PUTRAJAYA: As questions persist over Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki’s past shareholding in Velocity Capital Partner Bhd, a closer examination of corporate records, public service circulars and the structure of asset declaration rules suggest the controversy hinges less on legality than on misunderstanding of how shareholding thresholds operate.
At the centre of the issue is a claim that Azam once held 17.7 million shares in the company, a stake estimated at about RM800,000 based on market prices, raising questions over compliance with civil service regulations.
However, documents from the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM) indicate that Velocity Capital Partner Bhd’s issued share capital stood at 1.308 billion ordinary shares as at Dec 26, 2025, providing the necessary denominator for assessing whether any regulatory threshold was crossed.
Under the Public Service Human Resource Management Circular (MyPPSM) Ceraian UP.7.2.6 on the Ownership and Declaration of Assets by Public Officers, a senior civil servant’s permissible equity interest is assessed using a dual-limb test: not exceeding five per cent of a company’s paid-up capital, or RM100,000 at current value, whichever is lower.
Based on the company’s issued share base, five per cent would amount to approximately 65.4 million shares, far above the 17.7 million shares attributed to Azam in the SSM filing.
In percentage terms, the stake represents roughly 1.35 per cent of the company’s equity, well below the five-per-cent ceiling.
This distinction is significant because the circular regulates holding, not individual transactions.
The rules are designed to ensure disclosure, supervision and, where necessary, direction by the authorities, rather than to impose an absolute prohibition on market participation.
Crucially, the “whichever is lower” formulation has often been misunderstood.
If interpreted as a strict ban triggered by market value alone, even routine share purchases by civil servants through brokers or IPO allocations could technically breach the rule due to ordinary price fluctuations, an outcome legal experts say would render the framework irrational and unworkable.
In this case, Azam has publicly stated that the shares were purchased and disposed of within the same year, and that full declarations, including sources of income, were made through the Human Resource Management Information System (HRMIS) to the Public Service Department.
The controversy was reignited after a news portal cited an annual return lodged with the Companies Commission of Malaysia, naming Azam as a shareholder in Velocity Capital Partner Bhd.
Corporate records show the company is listed on Bursa Malaysia and has transitioned from its earlier involvement in logistics and ceramics manufacturing into financial services, including moneylending.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief has described reports suggesting wrongdoing as misleading and has not ruled out legal action, signalling that the dispute may yet move from the court of public opinion to a legal forum.
For now, what the filings and rules demonstrate is that the numerical thresholds cited in the allegations do not, on their face, establish a breach of the applicable public service guidelines, a reminder that in governance matters, precision often matters more than perception.
© New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd