tony Pua sums it up best when he was quoted as saying that
“it is no wonder MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki does not want to appear
before the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC), since Azam “cannot get his
story straight”.
“First, (Azam) claimed that the shares belonged to his brother, who used
his account.
“Then, when the SC investigated, they found no wrongdoing because they
found no proxy trading as Azam carried out the share transactions himself,”
That said, two wrongs also don’t make
one right.
Consequently, the claim by Azam that he had transferred the shares to his
brother is also suspect. If he had indeed done that, Azam probably wanted to
exonerate himself from explaining how he had the means to buy the shares and
was in violation of civil service regulations.
So,
it is back to square one on the conflict-of-interest charges. Furthermore, it
now appears Azam seemed to lie to escape any further probes. As it is, the SC
decision only leads to further investigations on possible violations of ‘other
laws and regulations’.
This begs the question - what is
wrong with someone who refuses to acknowledge they have been caught lying, as
in the case of Azam Baki ?
Perhaps our Law Minister may have a better answer. Lest we forget, he was also
commended in September, 2021 for alluding that the “The Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision that children
born overseas to Malaysian mothers are also eligible for citizenship is
illuminating,” only for us to be utterly dismayed that the government, NRD and the Home Ministry had filed a
motion to seek a stay of the High Court's decision as the hearing of the
government's appeal against the High Court ruling is scheduled for March
22 next year at the Court Of Appeal.
“Attorney-General Tan Sri Idrus Harun was quoted in a text message to
FMT on the same day that the notice of appeal had been filed in the morning and
he said three federal ministers, including law minister Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi
Tuanku Jaafar, had openly supported the decision.” What a ‘close encounter’ of
the flip-flop kind.
We cannot help but dread that this Azman Baki saga
may end up in a ‘similar conclusion’.
Over to our Law Minister Wan Junaidi. We pray that this ‘dark episode’ be
illuminated by his good judgement and sense of duty and commitment to the
reforms as promised by the PN2.0 government. The proof of the pudding is in the
eating.
We believe our Law Minister knows best what to do, after all these truths have
surfaced.
Even if Azman could afford to buy the shares as he claimed, right-thinking
Malaysians cannot afford to believe that anyone is above the law, least of all
the MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam
Baki.
To borrow a quote from Lord Hewart - “Justice must not only be done, but must also be
seen to be done” in
Malaysia when we are now in dire straits and under scrutiny by the whole world
over ‘something is really rotten to the core’.
Conflict of interest is in question and so is the integrity and interests of
the whole nation.
