Most Read
Most Commented
YOURSAY | MACC reverts to type – intimidating the whistleblowers

YOURSAY | ‘Obviously, all are learning from Bossku.’

Azam sues whistleblower for defamation over shareholdings claim

Constitutional Supremacy: This is a blatant misuse of power and intimidation by anti-corruption agency MACC against whistleblower K Lalitha.

If an investigative agency like the MACC with enormous powers refuses to investigate its own chief Azam Baki, then how is evidence to be collected?

Poor Lalitha has no such powers, but she has integrity and a most able lawyer on her side - Manjeet Singh Dhillon.

Another case reported today was that of a Syariah Court judge threatening to sue a whistleblower just like Azam.

Our country appears to be heading towards a situation where purported wrongdoers use their might and power to intimidate those who expose their alleged wrongdoings. Obviously, all are learning from Bossku.

BobbyO: Is this information of the MACC chief having shares registered under his name in the public domain? Can revealing publicly available information be classified as defaming the individual?

This clearly shows that Azam is trying to take revenge on the whistleblower as he has apparently failed to declare such assets from the time these shares were bought, as well as having in his possession shares that were reportedly worth more than a civil servant should be holding.

He may have given his explanation as to who the shares actually belong to, but why wait until he was exposed in the public domain?

This problem is not going to be solved by creating fear in the minds of future whistleblowers. It will instead increase the anger in the hearts of the people.

Malaysia Bharu: “Azam filed this suit before the expiry of the 14 days from the date the letter of demand was issued in order to protect his reputation and professional standing.”

Why is an alert about the asset ownership by a civil servant that allegedly exceeds the limit permitted under the civil service code of conduct and discipline defamatory?

All the more, the breach is by one heading the premier institution responsible for eliminating corruption in the country. And worse, this honcho has conceded or not denied owning the shares in question.

Whether he was doing it for his brother is beside the point and even that was allegedly unlawful under the Securities Commission's rules of trading in shares.

Based on the reasons given by Azam’s lawyer, it is not clear which part of the report was defamatory. Coming from a professional, this is absurd.

Hrrmph: Indeed, Azam has admitted he owned the shares. Where is the defamation? Questioning how he has the means to purchase the shares is fair comment. Not to mention, what the whistleblower was doing is in the public interest.

The man previously made clear his unwavering commitment to protect whistleblowers, just not when he is the target of whistleblowing.

Dr Raman Letchumanan: Lalitha only quoted what’s in the public record. You admitted that but explained that the shares belonged to your brother because you let him use your account to buy the shares.

Shouldn't you be suing yourself for self-defamation rather than Lalitha?

Whistleblower stands by Azam reports, slams attempt at police probe

FairMalaysian: This is like the 1MDB scandal all over again. Have they even bothered to ask why Azam’s brother used his account, and why Azam allowed his brother to use it, especially since he was a senior MACC officer?

MACC's Anti-Corruption Advisory Board (ACAB) chairperson Abu Zahar Ujang may have given him a pat on the back but people are not so easily convinced that what Azam did is according to the rules and law.

These "intimidation" tactics will backfire.

BlueLynx2013: Lalitha’s lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon said her reports were based on public records, regulatory reports and corporate financial filings.

He added that Lalitha, before publishing her report, had also sought Azam's comments for his side of the story on Dec 10 via Whatsapp but there was no response. He added that she also reached out to his personal assistant but there was likewise no response.

Despite all this, MACC made a police report against the whistleblower. How stupid.

OCT: The best defence is a good offence, and this is what Azam is doing. Shoot first, talk later.

Lalitha didn't concoct the issue from thin air. What she did was investigative journalism which is to expose fraud, abuse of power and misuse of public funds on a large scale using elaborate schemes, usually with state sanction - commonly referred to as institutional corruption. It is like the exposure of 1MDB.

Lalitha is a rare breed of whistleblowers who dared to face the powers-that-be and expose them. Now, they are scrambling everywhere, using all available resources to rebuke the bare facts of Azam’s case.

All these politicians and senior officers are simpletons who are making a fool of themselves by vouching to support Azam when investigations have not started and concluded. How silly and stupid can they be?

Falcon: This is what they do. It’s the standard response from their playbook and it’s to intimidate.

But sadly, this matter has opened up the Pandora’s Box and the sinkhole is widening, showing how incompetence, unprofessional behaviour and the utter disrespect of rules when allegations of inappropriate behaviour scandalous to any institution are exposed.

Everyone is jumping in, attempting to divert, justify or defend what cannot be defended. The genie is out of the bottle.

The mantra “kill the messenger” rules. After all, malu apa? (what’s there to be ashamed of?) May the Almighty protect us Malaysians.

Federal Bakery: How very unfortunate that we have to revert to the basic alphabets of good governance to remind those occupying government positions that they are occupying those positions not for their personal purposes but in trust for the nation and its people.

In this particular case, they need only to read the MACC website to know what their obligations are. Integrity is what is required of them but they seem to have traded that for personal expedience.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.

View Comments