http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read.cfm?NewsID=2151 by Joshua Kong 31 July, 2016
1Mana Dapat Bicara in Malaysia as Catch 22
God help Malaysia in 1MDB as we have sort of reached a stage beyond redemption with the details now known in stages to all despite endless denials by some quarters.
I can see those dubious denials despite it had gone through 3 public auditors and the Auditor General with their questioned performance since 2009 when the first appointed auditor did not finish its year work and then sacked for not signing the audit report, and then followed by two more public auditors, and another was sacked after signing three years of auditors’ reports 2010, 2011 and 2012 and while another still holding office after signing two years of auditors’ reports 2013 and 2014 with the latest 2015’s account still yet to be “ready” or “filed”. In the meantime it is also known that the current auditors also want to be out pending another new auditor to be appointed. So what an unexplainable experience faced by 1MDB when most auditors would stay on for decades?
Why should such scenario arise when 1MDB had “clean” audit reports attached to the Annual Reports for the past few years?
As I wrote earlier that the Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM) or aka ROC did not have the 1MDB’s file in its records and who can give me the answer when more than 1 million registered companies are held by SSM and they are open for search. Once I get hold of the company’s profile, I would give my views as desirable.
So far the three auditors had been quiet over the debacle of 1MDB even with so much public discourse over it.
I had called for Royal Commission of Inquiry over 1MDB to deal with so many issues so far raised to be fair to all including the top leaders who had been issuing denials after denials that no wrong had occurred.
So why no RCI to resolve 1MDB when it is a Government’s wholly owned company operating as a sort of “sovereign fund” for the people?
Otherwise, 1MDB is a private enterprise?
The Parliamentary Accounts Committee’s (PAC) function and performance is also subject to many questions.
Why not hold a Parliament Select Committee on 1MDB so that the public can participate in it?
Has the Federal Parliament also fail us when the Auditor General’s report is classified as OSA after the earlier interim report of the AG was termed “limited” shutting all information for the Parliament and the people.
Several important questions for the AG who did not commence its supervisory duty on a Government’s owned company since 2009. Why only in 2014 when AG was authorised to deal with a special audit on 1MDB after so many questioned transactions had occurred?
The AG told the Court a few days ago that he was authorised by the Prime Minister in 2012 to classify his reports OSA. May I ask the AG as to how many of his reports had been classified as OSA like he did to 1MDB’s report? If he had not classified any of his reports OSA, why 1MDB is treated unusual?
Also may I ask if it is the AG to perform for the people or any special group of people in matters of public interest? With OSA status on 1MDB’s report, it defeats the purpose of that report.
Unfortunately or otherwise, the AG’s report on 1MDB had been exposed in social media albeit it had been re-typed to avoid the definition of OSA.
So the said report is now academic and no longer secret in its content as exposed by Sarawak Report and the Department of Justice USA effort in Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiatives (KARI).
Would AG now declassify that said OSA Report?
Similarly, there must be abundant information in the alleged “fraudulent” status of a treatment of the case IPIC with 1MDB worth USD6.5b before an arbitration panel in London.
So lots of data can be cross verified with the Sarawak Report (countless length), KARI (136 pages) and the IPIC’s Arbitration document (bulky) together with the several years of Annual Reports plus the OSA document of AG although the “contents” could have now exposed in the social media.
Do we have enough of it to work something out to resolve the 1MDB’s debacle? Would the public auditors be embarrassed now when 1MDB/Deloitte declared that audited accounts of 2013 and 2014 are not to be relied by any party.
Why such a statement made by 1MDB? Does 1MDB already know something of the frauds but denied earlier? Such a statement would irk most people especially the professionals involved as it opens up a can of worms of such abuses such as mismanagement, embezzlement, corruption, frauds, manipulation, irregularities, misrepresentation and yet undetected by the professional auditors in several years.
Deloitte Malaysia said its audit of 1MDB in 2013 and 2014 would have been impacted if it had known at that time the information contained in the United States Department of Justice's (DOJ) lawsuits to seize 1MDB-linked assets.
As such, 1MDB's 2013 and 2014 financial statements, which the auditing firm signed off on March 28, 2014 and Nov 5, 2014, "should no longer be relied upon", it said in a statement.
The AG also made such statement in the Courts as reported in the press and I quote” He also admitted that he was unsure if his team had followed procedure in classifying the initial interim report as “limited”. “ I am also not sure if the procedure was followed by my officers in classifying it as limited. I will have to check on that ,” he told the court”
Is this acceptable? Can it be a lie too?
Would AG also comment on his OSA report be ‘reliable” following KARI exposure on 1MDB?
Can 1MDB get a new auditor after Deloitte notified of its intention to resign on Feb 26?
If not, 1MDB would be wound up possibly bring the worst black mark to the nation and the accounting profession.
This is what the accounting profession has to re-assess itself especially in the top range practitioners. What does Malaysian Institute of Accountants feel about this? So far, we have not heard anything from MIA or simply “missing in action” but hopefully not for too long? Maybe kleptocracy is beyond its scope as MIA is part of the Government setup.
It would appear that with the prolonged affairs of 1MDB, the check and balance mechanism has been absent and is no longer applicable. Is it a one-man show as KARI implied with Malaysian Official 1?
Now, it has been confirmed by KARI that USD681m or RM2.6b is no longer ‘donation’ and would IRB consider that income as taxable now in 2013?
What would the three public accountants and auditors do now to redeem themselves following KARI?
Would they lodge Police Reports to state their standing on their performance which can be seen to be lacking in ‘integrity’ too?
I also expect the Auditor General to lodge Police report to cover their action on limited classification and OSA status.
.
While KARI and other similar actions would be pursued by other nations investigating the banking activities vis-à-vis 1MDB and its group of companies, I strongly urge the local parties involved with 1MDB in the context of accounting, auditing, and management be in a position to clear themselves in the absence of Royal Commission of Inquiry and other independent investigations ongoing if genuine within Malaysia.
People are already very much fed up with the unnecessary prolonged 1MDB and would very much like to see good governance prevails in the nation to move forward in line with the tougher global challenges in our midst.
Joshua Y. C. Kong 27/7/2016
