Letter to Editor
R. NADESWARAN’S latest piece entitled “Azam’s Blotted Past Does Not Warrant An Extension” isn’t journalism – it’s a recycled vitriol peppered with inaccuracies, sanctimony and the kind of selective memory that would make even the most seasoned spin doctor blush.
- Falsehood 101: No case, yet he cries scandal
Let’s start with what Nades conveniently glosses over: the Securities Commission (SC) itself cleared the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) head honcho Tan Sri Azam Baki.
The financial market regulator conducted that an independent inquiry and found no breach of trading laws. Azam was confirmed to have operated the trading account – yes – but owning and operating a trading account isn’t illegal.
The crux of the allegation was whether he had violated civil service codes – not whether he committed a crime. The SC found no evidence of wrongdoing under the Capital Markets and Services Act (CMSA) 2007. Period.
But Nades – ever the crusader for causes with camera crews – now wants us to treat cleared allegations as convictions. That’s not journalism. That’s a kangaroo court with a word processor.
- The “Brother did it” argument: Lazy strawman
This entire article hinges on mocking Azam’s “brother used my account” explanation. But even the SC did not find that claim to be criminal. Is it odd? Possibly. Is it grounds to terminate a man’s career? Not if the enforcement agency tasked with investigating found no breach.
And here’s the twist: If Azam had said nothing and simply refused to engage, Nades would have torched him for silence. Yet he talks – and gets cleared – and Nades still howls.
Heads Azam loses, tails Nades wins. How convenient?
- The hall of hypocrisy: Nades and his political bedfellows\
Rafizi, Saifuddin and Loke were “outraged” once? Sure.
But the real scandal isn’t Azam’s shares – it’s the silence from the same crowd when former attorney-general (AG) Tan Sri Tommy Thomas admitted to bypassing the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to push his preferred Chief Justice.
That, too, is a violation – but no 2,000-word tearful editorial from Nades.
Where was this righteous fury when Tony Pua’s proxy firm was involved in questionable contracts? Or when Lim Guan Eng was cleared and re-charged based on shifting facts?
Nades screams “tainted hands” when it suits the narrative – not when it implicates his ideological allies.
- The laughable logic of “perception = guilt”
Nades asserts that Azam must go because “his name has been soiled”. By who? Activists with unproven claims? Politicians seeking headlines? Twitter mobs?
He conflates public perception with legal culpability as though shouting a lie long enough makes it true. If that’s our new yardstick, then half of Malaysia’s politicians – including some close to Nades’ own sympathies – should never hold office again.
- Azam’s track record: Inconvenient truths for the narrative
Under Azam, MACC has:
- Charged dozens of civil servants, including high-ranking ones.
- Investigated powerful political figures, including those from the ruling coalition.
- Uncovered RM177 mil in unexplained cash – now linked to a former PM’s aide.
So, let’s get this straight – a man who’s consistently delivered results should be removed because a columnist didn’t like his 2015 stock account?
Let’s call this what it is: character assassination dressed in moral outrage.
- Nades’ real problem? Azam didn’t fall
Strip away the fluff and this entire article reads like a tantrum. Azam didn’t resign. He wasn’t charged. He wasn’t humiliated. He continued to do his job.
And that infuriates those who wanted a symbolic scalp – never mind the due process or legal clarity.
Final word
When critics like Nades weaponise old headlines to write new hit jobs, Malaysia loses. Not because Azam is above criticism but because the standard applied to him is not applied to others – especially those Nades used to cheer for.
Maybe it’s not Azam who needs to reflect.
Maybe it’s the columnist who’s shouting the loudest while standing on a hollow podium. – April 14, 2025
Arif Rahman
Subang Jaya
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
Main image credit: Bernama
