Thursday, December 16, 2010

MAS corruption investigation lose objectivity to political spinning


Show me the money, Salahuddin!


MACC Operations Review Panel chairman Tan Sri Dr Hadenan Abdul Jalil gave a statement to confirm MACC is investigating former Malaysia Airlines (MAS) chairman Tan Sri Tajudin Ramli for graft. The first to hit the story online was The Sun here.

This statement seemed in contrary to the operational description by MACC Commisioner Dato Abu Kassim in a meet the blogger session recently. It is also strange that a Panel Chairman is talking to the press.

His statement is in contradiction to what was told to us by Abu Kassim and gave the impression that MACC could be pressured by political opposition propaganda in the same manner opposition are claiming the ruling party is influencing corruption investigation and prosecution.

Being independent means MACC's operation should be free from politics and not be easily influenced by political propaganda, particularly the senseless unjustifiable ones.

MACC had succumbed to the propaganda and charade by Raja Petra, dan blogger Din Merican with YB Salahuddin Ayub as front. The suspicion is there are former police Dato Ramli Yusoff and lawyer Rosli Dahalan as ventriloquists.

Even with them behind, Raja Petra and Salahuddin can't convincingly explain their allegations. They have not been subjected to Q&As with bloggers. Probably, neither do Din Merican knows head or tail. He has long left the corporate world to sufficiently know the story behind the story.


Despite being a member of Anti-Corruption Advisory Board, Salahuddin couldn't draw enough attention on his allegation against MAS.

They turned towards Tan Sri Robert Phang - an old philantropist, or that is what everyone claim he is and member of the Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel of MACC - to raise ruckus. It is obvious that all of Robert Phang's issues are those written repeatedly by Raja Petra.

Robert Phang has lately been quite generous giving donations to DAP, thus it is clear where his political leaning is. His impartiality is now questionable.

Let's read the The Sun yesterday, below:

MACC renews probe on Tajudin Ramli

KUALA LUMPUR (Dec 15, 2010): New evidence and witnesses have surfaced, prompting the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to renew a probe into former Malaysia Airlines (MAS) chairman Tan Sri Tajudin Ramli for graft.


MACC Operations Review Panel chairman Tan Sri Dr Hadenan Abdul Jalil said today that contrary to claims by various quarters, the MACC was indeed investigating Tajudin for corruption.

"In view of new evidence surfacing, investigations are under process," he told a press conference, adding that "new evidence" also meant a witness or witnesses had come forward to shed light.

He said the investigation involved reports lodged against Tajudin in connection with MAS’s cargo operations.

"Many alleged MACC had swept the matter under the carpet, but the fact is MACC is investigating Tajudin," he said.

Read for the rest of the news on The Sun here.
Before exposing the ridiculous claim they made of the so-called MAS scandal, there is a strange procedural precedent here.

Since when do those other than the Commissioner, Dato Abu Kassim or his assigned person become the spokesman for MACC?

Operations Review Panel play an active check and balance role in the operations of MACC but the Panel does not run the operations of MACC. Thus, the Chairman of the Panel is not the Commission's so-called CEO to make public announcements for the MACC!

Look up the MACC official website here for details on the Panel's term of reference.

In the session with Abu Kassim, the bloggers did seek for explanation on the MAS issue raised by Raja Petra and his gang. Abu Kassim explained that the investigation was done by police, thus MACC can't be investigating what is already being investiogated by police since 2002.

MACC only existed in 2009 and the Act passed in Parliament in 2008.

Maybe they find it difficult to understand that when one Government agency take up the case, they other agency lay off. Duplication of work is too difficult a concept for anarchist and Pakatan supporters to understand.

Hadenan dah memandai-mandai and playing to the political gallery which could cause embarassment to the Commission.

Since this is about fighting corruption, one is obliged to put aside such tiny winy issues. After all, one is talking about Tajuddin Ramli, Tun Daim's alleged crony. And it is about fighting someone claimed to be arrogant and Din Merican's motivation to take up cause.

Since it will weaken my argument to raise territorial and bureaucratic issues, I am obliged to put all this aside even though Din Merican was quite an arrogant sonofabitch himself and I was at his receiving end when he was at Sime Darby.

Before going further, the pertinent question to ask: Is there a case against Tajuddin?

To answer and analysis that, we use The Malaysia Insiders yesterday's report that is padded with background information as a guide.
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 15 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) revealed today that new evidence has surfaced in its investigations against Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli.

The anti-graft body’s Operations’ Evaluation Panel chairman (PPO) Tan Sri Dr Hadenan Abdul Jalil said today that corruption investigations against the former Malaysia Airlines (MAS) chairman was still underway, but refused to elaborate further.

“The MACC still currently investigating Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli, the former MAS chairman for alleged corruption.

“There is new evidence to Tajuddin Ramli’s case, but we cannot reveal any further details as of yet. There are new witnesses, but with all corruption cases, it can only stay investigated if witnesses come forward,” Hadenan told a press conference today.
Now for the background information.
MAS experienced its biggest ever loss amounting to RM8 billion when Tajuddin was chairman, which led to complaints being lodged against him.

Pakatan Rakyat parties, chiefly PAS, have been pressuring the MACC to investigate the high-profile case, using the anti-graft body’s delay in investigations as political fodder in nightly rallies across the country.

PAS vice-president Salahuddin Ayub, who is part of the Parliamentary Committee on Corruption, had claimed that the MACC was holding back in probing the case.

“I cannot forget the MAS issue... I had reported it to MACC, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Police and the chairman of the special panel for MACC but so far there has been no response.
This part puzzles me.

The reason is PAS people are not equipped to handle corporate issues and honestly speaking, none have the ability to decipher any corporate wrongdoings. It is difficult to trust Salahuddin's allegation.

The question is how did Salahuddin came up with such a number of RM8 billion loss during Tajuddin's time.

Let us look at the following compilation of MAS accounts.


Tajuddin joined MAS on July 1994 and left on February 2000. For easy calculation, we consider financial ending 31 March 1994 to 2001.

The total loss before tax between FY 1994 to 2000 adds up to RM752 million and total after tax loss is RM908 million.

Aisay YB ... it is hardly RM1 billion, thus where did you get loss of RM8 billion? I have yet to even go deeply into the account.

Continuing the MI report:
“If you follow procedures, this is strange, why no development in these cases? Look at PKFZ, only after five years we see some form of action, the same goes for (Datuk Seri) Khir Toyo,” the PAS man told The Malaysian Insider yesterday.

Hadenan, however, refuted allegations that the anti-graft body was powerless when investigating high-powered personalities.

“There have been claims that the MACC has not been investigating (Tajuddin Ramli’s) case... investigations are still being carried,” said Hadenan.

MAS had first lodged a police report against Tajuddin in 2002 for allegedly causing the national carrier to suffer losses in excess of RM8 billion.

Tajuddin was the executive chairman of the airlines from 1994 to 2001.
To repeat again, Salahuddin should have ask the police. Raja Petra's police friend Ramli Yusof was the investigating officer. Ask Raja Petra then!

Investigation take time. Salahuddin should understand the process. Has he been playing truant or sleeping in the Advisory Board meetings?

More from MI:
According to a report to the MACC, a major contributor to the record losses under Tajuddin was the relocation of MAS’s cargo operation in Amsterdam and Frankfurt to a single hub in Hahn, Germany, where the airline was forced to enter into a disadvantageous aircraft lease contract with a company, which was later linked to Tajuddin’s family.

The new cargo hub operation had caused MAS to suffer losses of between RM10 million and RM16 million a month before the project was terminated after the government regained control of MAS in 2001.

The termination resulted in a RM300 million arbitration claim against MAS by the company.
There has been much talked on this.

But why did MAS went for arbitration and end up losing? Why did they not go for civil lawsuit or file a report with the German police or it's anti-corruption agency?

Having lost it, is there any more issue? Wonder who is the dumb lawyer for MAS?

The General Counself for MAS is Dr Wafi Hamid, son of former Minister, Tan Sri Hamid Osman. MAS had initially hired the firm Norton Roose to represent them but Dr Wafi changed it to his buddy in Hishamuddin & Lee. Hishamuddin & Lee only pocket the in=between for the work was out-sourced to Allen Gladhill & Co.

Wafi's buddy is Rosli Dahalan ....
The report to the MACC dated May last year also alleged that the Attorney-General has been reluctant to prosecute Tajuddin, despite the then-CCID chief Datuk Ramli Yusoff’s assurance in 2007 that it had identified various prosecutable offences.

It also claimed that Tajuddin had been given access to the investigation and police records, which were used to facilitate the arbitration claim.
All these claim will be taken into cognizance.

But since Ramli Yusoff is mentioned, it is worth noting that his name regularly crops up in Raja Petra's Malaysia Today and Din Merican's blog.

Both of them championed Ramli Yusoff's cause. They claimed Ramli and his lawyer, Rosli Dahalan was charged for corruption because former IGP, Tan Sri Musa Hassan fixed him. Again we take cognizance.

When both were acquited, it was a big victory for their propaganda. However, some lawyer friends said Raja Petra and Din Merican did not tell the full story.

Ramli had declared his asset but couldn't explained it. He got away because unlike Singapore, our court does not accept unexplainable asset as proof for act of corruption.

Bar Council mana? Tidor ka?

The question still remain: How did Ramli got his money? The only explanation plausible is corruption. Ramli cannot claim he is exonerated because of the weakness of our judges.

These Pakatan and now claiming Third Force supporters claimed to be fighting against corruption and accused others of corruption but they themselves are working together with corrupts.

Tajuddin is in quite a predicament. For someone friendly with the Government, he is walking on a tight rope since he had to counter sue the Government. But he can afford lawyers.

For us the rakyat, the issues now is the difficulty MACC has to face in their pursuit to combat corruption when:
1. those supposed to provide check and balance in operations stoop to political pressure and ridiculous claims and some playing politics themselves;

2. those inside the committees, panels and advisory boards of MACC are themselves putting the organisation in a difficult spot with their political spinning then actually working seriously to address corruption;

3. those making allegations have no sincerity to make their allegations sensible but keep repeating the same lies just to deceive the public into believing; and

4. those claiming whistle blowers are themselves corrupt and have ulterior motives.
Is there a case against Tajuddin?

Perhaps Raja Petra and Salahuddin can explain further, but no spinning please!

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

the idea of using a PL during that period is ridiculous.

Number 1 - what about expenses that are suspicious in nature. that number is below the revenue figure, so lets say u had 1 billion in revenues and 500 m in fraudulent expenses, 600 m in genuine expense then the operating loss is only 100 m but the company was caused to lose 500 m by the fraud.

Number 2 - asset write down and long lived contracts. If one were to engage in a hiked up investment of 1 billion in 1993, and the company takes a write down in 2003, then the fraud was still for 1 billion ringgit. the p&l will only show it in 2003.

i am afraid your spinning is sufficient for the smaller minded folk. and btw, tajuddin said he was acting under Government orders. and the head of the government is the patron of perkasa.

why bring daim into the picture?

A Voice said...

Don't be too quick jump to conclusion and accuse of spinning.

I am still asking for questions.

The last line is asking YB Salahuddin and Raja Petra for explanation.

Thanks for your comment.

We do not have to be hostile in our comments in blogs, do we?

Anonymous said...

anon 2:16 PM

salahuddin claim RM8 billion loss.

RM1 billion loss and RM8 billion is a lot of differences.

salahuddin shd know what he is talking abt.

Anonymous said...

no we don't have to be hostile. your rite. just upset with the succession of top management in MAS, Idris Jala included. (exculpation point) no point comparing with SIA but..

Anonymous said...

RM 1 billion loss is to illustrate principles of accounting and why the final number in a PL cannot be used to justify the quantum of the fraud.

and on this issue of mas, what about the WAU by Constructive Thoughts (Bina Fikir). Is there is a 10 billion ringgit hole being absorbed by tax payers?

Anonymous said...

A voice

that's the problem with accountant and lawyers nowadays.

whenever we raise a straightforward issue with our own findings, they will come out with 1001 half-finished technical questions so that the laymen will never understand.

No wonder the Anwar's case asyik kena tunda.

The Pumkiner said...

I think even TR would not know the exact losses he made for MAS and everybody will arrive at their figures different from others.

How do you quantify the loss form assets stripping? e.g. land with carrying amount far different from the then current market value - sold to undeclared related party? As you all know, if the asset is sold at carrying amount, there will be no loss or gain - is it?

How about deals with supposedly a third party that later proven to bleed the company so badly? How do you quantify the effect should the true arms length transaction were carried out?

No matter what - MAS suffered and being so forgiving, we are happy to accept the the losses are one of those things we should expect in business.

When an individual or two start making noises of their unhappiness, we need told to proof and to show the money.

A Voice - person like me can never proof those things so after this am I going to happily accept that the police have carried out their investigation and that is it!

A Voice said...

Pumkiner

If one do a forensic, it will get reflected in the accounts and definately in the management acct.

You said:

How do you quantify the loss form assets stripping? e.g. land with carrying amount far different from the then current market value - sold to undeclared related party?

I think you can look at the procedure, process and term how the sake is made.

If it is significantly far from market value, people can smell. just like Nor Mohamd Yakcop bought Parkway at overvalued price of RM1 million per bed.

You raised about:

How about deals with supposedly a third party that later proven to bleed the company so badly?

How do you quantify the effect should the true arms length transaction were carried out?

Do a background check. The most important criteria in deals is WHO are you dealing with?

It goes to the extent of checking their boardroom to bedroom record. I'll show you with a future posting on Talent Corporation.

Pumpkiner

There are people able to smell all these.

Each of us has our role.

If you cant smell all these, then you learn to appreciate those like us able to smell it.

Problem is those who do not know love to say things like ... "I dont know so I cant say."

If you dont know, you shut up and listen to what others are telling. You ask what you do not understand and see if his view has strength and shortcomings.

But you do not make the yardstick that if you do not know, the issue should not be of your concern. It is as though the person who knows is unimportant.

Attitude betul ...

Anonymous said...

What a load of shit!
Just because people may have not got the figure lost right then you cannot investigate! As if the thief will tell you exactly how much he stole?
What if Ramli Yusuf cannot account for his asset, then investigate him. Surely this doen't mean you cannot investigate a theft by others?

Anonymous said...

Anybody dug into the "MAS had first lodged a police report against Tajuddin in 2002 for allegedly causing the national carrier to suffer losses in excess of RM8 billion"?

Perhaps the key lies there. They must have provided some information justifying the claim of RM8 billion losses. They are the ones who should have the facts and figures. I agree that P/L and company accounts need be interpreted from methods of accounting, asset write down etc. But those fellows who made the Police report in 2002 should provide all the relevant information.

In the interest of getting the corrupt fellows to book, why should't the investigation be carried out by the MACC, irrespective of who or how it was asked to be done? Why need go into roles of the watchdog etc. It may show a little ackwardness in how MACC is run but it will not dent MACC's image much, I think.

Anonymous said...

Nowadays, having to rely on the accounts may not provide you with the full picture of things. This explains why you cannot reconcile the losses of RM8 billion to the total accounting losses of RM908 million.

Don't you remember that as a result of its dire financial position, the government took over the liabilities of MAS under the WAU scheme? WAU means something like Widespread Asset Unbundling scheme.

To put it in a nutshell, MAS was bailed out by the government using tax payers' money ..... possibly to the tune of RM8.0 billion!

Anonymous said...

Kalau dah tahap 'stupid malay editors' Keputusan dah ada, tunggu masa saja juak2 NSTP

konsensus tercapai sudah,
juak2 pandai bermadah,
ketahuan berpaling tadah,
nyah juak2 cis bedebah

Anonymous said...

Simple Man .... Salahudin ask MACC to investigate the losess show RM1bill not real and he suspect RM8bill .. so MACC must find based on the clue given by Salahudin. If we based only P&L no where lah ... but must check the whole tracsaction etc ...

A Voice said...

Folks

I am all open to views, theories and possoible answers but when it is wrong, I got to tell ye it is wrong.

The Wide Unbundling of Asset or in simple freshmen finance termed as Sale and Leaseback.

It is a balance sheet treatment. It is not trick to hide losses or inflate profit.

It has some impact on P&L, for it's extra cost from leasing but the depreciation "cost" is no more company concern.

In the balance sheet, the fixed asset of airline, building etc is taken out and instead all asset is on lease.

Assuming RM7 billion is taken out from the asset book, it was not reflected as extraordinary profit or loss.

Salahuddin is not making report based on any specific reason or explanation but only saying there is a loss of RM8 billion.

Since Salahuddin can pinpoint the poss, he should explain how he derived the number. Otherwise, Salahuddin Ayub is guessing!

SECONDLY, read folks .... Police made an investigation already and files are at AG's.

Why the fcuk is MACC being burdened to investigate again? The buck is already at AG's!

OK ... there was a report to MACC for the German Cargo venture. Fine ... but why did they go for arbitration?

It means there is no more conflict or interest issue and the later MAS team has come to accept the shareholding structure of the cargo venture.

Are they making a a fuzz because they lost in the arbitration? Is it because they lost baru mereka mahu make a fuzz?

Is this all a scheme by Nor Mohamad Yakcop the real culprit in all this mess?

Observer said...

Clearly no one have any idea how the RM8 billion can go but yet everyone ones to blame Tajuddin.

How logical and rational to guess there is wrongdoing but expect some kind of wrongdoing?

It gets crazier.

Everyone expect MACC to find something which they themselves can't find and explain.

When MACC eventually say or AG say or court say Tajuddin is clear, then they blame MACC, AG and court.

You can never rationalise such idiocrasy

Anonymous said...

What say you boss on this statement by RPK....

The IGP has been kicked out. The AG, however, is still in office. In spite of all his wrongdoings coming to the attention of the public he is still around. See the evidence below where the AG instructed a doctor to fabricate a medical report to say that Anwar Ibrahim’s injury in 1998 was either due to a fall or was self-inflicted. This report was subsequently hidden and not shown to the Royal Commission of Inquiry. Is this the type of AG that we want? - RPK

Din said...

" Hishamuddin & Lee only pocket the in=between for the work was out-sourced to Allen Gladhill & Co."------


Your research is so poorly done. Not only you got the firm's name wrong- it is not Hishamuddin & Lee, but the correct name is Lee Hishamuddin Allen &Gledhill (LHAG). This infomation is so easily available on the Internet . LHAG of Malaysia is a different firm from what you say is "Allen Gladhill & Co" .
BTW there is no such firm by that name either in Singapore or Malaysia. This shows your wild imagination over things that do not exist. Bad spinning Bro !

With regard to you calling me SOB, you should know what you did to incur my wrath. I did not suffer fools then, and I still don't. You were lucky I did not throw you out of the window for the kind of work you did, like this rubbish fabricated story .



Din Merican

A Voice said...

Din

So maybe I erred in some facts. That does not change the points I am driving at and it is just side issues.

On what my mistake is, I doubt you remember what it was you claim to incur your wrath.

I remember exactly what it is. There werent any mistake or error.

You were just a plain arrogant axxxxxe!

Din said...

So maybe I erred in some facts. That does not change the points I am driving at and it is just side issues.-----------------------------

There are so many facts and figures including the financial table that are wrong. I may be perceived to be arrogant to but I get my facts right and think before I write. It is important to be accurate and fair.

Is there a case against Tajuddin? That is not for me or you to determine. The MASkargo MD has made a police report. So the police must investigate and send their findings to the AG who will decide on. I am not hopeful. Please do not spin and please report facts.

Anonymous said...

"MACC only existed in 2009 and the Act passed in Parliament in 2008."

I think Abu Kasim is bullshitting you lah. Just read sect.74 of the MACC Act.

"If police investigate, then MACC can't investigate." Again Abu Kassim is bullshitting you. What if the Police 'kawtim' with Tajuddin and said NFA. Is the MACC going to keep quite. Is there any provision in the Macc Act or Criminal Procedure which stops the Macc from investigating the cse if the Police makes a fool of themselves?

Abu Kassim has got no balls lah since Gani Patail is involved in covering up the case. That is the truth.

Hardenan is rightlah. Short of ordering MACC to investigate the case, he has every right to ask Abu Kassim, " what is the fu*k with MACC". People like RPK, Salehuddin and Din Merican are duty bound to raise the allegations in public. By right it is the duty of every right thinking malaysians to raise the matter in public and question the Macc why they are not investigating the case. The public is the Macc's stakeholder. We pay them salary to investigate for us and not the other way.

I think you are just trying to cover up Tajuddin's arse. Alternatively since Umno is involved in plundering Mas, you just come out with a story to give the whole issue a spin from Umno's ot Tajuddin's perpective.

Luckily for Tajuddin, we have a corrupt AG who is the Public Prosecutor. For instead of the incompetent MACC, Tajuddin's case would have been better investigated privately by private investigators with the help of experience auditors and accountants. They would have got better evidences which is sufficient to launch a prosecution against Tajuddin by honest and professional prosecutors; the kind you don't get in the AG's Chambers.

Anonymous said...

Din Merican is a very respected figure. I then to agree with him.

Anonymous said...

" OK ... there was a report to MACC for the German Cargo venture. Fine ... but why did they go for arbitration"?

I don't think you know how our judicial system works. Otherwise you don't make such negligent comment.

When a criminal wrong occurs, the aggrieved party always initiated two courses of action. One criminal action by making a 'report of the wrongdoing' to the authorities and also civil action to recover any loss. You can't recover any loss from the offender just by initiating a criminal action. Civil action includes arbitration lah.

under our criminal justice system, the Macc or Police is bound to investigate all informations of criminal wrongdoings whether the information proceeded from the man in the street, or the opposition party or friendly part or whatever lah. Their duty is just to investigate to determine the facts and circumstances of the case and to bring the offender to justice.

That is what the Macc and Police are established for. From where the information comes from is very irrelevant.

A Voice said...

Din

I knew I will get your attention with that word.

You made your point.

Coming back to the issue, yes I agree with you. It is up to the investigating authorities to look at.

Why can't we leave it to the authorities then?

I find it difficult to believe that you said those words because you and RPK have made issues and seldom by passing the authorities.

I know I know you are going to say it is your right as citizen and blah blah ... about executive abuse.

I am not going to let side issues be a distraction.

The simple analysis of the MAS accounts and Abu Kassim stmt actually is an eye opener.

After reading your blog and RPK's on this issue, more things are revealing itself.

It is not so much of defending Tajuddin which he can afford to defend himself.

There is too much spinning and untruthful words said and written.

A Voice said...

Anon 5:59 PM

You said:

"I think you are just trying to cover up Tajuddin's arse.

Alternatively since Umno is involved in plundering Mas, you just come out with a story to give the whole issue a spin from Umno's ot Tajuddin's perpective."

I do not have to release your hostile comments but I allowed it.

Please be civil here, ok?

In case, you are new here, I opposed to Halim Saad's proposal to buy over all the highways.

How inconsistent am I to oppose Halim and then support and spin for Tajuddin?

I am expressing my suspicion and from what I picked up. Is that a crime?

Now look, we have to be fair to everybody and be factual and try to be as correct as possible.

Even to a crony and plunderer that you all accuse of Tajuddin.

There are those that defended Anwar to the hilt for his sodomy charges claiming it trumped up charges, but allowed Tajuddin to be wrongly accused off!

Kata mahu a fair judiciary?

You said:

"I think Abu Kasim is bullshitting you lah. Just read sect. 74 of the MACC Act.

"If police investigate, then MACC can't investigate."

Again Abu Kassim is bullshitting you.

What if the Police 'kawtim' with Tajuddin and said NFA."

I think you are entitled to your opinion but I think duplication is a fair excuse.

If Abu Kassim bullshited, we must get to the bottom of it. But you are being rhetorical and guessing. You bought in to RPK and Din story.

Next time, state your point and fact. No need to be hostile.

Will no tolerate and release hostile tone comments.

It is my call!

My Say