Did PwC cook the Maxis books?

The answer is obviously, no. But, the answer is no, not because of PwC itself, but because of Tan Sri Ananda Krishnan.

That Tan Sri Ananda Krishnan is a man that brooks no nonsense, is not something that the shareholders of Maxis can doubt. But Maxis still has to do the right thing, which is choose between two simple options to assuage any doubts that play in the minds of the shareholders, so long as PwC remain as the external auditors for Maxis.

The easiest option will be of course to change the external auditors. Drop PwC and pick any of the other firms, where the senior partners have not been tainted with questions of fraudulent conduct.

The other option is for Maxis to get the senior partners of PwC to explain away the allegations of fraud against them.

The MD of PwC, Mr.Chin Kwai Fatt, must be asked to give an explanation why he decided, together with Dato' Johan Raslan and Lee Tuck Heng to remain as Directors and shareholders of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), when the company was supposed to have been sold off to IBM Corp in 2002 as part of the global sale of the consulting business of PwC to IBM Corp.

Chin Kwai Fatt & Co must also explain why they decided to hide several hundred million Ringgit worth of contingent liabilities in PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), even though the sale of the consulting business to IBM Corp was to include ALL assets, liabilities and going concerns.

Chin Kwai Fatt & Co must also explain the rationale behind the renaming of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting (East Asia) Sdn Bhd as PwC Consulting Malaysia Sdn Bhd, and appointing two individuals known as Foong Weng Chee and Chu Kum Yoon, who have never been involved in the PwC consulting business as its directors, prior to disposing off the renamed company to IBM Corp as the legitimate consulting arm of PwC in Malaysia.

Chin Kwai Fatt must then explain to the Maxis shareholders why they should not view him with suspicion and distaste when he had signed a false declaration in 2008, that PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U) can meet its liabilities as and when they may fall due despite the following:

1. he did not disclose the several hundred million Ringgit in contingent liabilities in the company
2. he neglected to ensure that the company could meet the cash flow solvency as well as the balance sheet solvency tests to ensure that his statement was valid
3. that he signed this false statement despite the sworn statement by Dato Johan Raslan which stated that the Court of Appeal finds that the claims made against PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U) could not be said to be manifestly unsustainable.
4. that he was also aware that the former Chairman of PwC, Raja Tan Sri Dato' Seri Arshad, had signed a sworn statement that PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U0 was a member firm of the global organisation of PwC
5. that he signed this false statement without disclosing the contingent liabilities even though the company had not made any attempt to strike out the various lawsuits against it.

Chin Kwai Fatt must then get Khoo Chuan Keat to answer the 5 points raised above for signing a similar false declaration in the annual returns for PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U0 in 2009!

After answering all the above, Chin Kwai Fatt & Co must then explain to the shareholders of Maxis why they have chosen to use the services of a  tainted auditor, namely Roger Yue, Tan and Associates to audit the books for PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U)

The shareholders of Maxis will not interrupt the AGM for Maxis this year with the many disturbing questions raised above, but, Maxis must do the right thing. Drop PwC as the external auditors, or get its senior partners to answer the allegations. Pure and simple.

Maxis must assuage the disgust the shareholders feel while Chin Kwai Fatt & Co are allowed to audit the books for Maxis,  even though they have not answered a single one of the many allegations against their conduct.

The answers must be obtained from PwC, even if the regulators and other bodies are unable to do it.

KPMG's Mohamed Raslan's advice to his counterparts in PwC

Raslan adds that when wrongdoing is publicly known, that is the severest form of punishment for a professional.

“Most times, problems that crop up are not known to the public and we often do not know when auditors will 

 rather lose the business than do something illegal,” he says. ~ Up close and personal with Mohamed Raslan Abdul Rahman - StarBiz, Saturday April 2, 2011

KPMG's Mohamed Raslan, knows that his counterparts in PwC, Johan Raslan and Chin Kwai Fatt, have not answered the allegations against them.

What defines a professional? Can the actions of Chin Kwai Fatt and Johan Raslan be taken as those of true professionals? Can their continuing silence and refusal to answer the allegations against them be considered as an example to be emulated by aspiring auditors everywhere?

Johan Raslan's last tweet for months on his twitter page was Dads, which is defined as Dumb As Dog Shit in the Urban Dictionary. He has recently removed this tweet from his page, though the gap between December 11th 2010 and March 30th 2011, is there, yawning like a chasm, which no amount of fiddling can remove.

Since Johan and Chin Kwai Fatt's wrongdoings have become the 'hot topic' in the auditing fraternity, how do they manage to ignore all the snickering and snide looks that people will give them, naturally, whenever they show themselves in public nowadays?

How do they handle the 'burning questions, that their own staff and fellow senior partners in PwC throw at them?

How will they react the next time they meet a true professional like Mohamed Raslan of KPMG in the corridors of the auditing world? Will they hide behind the potted plants, or dash into the nearest closet, or just be brazenly shameless about the whole affair and act as if no one knows what they are doing, and have done?

 Chin Kwai Fatt, why did you sign a false declaration in 2008?

KPMG's Mohamed Raslan standards dictate that an auditor should walk away from a potential client rather than do anything illegal, but the standards (for want of a more suitable word) that Chin Kwai Fatt subscribes to is far less taxing on the soul and the conscience.

In Chin Kwai Fatt's books, even signing a false declaration is A-Okay, if it means more money in the pocket.

PwC fraudsters doing consulting work for PEMANDU!

Big Four among audit firms with faults

Audit Oversight Board releases maiden annual report on findings

KUALA LUMPUR: The Audit Oversight Board (AOB) has pinpointed “a number of shortcomings” after inspecting the country's six largest audit firms last year. 

Last year, the AOB used a risk-based approach to select the six firms for inspection. These firms are the Big Four (PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Ernst & Young and Deloitte) and two others with more than 10 partners. Errol Oh ~ StarBiz 1st April, 2011

Chairman of PEMANDU, YB Senator Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon

CEO of PEMANDU, YB Senator Dato' Sri Idris Jala

"PEMANDU has been mandated to catalyse bold changes in public and private sector delivery, support the ministries in the delivery planning process and provide an independent view of performance and progress to the PM and ministers." - PEMANDU website

The Chairman of the PEMANDU board is YB Senator Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, in charge of National Unity and Performance Management. The post of Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PEMANDU is held by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, YB Senator Dato’ Sri Idris Jala.

PEMANDU recently released its Annual Report for 2010. On page 24 of the report, it says,"We have endeavoured to make the scoring system transparent, open and as precise as possible.

This includes appointing independent third parties to undertake data collection where appropriate. Our specific focus has been on presenting the data truthfully – reflecting both successes and shortcomings to gain a true picture of the GTP’s performance." 

It is a prudent move by PEMANDU to appoint independent third parties to help get the true picture of the GTP's performance. 

There are many third parties fully capable of assisting PEMANDU in obtaining a true picture, so why pick the fraudsters from PwC Malaysia as the third party? The annual report says on page 25:

" To this end, PEMANDU engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers Malaysia (PwC), an independent party, to ensure the information and data inputs used in each of the reported NKPIs agreed with the information provided from the participating Ministerial agencies and departments. 

The respective NKPI calculations were also checked against the guidelines and formulae prescribed by PEMANDU.  PwC's findings highlighted a number of exceptions, which were subsequently addressed and relected in the reported NKPIs. In conclusion, PwC confirmed that the 2010 NKPI actual results have been validated according to the agreed-upon procedures. PwC has also identified opportunities to improve processes and the quality of information. As such, PEMANDU, together with the relevant Ministries have agreed to take prescriptive actions to effect these improvements over the next twelve months.  

Going forward, PwC will work together with PEMANDU to set up an assurance framework to annually assess the quality of sources, processes and information provided."

PEMANDU, how do you reconcile the fact that Chin Kwai Fatt. the MD of PwC, had signed a false declaration in 2008, with the stated desire "to present the data truthfully"?

Chin Kwai Fatt, the mastermind behind the ongoing fraud involving PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U)
 is probably still aggressively lobbying PEMANDU, for ETP jobs. 

PEMANDU, can you get your 'consultants' to answer these concerns first before 'going forward' with PwC as the third party that will assist you in presenting the 'true' picture of what is happening with the GTP program to the Malaysian public?

1. The fact that PricewaterhouseCoopers Malaysia, under it's MD Mr Chin Kwai Fatt, have managed to hide several hundred millions of Ringgit in contingent liabilities under a company called PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U).

2. That despite the global sale of the consulting business of PwC to IBM Corp in 2002, Chin Kwai Fatt & Co have managed to retain the control and ownership of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), by renaming PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting (East Asia) Sdn Bhd as PwC Consulting Sdn Bhd (298801-A) to become a substitute for the real consulting arm of PwC Malaysia, PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U) in the sale to IBM Corporation worldwide.

3. That Chin Kwai Fatt & Co also appointed Ms Chu Kum Yoon, a Company Secretary, and Mr Foong Weng Chee, who runs his own accounting firm, as the Directors for PwC Consulting Sdn Bhd (289801-A). This was done despite the fact that these two 'sham Directors" have never been involved with the consulting business of PricewaterhouseCoopers in any way. All these and more has been done just to defraud the creditors of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U).

4. That despite the fact that Raja Tan Sri Dato' Seri Arshad (the former Chairman of PwC), who signed a sworn statement  in 2001 in which it is attested that PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U) is a member firm of the global organisation of PricewaterhouseCoopers; 

5. As well as another sworn statement by Dato Johan Raslan, the current Chairman of PwC in Malaysia, in which it is stated that the Court of Appeal finds that the claims made against PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U) could not be said to be manifestly unsustainable, Chin Kwai Fatt still signed a false declaration in 2008 that the firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), at the date of the signing is able to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due, without disclosing the contingent liabilities.

6. Furthermore PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U)  ceased operations in 2006, so there is no way for it meet its cash flow solvency against several hundred million in contingent liabilities, and neither is it demonstrated that PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U) is able to meet its balance sheet solvency test. Even then, another Senior Partner in PwC Malaysia, Khoo Chuan Keat signs a false declaration in 2009 that the firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), at the date of the signing is able to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due, without disclosing the contingent liabilities.

PEMANDU, please get your "consultants" to deny these allegations before the Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers jump on your case for using these fraudsters from PwC to present the "truth".