Percanggahan kenyataan Suruhanjaya Sekuriti dengan peraturan pegawai awam (Malay/English)

[ENGLISH VERSION BELOW] Bagi pihak masyarakat sivil, kami amat kesal dengan kenyataan Perdana Menteri Ismail Sabri Yaakob baru-baru ini mengenai dakwaan terhadap Pesuruhjaya Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia Azam Baki.

Perdana menteri dengan nyata telah mengelak kontroversi yang sedang berlaku.

Suruhanjaya Sekuriti dengan jelas menyatakan bahawa akaun dagangan saham itu dikendalikan oleh Azam sendiri. Ini bercanggah dengan kenyataan akhbar beliau sebelum ini yang menyebut akaun itu digunakan oleh adiknya bagi mengelakkan konflik kepentingan.

Dalam apa pun keadaan, Suruhanjaya Sekuriti harus memperjelaskan sama ada sebarang saham dalam akaun dagangan Azam telah dibeli dan dibayar oleh adiknya. Jika benar, perlu ada dokumen yang disempurnakan oleh Azam yang membenarkan adiknya menggunakan akaun dagangannya.

Sekiranya ini benar, maka Azam, pada tahun 2015 di setiap masa yang berkenaan, selaku pengarah siasatan SPRM, telah membeli saham melebihi RM100,000, yang mana ia melanggar peraturan yang ditetapkan oleh kerajaan.

• Seksyen 23 Pekeliling Perkhidmatan No. 3/2002 – Pemilikan dan Pengisytiharan Aset oleh Pegawai Awam: Pekeliling ini, di samping semua pekeliling kerajaan, mengikat semua penjawat awam yang diambil bekerja di bawah Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam untuk mengawal kelakuan mereka
• Seksyen 10 Akta Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 juga dengan jelas menetapkan keperluan untuk penjawat awam mengisytiharkan sebarang pembelian saham kepada ketua jabatan mereka

Sehingga kini, masih tiada pengesahan sama ada pengisytiharan aset telah dilaksanakan atau tidak.

Sekiranya Azam sebenarnya telah melanggar pekeliling kerajaan, tindakan mesti diambil. Demi akauntabiliti terhadap awam, adalah penting untuk pihak kerajaan menjelaskan agensi yang wajar dan yang sebenarnya bertanggungjawab untuk mengambil tindakan tegas terhadap penjawat awam yang telah bertindak melanggar pekeliling kerajaan, sama ada Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam atau Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam.

Sekiranya tidak terdapat sebarang kesan dan akibat tertentu daripada pelanggaran tersebut, kami menggesa agar prosedur yang sewajarnya dilaksanakan pada masa hadapan, supaya lebih jelas untuk badan kerajaan yang bertanggungjawab memantau pematuhan terhadap peraturan tersebut bagi menjawab persoalan apakah jenis tindakan tatatertib yang diambil apabila seseorang didapati melanggar peraturan kerajaan?

Kami mengulangi desakan untuk siasatan bebas terhadap pembelian saham Azam, kerana ini juga menimbulkan persoalan serius berhubung dengan konflik kepentingan yang berlaku, dalam pembelian saham melibatkan anggota tertinggi SPRM.

Demi memulihkan integritinya serta mengembalikan kepercayaan orang ramai terhadap badan pencegah rasuah itu, pesuruhjaya SPRM Azam perlu berehat sementara sehingga siasatan yang telus dapat membuktikan secara konklusif, tanpa sebarang keraguan munasabah, bahawa beliau tidak melanggar mana-mana peraturan sebagai penjawat awam.

Transformasi SPRM yang dicadangkan oleh Ideas, Majlis Peguam Malaysia, C4 dan Transparency International Malaysia pada 2015 untuk menjadikan ianya badan bebas disamping perlaksanaan pelan anti-rasuah nasional hendaklah menjadi keutamaan bukan sekadar untuk meningkat keberkesanan SPRM tetapi adalah untuk mengelakkan kes seperti Azam dan yang seumpamanya berulang di masa akan datang.

Dikeluarkan bersama oleh:

• Institut Demokrasi dan Hal Ehwal Ekonomi (Ideas)
• Transparency International Malaysia
• C4
• RasuahBusters
• Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia
• Bersih
• Undi18

English version

Securities Commission’s statements on Azam Baki appear to contradict government rules

We, the undersigned civil society organisations, regret the recent statement by Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob on the allegations surrounding Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission commissioner Azam Baki. The prime minister seems to have dismissed the ongoing controversy.

The Securities Commission has stated that the shares trading account is managed by Azam himself, contradicting Azam’s earlier press statement mentioning the account was used by his brother to avoid a conflict of interest.

However, the Securities Commission should clarify whether any shares in Azam’s trading account were purchased and paid by his brother. If so, there should be a document executed by Azam authorising his brother to use his trading account.

If this is true, then Azam, who at the material time in 2015 held the position of MACC investigation director, had purchased shares above MYR100,000 in amount, which contravenes government rules.

• Section 23 of the Service Circular No. 3/2002 – Ownership and Declaration of Assets by Public Officials: This circular, alongside all government circulars, is binding on all civil servants employed under the Public Services Department to regulate their conduct
• Section 10 of the Public Officers Regulations Act (Conduct and Discipline) 1993 clearly stipulates the requirement for civil servants to declare any purchase of shares to their heads of department.

Up to now, there has been no confirmation as to whether or not the mandatory asset declaration was carried out.

If Azam had in fact breached a government circular, action must be taken. In the interest of public accountability, it is important that the government clarifies the appropriate agency responsible for apprehending civil servants who have acted in contravention of a government circular, whether it is the Public Services Commission or the Public Services Department.

If no consequences are forthcoming out of this case, we strongly call for proper procedures to be put in place in the future, so that there is greater clarity over which government body is responsible for monitoring adherence to such rules. What sort of disciplinary action is taken when there is found to be a breach of government rules?

We repeat the call for an independent inquiry into Azam’s purchase of shares, as this also raises serious questions with regard to any conflict of interest that occurred, in the purchase of shares by the highest-ranking member of the nation’s anti-corruption body.

To uphold MACC’s integrity and to restore public trust in the anti-corruption body, MACC commissioner Azam must step aside temporarily until an independent inquiry can conclusively prove, beyond any measure of reasonable doubt, that he did not breach any regulations as a bearer of public office.

The 2015 proposal recommendations to reform the MACC and make it more independent – made by Ideas, the Malaysian Bar, the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4), and Transparency International – in addition to implementing the national anti-corruption plan, must be placed front and centre to not only improve the MACC’s capabilities but also to prevent such detrimental incidents like the ongoing Azam Baki case from recurring in the future.

Jointly released by:

• Institut Demokrasi dan Hal Ehwal Ekonomi (Ideas)
• Transparency International Malaysia
• C4
• RasuahBusters
• Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia
• Bersih
• Undi18

The views expressed in Aliran's media statements and the NGO statements we have endorsed reflect Aliran's official stand. Views and opinions expressed in other pieces published here do not necessarily reflect Aliran's official position.

AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama

1. Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
2. Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
3. Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
4. Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
5. Lawan rasuah dan kronisme

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: