Answers owed, answers denied

Transparency, accountability and Parliament were undermined when a minister in Parliament avoided giving answers about Azam Baki’s shareholding.

This was more so after the cabinet select committee had already completed its investigation into the matter and reported to cabinet.

Petaling Jaya MP Lee Chean Chung from PKR had asked for “details of Azam’s share purchase transactions from 2012 to 2026, including the period during which his total shareholdings exceeded RM100,000”.

“Regarding the request for a list of share purchase transactions and the period during which the holdings exceeded a certain value, the requested information forms part of the investigation documents, personal information and asset declarations protected under the provisions of the law and is not a public document,” she [the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman Said] said in a written parliamentary reply.

Bloomberg had reported that Azam held 17.7 million shares in Velocity Capital, citing a filing with the Companies Commission of Malaysia. The shareholding was disclosed in Velocity Capital’s annual return. Hence, the allegations have credibility.

Thus, all that the minister, at minimum, ought to have done is to simply confirm whether Azam’s shareholding exceeded the RM100,000 limit that was then imposed on all public officers.

The minister could have also confirmed or denied Bloomberg’s allegations about the shareholding.

On other matters of investigation, like into the ‘corporate mafia’ and ‘abuse of power’ crime investigations, the minister could perhaps have taken the position that evidence will not be disclosed now, since investigations are ongoing.

Doubts exist over whether the ‘corporate mafia’ and the ‘abuse of power crimes’ that implicate Azam are also being investigated.

The minister could have cleared these doubts in Parliament by saying that all these crimes are being investigated – and will not be swept under the carpet.

There is a concern whether the cabinet select committee had focused on just Azam’s shareholding and not the other alleged crimes linked to Azam. This thinking is strengthened by the fact that, after receipt of the select committee’s report, it was referred to the chief secretary to the government – and not to the relevant law enforcement bodies, to continue or start investigations into the alleged crimes involving Azam Baki.

Minister Azalina said the government assured the public that all relevant aspects, including share ownership and compliance with applicable regulations, had been examined during the investigation.

The answer is confusing and vague, as we still do not know for certain whether the ‘corporate mafia’ and the other crimes are being investigated.

All we know from this response is that the government may possibly just be investigating the shareholding issue – the above RM100,000 shares misconduct? What about the other matters?

If one cannot even get answers from ministers in Parliament, we have a major problem. The failure to obtain clear, actionable answers from ministers in the House of Representatives highlights a significant flaw in Malaysia’s parliamentary democracy, severely limiting legislative oversight.

The Star’s analysis of the first 2026 House meeting from 19 January to 3 March found that at least one in nine written replies were flagged by MPs as being generic, deflective or failing to directly address the questions asked. This amounted to 157 out of 1,354 replies.

Minister must answer, not shift the duty

It is wrong for any minister to even say that the responsibility of informing the public is on the chief secretary to the government or some other public officer. All of these officers are responsible to the minister, prime minister or the cabinet. The minister must provide answers, especially in Parliament.

“An announcement will be made by the Office of the Chief Secretary to the Government, in line with the media statement issued on March 31, if there are any developments or decisions relating to this matter that are appropriate to be made public,” she [Azalina] said.

What announcement could the chief secretary possibly make? That he decided or not to submit Azam Baki’s case to the disciplinary board? Or maybe that he has instructed the police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to proceed with the investigations?

Yes, it is absurd to expect much from a mere chief secretary to the government. It would have been better if any announcement came directly from the minister representing the government.

Will Parliament then have to ask the chief secretary and other public officers, because their ‘bosses’, the ministers, cannot provide answers?

A minister is expected to answer on behalf of all public officers and departments and agencies that come within that minister’s authority and responsibility.

It must be pointed out that Azam is a public officer and not a private person. The alleged wrongdoing, among many more, was whether he at any time had shares in excess of the limit imposed by law for public officers, which is RM100,000.

One wonders also whether Azam’s superior – which may be Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim or some minister in the PM’s Department – ‘approved’ Azam’s holding more than RM100,000 worth of shares.

When it comes to the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, no one, including the superior, should have the power to exempt any public officer from fully complying with the regulations. This exemption power must be removed.

Danger – shareholding limit increased?

This information is available in government records, and the government or minister should at the very least disclose whether Azam had more than RM100,000 worth of shares. This would have been an employment misconduct of a public officer.

It should be noted that the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 has disappointingly been amended on 16 June 2026 to increase the shareholding limit to RM300,000.

Clearly, this government fails to understand why such limits or prohibitions are needed. They are needed to prevent a conflict of interest that may affect decisions to investigate, among others.

Will a public officer investigate and prosecute a company where he or she personally or his family members have shares or an interest in?

Will a minister prevent investigations into companies or persons he or she has an interest in?

Will commissions like the MACC or the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) block investigations into companies that any of their commissioners may have an interest in?

Likewise, the same prohibitions on shareholding and interests in companies or entities should apply to commissioners in existing commissions like the MACC and the MCMC.

Will shareholdings and interest in some companies or ‘friendships’ result in non-investigation and non-prosecution decisions of these law enforcement bodies?

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) advocates that it be best that all public officers, especially those in law enforcement, be prohibited from holding any shares or interest in any companies. This would remove possible conflicts of interest that could affect independent investigations and prosecutions.

The same prohibition on shareholdings and interest in companies should apply to ministers, other members of the cabinet, and maybe non-public officer commissioners in law enforcement commissions like the MACC and the MCMC.

We do not want ‘action not taken’ for crimes and wrongdoings simply because ‘it may affect my dividends or interest in that company’.

Whenever there are going to be changes to the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, which may increase limits of shareholdings in companies, it is best that Parliament is consulted first. It should not simply remain the decision of the executive.

Madpet calls on the minister and the government to immediately disclose whether there are any investigations into the ‘corporate mafia’ issue and into the allegations of abuse of power which involve Azam and/or the MACC.

Madpet calls for action to be taken against Minister Azalina for her failure to provide clear and direct answers to a parliamentary question.

We should never allow the prime minister or any minister to undermine Parliament. They should not be allowed to choose not to provide clear answers to questions raised by the people’s representatives in Parliament.

Maybe the parliamentary standing orders need to be amended to include a provision that makes it mandatory to answer directly questions asked. This provision should prevent deflecting or even lying.

Madpet also calls for the enactment of regulations like the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 for the ministers and the members of the administration. This should include the setting up of a disciplinary process and an independent disciplinary board, whose composition and members are determined by the Parliament.

Madpet also calls for transparency of these disciplinary boards for public officers, and hopefully soon for members of the administration too. The findings of guilt should be available to the public, as is the case now in most professional bodies like the Malaysian Bar.

Knowledge that disciplinary action has been taken will improve public perception that wrongdoers are held accountable. This information, as well as the relevant regulation, must also be made available on the relevant website.

Transparency and accountability cannot be compromised. In a democracy, the people should never be kept in the dark. – Madpet

Charles Hector issued this statement on behalf of Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet).

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: