Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera (Judicial Commissioner) "gets slapped in the face" by PwC Malaysia: Here is the proof

 

The Honourable Tuan Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera has made two very unjust decisions with regards to the first discovery application and the leave application for contempt. It has been three months since his decision, and the Judicial Commissioner is yet to write the grounds of judgment as to why he denied leave. As such, the plaintiffs are unable to proceed with their appeal to the Court of Appeal with regards to the leave application. 

What an irony...according to our PwC Malaysia insider, on the 11th of August 2011 in open court, PwC Malaysia's counsel Rabindra Nathan, while engaged in a shouting match with the plaintiffs' counsel, accused the opposing counsel of "slapping him in the face". Four and a half months later, we have absolute and incontrovertible proof that it is actually PwC Malaysia and Johan Raslan who are "slapping" Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera in the face, and here is the reason.

The trial started on the 8th of August 2011. And early on, PwC Malaysia's counsel Rabindra Nathan, did a song and dance in court about how based on PwC Malaysia's reputation and the fact that they are the auditors for super heavyweights like Khazanah Nasional and Sime Darby, as well as how "open and upfront" they are with the court, there will be no need to grant a discovery application for documents, as there is no way PwC Malaysia will even think about pulling a fast one in court. Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera bought into the "story" and did not grant the discovery application. Thereafter, both parties exchanged bundles of documents for the trial.

There were certain documents requested by the plaintiffs which PwC Malaysia said was not in their possession.

Defendants counsel Rabindra Nathan, plans to submit no case to answer because he is desperate not to allow any PwC Malaysia witnesses on the stand...

On the 11th of August 2011, PwC Malaysia's counsel Rabindra Nathan pulls a shocker by claiming that some documents were only discovered the previous day, including one document (an email attachment) that was requested by the plaintiffs before the start of trial, which PwC Malaysia had said was not in their possession. The rest of the documents "found" in the purported safe, were fabricated, and as such they were unable to produce an affidavit as promised by Rabindra Nathan in his counsels' undertaking.

Lo and behold, in an affidavit dated 9th of December 2011, PwC Malaysia's Senior Partner Khoo Chuan Keat, in paragraph 9.1, refers to the email attachment, one of the documents requested by the plaintiffs which PwC Malaysia claimed was not in their possession, was actually located even before the trial. If only Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera had granted the discovery application before the trial, instead of buying into the PwC "paragons of integrity" story, this fiasco would not have happened, there would have been no filing for contempt of court, and PwC Malaysia would not have been able to pull a fast one in court.

And the man to take blame for all this is none other than Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera.

Chin Kwai Fatt and Johan Raslan are fighting tooth and nail not to allow expert witnesses from a rival accounting firm to testify for the plaintiffs.

Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, in EVERY DECISION YOU MAKE, YOU ARE ANSWERABLE TO THE MALAYSIAN RAKYAT.

Part 2 - Kuala Lumpur High Court is being scandalised: How PwC Malaysia is undermining the Malaysian judiciary

PwC Malaysia Senior Partner, Khoo Chuan Keat's affidavit shown below, is in response to the plaintiffs second attempt for discovery of documents and is little more than a lie to cover an earlier lie.

Which 'learned solicitor' in Zulrafique and Partners told Khoo Chuan Keat that the correction has been done?

From the affidavit:-

8. In respect of paragraph 9 of the Plaintiffs Supporting Affidavit, I am advised by the Defendants' solicitors and verily believe that what counsel said before the Honourable Court on 11.8.2011 was corrected and explained to this Honourable Court on 19.9.2011.

Chief Justice Tan Sri Ariffin Zakaria
Learned Chief Justice, please find the time to go through the video recordings and transcripts to see that the 'correction' was merely a statement that the counsel for the defendants has misconstrued his clients' instructions to the point where they cannot file an affidavit. Isn't this basically a false affidavit to cover for a previous lie?

The defendants' counsel on 11.8.2011, said that the documents were found in a safe.

On 19.9.2011 the counsel then said that he had misconstrued the clients' instructions to the point where they cannot file an affidavit, and they cannot answer when the documents were found, simply because the documents are a fabrication, and the counsel misconstruing the clients' instructions is a direct result of the fabrication.


The correction Khoo Chuan Keat refers to was actually a purported explanation to the fabrication.

Chin Kwai Fatt and Johan Raslan are fighting tooth and nail not to allow expert witnesses from a rival accounting firm to testify for the plaintiffs. 

Khoo Chuan Keat who signed the affidavit in reply was not even in court when the defendants counsel made the 'correction'. Why didn't Johan Raslan who was in the gallery, or Chin Kwai Fatt and VU Kumar who were there at the counsels' table, correct the counsel during the day counsel 'misconstrued' his clients instructions?

Counsel 'misconstrued' around 8.30 am, and these three Senior Partners had the morning tea break, lunch and the afternoon tea break to tell their counsel to stop 'misconstruing' their instructions, but yet they didn't....?

Defendants counsel Rabindra Nathan, plans to submit no case to answer because he is desperate not to allow any PwC Malaysia witnesses on the stand...

MORE TO COME............

Kl high court is being scandalised: How PwC Malaysia is undermining the Malaysian judiciary

Datuk Dr Rebecca Fatima Sta. Maria, the Secretary General of MITI, was taken aback recently when a CEO from a Multi National Corporation in India asked her about this blog. She replied that she was not aware of this blog but will check and revert to him. This blog is not only being read in Malaysia but also around the world

Rabindra Nathan said that he misconstrued his clients instructions to the point that his clients could not file an afffidavit. The right thing for Johan Raslan and PwC Malaysia to have done is immediately
withdraw Rabindra Nathan as Counsel, instead here is where the scandal is: Rabindra Nathan continues to appear before the same judge on the same case and behaves as though nothing has happened. 

Johan Raslan knows  this is manifestly wrong but chooses to play along.

Judicial Commissioner  Vazeer Alam has so far made two startling decisions in this case which has baffled the legal fraternity;
i) disallowed the discovery application by the plaintiff for both parties to file an affidavit
verifying list of documents. this application is an absolute given before the start of any trial
ii) disallowed the leave application for contempt in spite of overwhelming evidence

As a result of the discovery application being dismissed, PwC Malaysia then attempted to introduce fabricated documents and the leave application for contempt was because of that.

Chief Justice Tan Sri Ariffin Zakaria.
Learned Chief Justice, shouldn't discovery application for documents be automatically granted to ensure a fair trial?

The Judges who have been involved in  this case since 2001, include the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, YAA Tan Sri Datuk Amar Steve Shim, the current Chief Justice Tan Sri Arrifin Zakaria and
Justices of the Court of Appeal Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail and Justice Hishamuddin Yunus.

In fact in 2005, Justice Hishamuddin Yunus fixed trial dates for this case. Against all odds, PwC Malaysia's counsel obtained a stay of proceedings from the Court of Appeal, pending their appeal to strike out the suit. Hence Justice Hishamuddin Yunus was unable to proceed and hear the case.

PwC Malaysia  successfully managed to stall proceedings for a further 5 years.

In 2010, when the court of appeal hearing was reconvened PwC Malaysia's counsel in open court, 
on Johan Raslan's instructions, withdrew the appeal and were ordered to pay costs to the plaintiffs.

This is the same Johan Raslan who is going to step down soon as Chairman of PwC Malaysia and is the
favourite to take over as Securities Commission Chairman in April 2012.

Shearn Delamore's Rabindra Nathan lies in open court and gets away with it: PwC Malaysia Senior Partners heave a sigh of relief

On 11th August 2011, before Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, PwC Malaysia's lead counsel Rabindra Nathan sought to introduce an additional bundle of documents.

Cambridge educated Rabindra Nathan

Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam did not grant leave for the contempt application.


The clearest sign of contempt is Shearn Delamore's Rabindra Nathan standing at the bar and giving evidence from each document, in full detail, and giving a counsel's undertaking to file an affidavit, with or without a formal application, and saying that :


his instructions were that these documents were discovered
in a safe after six (6) years on the 9th of August 2011.

Rabindra said that
i) the existence of these documents were simply forgotten
ii) these documents were extremely relevant and material to the case
iii) with or without a formal application, his clients will file an affidavit
to introduce these documents.


Rabindra Nathan never fulfilled the undertaking, and has the audacity to say that he misconstrued his client's instructions to the extent that an affidavit cannot be filed, even though his client's were all there in court when he went in detail about the documents and gave his counsel's undertaking to file the affidavit.

Johan Raslan and Chin Kwai Fatt have gotten away with it also.

Dear Malaysians, had Shearn Delamore's Rabindra Nathan come to court in Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia or the United Kingdom, and without batting an eyelid said that he had misconstrued his clients instructions to the point he cannot file an affidavit, would he have gotten away with it? 


Legal pundits, not only in Malaysia but in other Commonwealth countries, when asked about the matter, all said that it is a clear cut case of contempt of court.


In his heart Rabindra feels guilty because he knows he did something very wrong, and got away with it.


This is Malaysia in 2011, where a top lawyer can lie in open court and get away with it. Hopefully Dato Seri Najib will take all this into consideration as he draws up the reform agenda for the country.

Dato Seri Najib, we hope you will take all this into consideration  while reforming the country

PwC Malaysia trial to resume in February 2012

"The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi


Former Chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers Malaysia, Raja Tan Sri Dato' Seri Arshad, who is currently the Maxis chairman, will be subpoenaed as a witness in relation to the sale of PwC Consulting Malaysia Sdn Bhd  to IBM worldwide, and also in relation to a sworn affidavit that he affirmed which contradicts the witness statements of Chin Kwai Fatt, V U Kumar and Jayaram Krishnamoorthy.

Dato' Seri Johan Raslan, V U Kumar and Chin Kwai Fatt will also be on the witness stand.

Unfortunately, our authorities are not as independent as some other authorities around the world.

Stephen John Mead, Senior Vice President and General  Counsel for Maxis

Shearn Delamore's Rabindra Nathan does a stunning about turn at the KL High Court: Rabindra knew the safe was never in existence

On 11th August 2011, before Judicial Commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera,
PwC Malaysia's lead counsel Rabindra Nathan sought to introduce an additional
bundle of documents.

Shearn Delamore's Rabindra Nathan

Rabindra said that his instructions were that these documents were discovered
in a safe after six (6) years on the 9th of August 2011.

Rabindra said that
i) the existence of these documents were simply forgotten
ii) these documents were extremely relevant and material to the case
iii) with or without a formal application, his clients will file an affidavit
to introduce these documents.

JC Vazeer Alam then directed PwC Malaysia to file a formal application and affidavit
by 19th August 2011.

On 23rd August 2011, PwC Malaysia's solicitors, Zul Rafique & Partners wrote a letter
to the KL High Court seeking an appointment to correct certain statements by Shearn Delamore's Rabindra in open court. 

This shocking letter by Zul Rafique was purely because of Rabindra's misadventures.

According to our PwC Malaysia insider, this is actually what happened.

Three of these documents were fabricated and one e-mail attachment was concealed. These documents were actually given to Shearn Delamore even before the trial started.

Rabindra Nathan realising the risk involved decided not to include the documents in
the defendants bundle before the trial started.

The situation changed once the trial started and it was not progressing smoothly for PwC Malaysia.

PwC Malaysia's Senior Partner Lim San Peen and Executive Director Becky Leong assured Rabindra Nathan that one of the Senior Partners will eventually sign the affidavit.

Both of them were apparently present in court during the three days of trial.

Darryl Goon of Raja, Darryl & Loh blindly adopted Rabindra Nathan's submissions without verifying
all the facts on the 11th of August 2011.

Rabindra Nathan's nightmare started when MAXIS started making a lot of noise on the fabricated phone
records. Also, Chin Kwai Fatt's fictitious emails became an issue.

None of the Senior Partners of PwC Malaysia wanted to sign the affidavit. Hence a full scale damage
control operation was carried out.

Here is the shocker! Recently, in open court, Rabindra Nathan said that he misunderstood
his clients' instructions on the safe to the point that his client PwC Malaysia was unable to sign
an affidavit!


One can only imagine the shock that this would have given JC Vazeer Alam who himself was a former
practising lawyer. 

Contempt of Court Leave Application filed against Dato' Seri Johan Raslan and two senior partners of PwC Malaysia at the KL High Court

According to our PwC Insider, PwC Malaysia is alleged to have:

i) Fabricated documents filed in court. These documents were supposedly found in a safe after 6 years.

ii) PwC Malaysia fails to fulfill the Kuala Lumpur High Courts directions for a second time

iii) According to documents filed in court, PwC Malaysia's counsel is said to have misconstrued his client's instructions.

Dato Seri Johan Raslan told his clients last week, including the Chairman of a Public Listed Company  that this court case is not his fault, and that he is being dragged in because of the misdeeds of other Senior Partners...

PwC Malaysia MD, Chin Kwai Fatt's fictitious emails spectacularly backfires: PwC Malaysia in full crisis mode!

Our PwC Malaysia insider reveals as follows:

On the 11th of August in the Kuala Lumpur High Court when proceedings were ongoing, this fictitious email dated 7 September was introduced as part of an additional bundle of documents.

The Judge then directed for the formal application with an affidavit be filed by 19/08/2011 to introduce the additional documents.

This direction was not complied with; we have just learned one of the reasons being as follows.

This newly created an fictitious email describing a version of events CONTRADICTS Chin Kwai Fatt's letter dated the same day and all the defendants pleadings.

Apparently only Johan Raslan and Chin Kwai Fatt knew of this sinister plan but did not expect the Judge to direct for a formal application with an affidavit be filed.

ONCE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS REVEALED THIS INCONSISTENCY, NONE OF THE SENIOR PARTNERS OF PwC MALAYSIA WERE WILLING TO SIGN THE AFFIDAVIT.

Johan Raslan still happily tweeting away at http://twitter.com/#!/johanraslan 

Gatekeepers, influencers and the Auditors ~ Part 3

The failure of the gatekeepers and the influencers to take all necessary measures and precautions, against the possibility of the auditors under their watch resorting to unethical and downright criminal acts for the sake of profit, means that we get the sort of situation we see now with PwC Malaysia. 

Errol Oh, who has written about the duties of the Gatekeepers and the influencers in his weekly column.

When a major auditing firm like PwC Malaysia is exposed, warts and all, and the Malaysian public gets to view the true reality of  the ethical standards which the senior partners in that firm subscribe to, it is not just a blow to the hallowed name of PwC, but also to the auditing fraternity as a whole, and the various bodies and individuals who should have known better than to take their jobs lightly.

It has now come to a stage where PwC Malaysia cannot even follow the directions of the Kuala Lumpur High Court in submitting documents. And even when they do submit documents, we have seen how doctored documents, and illegally obtained phone records are added in, making a mockery of the whole process.

When PwC Malaysia gets away with using its influence to get lucrative Government contracts, as well as getting the staff of its clients to break the rules and guidelines of the clients industry, for PwC Malaysia's benefit, we have the feeling that we have allowed the auditing firms to write their own rules, purely because no one is watching them.

But the fact remains that there are numerous bodies and individuals who have the duty to keep an eye on the acts of a firm like PwC Malaysia. So why the total failure by so many parties, over such an extended period of time?

Is this failure by the gatekeepers and the influencers to keep PwC Malaysia on the straight and narrow, one that is self serving, or simply a manifestation of incompetence?

If the interests of the Malaysian public cannot be protected by the Auditors of Public Interest Entities; and is also not protected by the various bodies who have a watchdog role in the auditing world, should the Malaysian Public now demand yet another layer to watchdog the watchdogs? So where will it end?

The financial repercussions to auditors who overstep the line by a mile or five, like PwC Malaysia, will not be enough to ensure that things do not repeat themselves. When an auditor is ethically compromised, the shareholders of all it's clients who are having sleepless nights wondering why PwC Malaysia are still auditing their companies, have a right to ask the watchdogs if they can guarantee the veracity of what the compromised auditor is signing off on, but that means that the watchdogs have to be at least seen doing their jobs. That is definitely not the case at the moment.

Events are still unfolding, and time will bring more truths to the light, and each revelation is not only a damning indictment of PwC Malaysia, but also the gatekeepers and influencers, who have failed to do what is right. 

PwC Malaysia fail for the second time to comply with the Kuala Lumpur High Court's directions.

Trial to resume on the 16th of November 2011


On the 11th of August 2011, the lead counsel for PwC Malaysia informed the High Court that they were going to file an application to introduce additional documents.


The Judge directed that the application be filed on or before the 19th of August 2011.


This direction was not complied with, neither was an extension of time sought.


PwC Malaysia's Senior Partners remain tight-lipped on the latest developments.

'Supportive' Pakatan has not done it's homework.

Hailing Najib’s decision to set up the Parliamentary Select Committee as a ‘huge feat and a win for democratic forces in Malaysia’, Pakatan said it was also important that an independent international audit firm be appointed to oversee a possible investigation into the current electoral process and systems.

It suggested that globally recognized firms such as PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young and others, be considered. ~ 'Supportive Pakatan lists 7 demands for Najib

It looks like the commenters in the news website freemalaysiatoday.com are more aware of what the big audit firms are capable of than the leadership of Pakatan Rakyat.

Comment 1 : Then you should consider another auditor to audit the initial auditor. After Enron and that world-famous company A. Andersen, we must take extra precaution. After all, all these professionals are also working to earn money

Comment 2 : Why you the big audit guys to do it. They just will charge arms and leg and their work is much to be desired. Get some local firm like ah chong or ahmad or kuppusamy & co to it. 

YB Lim Kit Siang, with PwC as your auditors for cleaner elections, expect that things will only get dirty.

It is important that Pakatan realises that it cannot issue statements without doing its homework. To ask PwC to play a role in electoral reforms is like setting the fox among the chickens. They will be the right candidates if Pakatan actually wanted to make the Malaysian Electoral Process the dirtiest in the world, but why would Pakatan want that?

Tok Guru Hadi, bebudak kat PwC tu tak boleh diharap langsung...

The Pakatan leadership should pay a visit to the KL High Court from the 16th till the 18th of November this year, to see for themselves if they can consider PwC for any job which requires even an ounce of honesty.

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, it is a blunder by your people to ask for PwC to play a role  in any reform, until PwC has reformed itself

This is what happen when politicians do not pay any attention to what is happening on the ground, and judging by some of the comments for the article, it seems that the average voter is more clued in than the leadership of the Opposition in this country.

Reform is always good, as we need to constantly improve our nation so we can regain our rightful place in all areas, but reform must be led by the good, and not by the crooks.

Perhaps the leadership of Pakatan is still under the idea that we are living in pre-Satyam days when it listed PwC as a candidate for an audit of the electoral process and systems, but they will realize the error of their thinking if PwC actually are appointed to the job, and Pakatan then finds out how corrupt and unfair the electoral process can be made, with the right crooks there to supply the ideas.

Gatekeepers, influencers and the Auditors ~ part 2

Our recent expose' on the illegal release of incoming phone records by certain Maxis staff to PwC Malaysia Directors only serves to strengthen the case for a more comprehensive effort, by all the various parties who can influence the standard of Corporate Governance in the country for the good.



Errol Oh calls for the gatekeepers and influencers to buck up....but will they?



The Senior Directors of PwC Malaysia have not only shown that they can influence the very regulators whom are supposed to keep an eye on them, but have also managed to convince the staff of one of their bigger clients, in this case Maxis, to commit an act that has absolutely nothing to do with auditing, but is as illegal as anything that the PwC Malaysia Directors themselves have committed over the years.

This is a symptom of a total breakdown in the efficacy of the CG framework of the country. The regulators have not done their job. The various watchdogs are about as useful as dormice. The internal auditors of Public Listed Companies have no qualms about breaking the law just to satisfy their external auditors. The various accounting bodies are headed by the very same people who are committing the rule breaking acts. And the list goes on.

The two biggest losers in this one sided battle to 'safeguard' the public interest are the citizens of the country, and the Government of Malaysia. The people have no power to disclude auditors like PwC Malaysia from auditing and doing consulting work for the many GLC's and PIE's, and neither do they have the say to prevent their money from being invested into these GLC's and PIE's through the various Government Investment Arms.

The Government itself is setting itself up to be made a mockery of, as all the hard work towards economic transformation and generating solid economic growth is being sabotaged by the inability of its enforcement arms to ensure that investors, both foreign and domestic, can read any financial statement signed of by the likes of those in PwC Malaysia, as being a work of fact, and not one of fiction.

If the Government cannot get the regulators like the Securities Commission and the Audit Oversight Board to get their act together, while at the same time agencies like PEMANDU and its like are handing over lucrative consulting contracts to auditing firms like PwC Malaysia, who have shown the ability to even get a highly regarded company like Maxis to break the rules, then it is putting the cart before the horse when it comes to economic development.We must, as a nation, get our act together in something as fundamental towards
investor confidence as Corporate Governance and Audit standards if we are to join the ranks of the developed world.

And if this journey requires the various gatekeepers and influencers to be forced to do their jobs, so that auditors like PwC Malaysia actually end up doing their jobs as external auditors, instead of instigating their clients to commit illegal acts for the benefit of their external auditors, then that will be a giant step in the right direction.

The slide towards having a Corporate Governance framework which will become used in textbooks around the world as an example of how things are NOT supposed to be done is evident for all to see. The question is, are we going to do anything about it?

The Senior Maxis Executive who has been illegally releasing confidential information to PwC Malaysia

Maxis' representative, Lai Choon Foong, Senior General Manager and Head of Management Accounting and Procurement, says that while both aspects of the accounting profession are important to any business organisation, increasingly, companies see the need to emphasise more on the role played by Management Accountants to analyse and make sense of the raw data. ~ Celebrating Management Accounting



Miss Lai Choon Foong, Senior General Manager and Head of Management Accounting and Procurement for Maxis. Sitting first from right.



Miss Lai Choon Foong is the Senior General Manager and Head of Management Accounting and Procurement for Maxis. This means that she will be expected to work closely with the external auditors, PwC Malaysia, on all kinds of matters.



Does Ms Lai Choon Foong's job include illegally releasing incoming phone records, of the clients of the other telco's in Malaysia, for the Senior Directors of PwC Malaysia?



There is a vast difference between making sense of raw data, as Ms Lai Choon Foong spoke about at the 'National Award for Management Accountants Breakfast Talk' recently, where Maxis Bhd won the 'NAfMA 2011 Excellence Award' for 2011, and illegally releasing the sort of raw data which a telecommunication company like Maxis is supposed to safeguard.

"A Service Provider may collect and maintain necessary data/information of Consumers for tracking practices. However, the collection and maintenance of such data/information shall follow the following good practices:-

h) Not transferred to any party without prior approval from the Consumer.


Service Providers must take appropriate measures to provide adequate security, and respect Consumers preferences...


Service Providers must be open, transparent and meet generally accepted fair information principles including providing notice as to what personal information they collect, use and disclose; ......" MCMC

Did Ms Lai Choon Foong inform Telekom Malaysia, Celcom and Digi, that she would be releasing the data that Maxis had collected on which of their clients had called certain Maxis clients, during a specific period, and obtained the prior approval of the customers of the other telco's, before releasing the numbers to PwC Malaysia?

Did Ms Lai Choon Foong inform the customers of Maxis, that she was going to release the data on which of them had called certain Maxis numbers, because PwC Malaysia had asked for the information.

Did Ms Lai Choon Foong then inform the Senior Management of Maxis, and Maxis' clients, that she was going to release the data on which of them had called certain numbers during a specific period, before she released the information to PwC Malaysia, the external auditors for Maxis?

Ms Lai Choon Foong, has betrayed the trust of not only the clients of Maxis, but also trampled all over the privacy rights of the clients of the other telco companies in Malaysia, with total disregard for the law and the principles of good governance.

With the position that she holds now, as the Senior General Manager and Head of Accounting Management and Procurement for Maxis, can Maxis release to its customers and the customers of the other telco's, on exactly how much more raw data and confidential information, Ms Lai Choon Foong has released to PwC Malaysia and other third parties who have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS to view the data?

Is Maxis going to explain to its shareholders how such a serious breach of the regulations, has remained undiscovered for so long; and on how long will it take Maxis to remove all the gulity parties, including Ms Lai Choon Foong from its payroll?  

And how much longer are Maxis going to retain PwC Malaysia as their external auditors, when PwC Malaysia can just waltz in and take whatever data they need, for their nefarious purposes?

PwC tried to introduce illegally obtained and doctored phone records in the KL High Court this week: MAXIS violating MCMC regulations - Part 2

Coming soon : The Senior Maxis Executive who has betrayed the trust of Malaysians....

Page 2 of the documents we have recently received, courtesy of our PwC Insider. It shows Maxis staff exchanging e mails with the Directors of PwC Malaysia  and releasing confidential incoming phone records to them, an act that is illegal.



Page 1

"As requested here are the extracted CDR's for incoming calls for the period of ........." Is the hold that PwC Malaysia has over its client MAXIS, so strong that if they wanted to, they can even obtain the extracted CDR's for incoming calls for, lets say, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.... or Tan Sri Khalid Ramli, the Chairman of the MCMC?

We are seeing how Maxis employees have disclosed the call records of Malaysian phone users to the Directors of PwC Malaysia, who the last we checked, are not a part of the Royal Malaysian Police, without the consent of the users. And since they have discluded the 012 and International incoming calls from the illegally released records, they have then basically trampled over the rights of the clients of Telekom Malaysia, Digi, Celcom and whoever else they wished to. This is so much worse than just disclosing the records of their own 012 clients, if that alone is not bad enough.

Perhaps there are some loopholes they were hoping to use in their defence if they were ever caught, but to disclose the numbers of clients of the other telco's to a third party, probably means that Maxis shareholders will now have to think seriously about the ethical and legal implications of this unforgiveable act.

How does the Institute of Corporate Responsibility view the illegal disclosure of phone records to the Directors of your firm, Datuk Seri Johan Raslan?

This is a new chapter in the study of Auditor - Client relationships. Perhaps a chapter that will show shareholders everywhere, that more can happen behind the sanctity of this relationship than can be considered healthy.

What other records have PwC Malaysia obtained illegally from Maxis? The phone records of who calls their counterparts in Ernst & Young perhaps? Or who calls the GLC's when there are bids for lucrative consulting contracts? Perhaps they can even tell us, through their connections with Maxis employees, who will win the first major contract for the MRT project.

The MCMC, the management of Maxis and its shareholders, the legal departments of Telekom Malaysia, Celcom and DIGI, the various watchdogs and the Malaysian People, will do well to take heed of what is happening between PwC Malaysia and their informers from Maxis. 

It seems our privacy can be breached with something as simple as an e mail, when PwC Malaysia is involved. 

PwC tried to introduce illegally obtained and doctored phone records in the KL High Court this week: MAXIS violating MCMC regulations

Page 1 of the documents we have recently received, courtesy of our PwC Insider. It shows Maxis staff exchanging e mails with the Directors of PwC Malaysia  and releasing confidential incoming phone records to them, an act that is illegal.

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this Message that do not relate to the official business of Maxis shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by Maxis.  ~ Maxis e mail disclaimer.

Tan Sri Ananda Krishnan. Does he know what is going on in Maxis?

The following is from the MCMC guidelines for telco service providers:


A Service Provider may collect and maintain necessary data/information of Consumers for tracking practices. However, the collection and maintenance of such data/information shall follow the following good practices:-


a) Fairly and lawfully collected and processed;


b) Processed for limited purposes;


c) Adequate, relevant and not excessive;


d) Accurate;


e) Not kept longer than necessary;


f) Processed in accordance with the data subject's rights;


g) Secure;


h) Not transferred to any party without prior approval from the Consumer.


Service Providers must take appropriate measures to provide adequate security, and respect Consumers preferences...


Service Providers must be open, transparent and meet generally accepted fair information principles including providing notice as to what personal information they collect, use and disclose; ......


Maxis cannot disclose the incoming phone records to any third party without the consent of the Consumer. And for PwC Malaysia to actually attempt to use this illegally obtained documents in the KL High Court is an act of total disregard for the laws of the country.

Datuk Seri Johan Raslan. Chairman of the Institute for Corporate Responsibility.

When the phone records that PwC Malaysia tried to submit to the KL High Court are shown, it will become clear how much respect there actually exists in the minds of the PwC Malaysia directors when it comes to respecting the rights of their fellow citizens. And Datuk Seri Johan Raslan is the Chairman for the Institute of Corporate Responsibility?


And for the staff of Maxis to give in to the illegal requests from the Directors of PwC Malaysia, who are also their auditors, is something that cannot be taken lightly. 


There is a lot more to come with regards to this latest illicit act of PwC Malaysia, yet another one in a long string  that we have continuously exposed here.

VU Kumar......6012-2001314

Chin Kwai Fatt......6012-2001813

Gatekeepers, influencers and the Auditors.

These professionals the so-called gatekeepers include company secretaries, internal and external auditors, corporate advisers, lawyers, rating agencies and valuers.


The influencers are the analysts, financial journalists, watchdog groups and other corporate governance advocates. The Blueprint points out that this group does not have explicit nexus with companies or their boards, but they have an important role in promoting corporate governance through their ability to influence public opinion and to highlight poor governance practices. Step up, Gatekeepers and Influencers - Errol Oh (The Star 6th August 2011)

Mr Errol Oh, helping things get back on track.

The Audit Oversight Board is a gatekeeper. And its job is to ensure that only auditors who are vetted and truly qualified for the job in terms of conduct are allowed to audit Public Interest Entities. It's parent, the Securities Commission is also a gatekeeper, with the power to take to task any auditor that falls short of acceptable standards of ethics and practise.

But can these two closely linked bodies alone be enough to safeguard the interests of the public, whose monies are tied up in the PIE's, via one government investment arm or another?

As we have seen with the case of PwC Malaysia, auditors can exert a degree of influence on the very gatekeepers who are supposed to scrutinise them, to the extent that standards are not met, and ethics is just a random word with little meaning.

Mr Errol Oh's contention that the gatekeepers and influencers have to step up is timely. The global economic turmoil is still chugging along, and our country can scarcely afford another accounting scandal of major proportions when market players are as jittery as they are. Even if that was not the case, don't we have to achieve some semblance of a standard in Corporate Governance and Audit practices on our way to becoming a developed economy.

We have seen how the citizens of this country are demanding a greater say in matters which they have traditionally not been too concerned about. If private citizens, whether rightly or wrongly, can make the choice to make their voice heard, then what are the various parties who are supposed to be the gatekeepers and influencers, as the SC terms them doing about Corporate Governance standards?

As Mr Errol Oh sums it up, "More to the point, these measures won't work if the gatekeepers and influencers don't buy into the idea that they have a part to play in enhancing corporate governance in Malaysia. If they refuse to accept this, they have no business being gatekeepers and influencers in the first place."


If the gatekeepers and influencers continue to shirk their duties, then it will be just a matter of time before they are replaced by independent watchdogs, who will be as brutal in their handling of these gatekeepers and influencers, as they can be of recalcitrant auditors.

PwC Malaysia's Senior Partner insults the Prime Minister and does not apologise

vukumar uthaya kumar 

A real patriot,not the ex PMs opportunistic SIL,died yesterday.

10 Jul

vukumar uthaya kumar 

Scotland Yard on the take..PDRM rules ok!We need a Police Commission..

10 Jul

vukumar uthaya kumar 

Page 2 of Star Najib meets Queen.Polis to arrest Queen.She is wearing Bersih Yellow

15 Jul

VU Kumar, "Ada ubi ada talas, ada budi ada balas"

PwC Malaysia was given a week to issue a public apology to the Prime Minister and the Royal Malaysian Police, for poking fun at them via the tweets shown above, and two weeks down the road, there has been nothing forthcoming from PwC Malaysia except silence.

PM Najib, should PwC Malaysia still be the biggest winners when it comes to government contracts related to consulting and audit jobs?

It does not matter if the page of tweets no longer exists, because what's done cannot be undone. And without a sincere apology from the culprits behind the tweets in PwC Malaysia, how can anyone accept that PwC Malaysia knows what the meaning of respect is.

If PwC Malaysia can insult their biggest client, the Government of Malaysia, imagine the contempt with which they view their lesser clients. Or is it simply a case of 'pride comes before a fall', or overconfidence in their own abilities and importance? That cannot be right, as we have seen in many instances, PwC Malaysia are not the pinnacle of auditing standards. Perhaps it is just the pride that comes with being the biggest audit firm that makes PwC Malaysia think that it can insult anyone at all and get away with it.

There is a proverb that is rather apt for PwC Malaysia, " jika kepalanya ular, takkan ekornya belut".  The question remains though, on what PEMANDU and Khazanah will do the next time the Senior Partners from PwC Malaysia come knocking on their doors for contracts and deals.

It is one thing to bully creditors and pull the wool over the eyes of the regulators, but to not even have the decency to apologise for insulting the Premier is definitely a new low for PwC Malaysia. This recalcitrancy, if it goes unpunished, will set a precedent which does not bode well for the country, as it can be taken as a sign of weakness.

The only way it can be worse is if PwC Malaysia continue winning cushy contracts from PEMANDU, Khazanah and the GLC's despite what they have done, and their unwillingness to apologise for the insults.