FEBRUARY 19 — Bloomberg’s report “Malaysian anti-graft chief returns to stock market after outcry” needs to be read again, and again.
The report has raised outcry against Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief Tan Sri Azam Baki for having held 17.7 million shares of Velocity Capital Partner Bhd, according to an annual filing by Velocity Capital to the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM) on February 3 last year.
The report refers to a 2024 Malaysian government circular, which says a public servant may purchase shares in a company incorporated in Malaysia on the condition that they don’t exceed five per cent of its paid-up capital or RM100,000 in value, whichever is lower. They also must declare assets at least once every five years and at the time of purchase and sale of holdings.
But if read again, the report apparently concedes that the 2024 circular serves only to provide “guidance on 1993 regulations stipulating the conduct of public officials”.
The 1993 regulations is factually the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993, which can be read here.
As I explained in “Rule of law demands that we know the law, first and foremost” Regulations 1993 was made by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 132(2) of the Federal Constitution.
The “2024 Malaysian government circular” is the code of conduct and management of public officers’ discipline (“Tatakelakuan dan Pengurusan Tatatertib Pegawai Awam”) which can be read here.
Hierarchy-wise, Regulation 1993 is the principal regulation. The 2024 circular explains and provides guidance on Regulation 1993, which is in 10 parts. Part II is on Code of Conduct, with a total of ten regulations (Regulation 4, 4A — 22).
Regulation 10 is on Ownership of Property. Regulation 10(3) requires a public officer to declare the acquisition of any property by him or his spouse or child. The 2024 circular explains how declaration is to be made. Read it here.
Where the acquisition is inconsistent with the general code of conduct in Regulation 4, the acquisition must not be made without the prior written permission of the Secretary General of the Ministry concerned. This requirement too is explained in the 2024 circular. Read it here.
Now, if a public officer is subject to investigation, Regulation 43(1) allows for interdiction of the officer if he or she “is alleged or reasonably suspected of having committed a criminal offence or a serious disciplinary offence.”
An officer who has been interdicted is entitled to receive full emoluments during the period of his or her interdiction.
The interdiction is for the purpose of facilitating investigation against the officer. Interdiction is perhaps best described in Malay — that is, “ditahan kerja.”
In layman terms, the officer is put on garden leave.
Azam Baki has dismissed the suggestion that he take a leave of absence during the investigation by the special committee investigating his share ownership.
But it is not his call to make. It is the call of the Public Service Commission (PSC) after considering the following factors:
(a) whether the allegation or the suspected offence is directly related to the officer’s duties; and
(b) whether the presence of the officer in the office would hamper investigation.
Should the PSC make the call?
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
