Two questions for Securities Committee

I am appalled by the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief, Azam Baki’s refusal to attend an inquiry into his shares ownership by the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) overseeing Agencies in the Prime Minister’s Department.

One of the reasons Azam Baki gave for objecting to the PSC inquiry was it might be considered sub judice to a defamation suit filed by him against whistleblower, Lalitha Kunaratnam. If this is true, why did Azam Baki attend the inquiry set up by the Securities Commission (SC)?

Now that the SC has announced its decision, in what appears to have cleared Azam Baki from any wrongdoing under Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (SICDA) when he allowed his brother to use his share trading account, I have two simple questions to ask the SC pertaining to its probe outcome in relation to Azam Baki’s trading account.

Firstly, how many offenders had been charged or given compounds for being in breach of the Section 25(4) of SICDA since the implementation of the said Act?

Secondly, after this SC’s decision on Azam Baki’s trading account, can any individual allow his or her trading account be used by relatives and friends, free of charge or with a fee, without fear of in violation of SICDA? If the answer isn’t a clear yes, then it’s a clear no.

Lim Lip Eng
Media statement by Lim Lip Eng in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday, 19th January 2022