International bribery scandal, Alcael-Lucent barred from Celcom Asiata, TM deals

Tweet

Can Malaysia prevent another international bribery scandal? 
By Friday Reflections - By B.K. Sidhu

ALCATEL-LUCENT has been blacklisted for 12 months.

Axiata Group and Telekom Malaysia Bhd (TM) will avoid dealing with them till early next year. This ban affects both the international company, Alcatel-Lucent SA, and the Malaysian operations, Alcatel-Lucent Malaysia Sdn Bhd.

Alcatel has a big office at Wisma Denmark, Kuala Lumpur, and a pool of engineers, some of whom are expatriates. Internally, they must be counting their lucky stars that it is only 12 months, not 12 years, or else they may have to pack and return to France.

Other vendors who find Alcatel a challenger must be rejoicing as it is one vendor out of the race at a time when telcos/celcos are preparing for the next-generation network awards.

To recap, two days after Christmas last year, the international bribery scandal involving Alcatel broke out. The French giant, to avoid prosecution, decided to pay US$137mil to settle US charges that it paid millions of dollars in bribes to foreign officials to win and maintain contracts in Costa Rica, Hondurus, Taiwan and Malaysia.

The documents released by the US Department of Justice and Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) stated that Alcatel paid improper payments to secure contracts with Celcom Axiata Bhd, a unit of Axiata Bhd. Then, Celcom was a unit of TM and it awarded a telecoms contract to Alcatel that ended in 2009. The bribes totalled US$700,000 and were paid between 2004 and 2006 to consultant A and B. No details are available as to who these consultants are but purportedly said to be TM employees. They got paid off for supplying information on competitor's pricing.

After the scandal broke out, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had to jump in to investigate and the agency literally housed itself in TM and Alcatel for several days to weeks, interviewing dozens of people and fine-combed tonnes of documents to nab the culprit. At the same time, TM and Axiata conducted their own internal investigations.

In all these investigations, it would be good to see if there was any potential conflict of interest.

This week, MACC suggested that vendors who pay bribes be blacklisted and both TM and Axiata jumped in to blacklist the French company.

But the story does not end here.
The giver has been punished and the question on many people's lips is if any evidence has been unearthed to nab the takers those who took or shared the US$700,000. Will they be brought to the book or will this be hushed-up and some people get away scot-free? The names of the consultants are awaited by some with abated breadth.

For one, MACC has not finished its investigations and may announce more details next week or the coming weeks. The men are still at work and we just need to be patient.

Punishing Alcatel and making sure it does not have new business for a year or so can be bad for the company, but will it deter others and prevent a similar episode?

In Alcatel's case, it had to swallow the bitter pill for what it did. Why this bribery case happened is because there is a precedent set in the industry. It is a global thing in the world of telecoms some expect, some like to give, some ask.

Can it be prevented in the future?

A vendor representative says there is a need for greater transparency at all levels of the tender process from the technical evaluations right up to the commercial bidding and if no one takes, no one will give.

Another said: “To stop the spiral of cronyism and corruption and not let things build up until there are ugly consequences for our leaders, the Government and the nation, we need to call for open and transparent tender processes for all procurement for government-linked companies and government departments and agencies.''

Talk is cheap but execution is tough. However, if we are serious, then we have to prevent abuse and curb corruption at every step of the way. And if we need to learn from others, we should, as we can easily borrow some of SEC's books and force a rigorous audit process. That will get us somewhere or we can just sit down and do damage control every time it happens. The choice is really in our hands.

Deputy news editor B.K. Sidhu wonders why dropped and failed calls have become so rampant these days.

 Alcatel-Lucent barred from Celcom Axiata, TM deals for a year

By LEONG HUNG YEE  hungyee@thestar.com.my

PETALING JAYA: Both Axiata Group Bhd and Telekom Malaysia Bhd (TM) have barred Alcatel-Lucent from participating in tenders, contracts or joint ventures for a year following the call from Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

“Alcatel-Lucent welcomes the MACC recommendation and is committed to earning back our customers' trust,” it said in a statement in response to the 12-month suspension.

Axiata said the suspension runs for 12 months from Feb 18 while TM's suspension was effective Jan 5.
Analysts said the probe set up by TM to investigate the improper payment and suspension was good for investors as well in the efforts to improve corporate governance.

“The suspension will send a strong message that graft is not tolerated here,” an analyst said, adding that the move would safeguard foreign perception and demonstrate that the Government took such allegations seriously in its efforts to promote foreign direct investments.

Another analyst said it would also strengthen and reinforce internal procurement policies and uphold the integrity of dealings with equipment vendors.

However, some are saying that it was unfair that only Alcatel-Lucent was penalised in this situation. Analysts believe the call made by MACC was the first move and would probably shed more light with regard to allegations that TM employees received payments from Alcated-Lucent.

TM said the actions or solutions with regard to the alleged improper payments received by TM employees were pending the outcome of the MACC investigation.

The equipment vendor said the recommendation followed Alcatel-Lucent's settlement with the United States Department of Justice and Security Exchange Commission that was announced in December 2010. However, Alcatel-Lucent said it focused on activities occurring from 2004 to 2006, prior to the merger of Alcatel and Lucent Technologies in 2006.

Alcatel-Lucent, previously known as Alcatel, was investigated over allegations that it had used the services of consultants and made illicit payments to win or keep multi-million dollar telecommunication contracts in several countries including Malaysia.

Alcatel-Lucent and three of its subsidiaries had to pay more than US$137mil (RM423mil) in fines and penalties to settle US charges.

According to court documents, Alcatel-Lucent agents were alleged to have paid bribes to officials in Malaysia to obtain or retain a telecommunications contract worth US$85mil (RM263mil) .

Subsequently, TM set up a task force to investigate the alleged improper payments from Alcatel-Lucent to its staff regarding bids for the then Celcom Bhd's 3G mobile services.

In a filing on Bursa Malaysia Wednesday, TM said there was no financial impact apart from the cost of investigation and related administrative expenses, as a result of the investigation.

It said the contract in question related to a technology that TM did not operate anymore so there are no immediate impact on operations.

“TM also does not foresee any major impact on existing operations as the board agreed that TM will honour prior contractual obligations entered into with Alcatel Lucent and its group of companies,” TM said.

It said the TM board considered and deliberated the findings of the investigation and agreed that the report by KPMG Corporate Services Sdn Bhd be submitted to the MACC which was duly furnished on March 1, 2011.

Both Axiata and TM said they might review Alcatel-Lucent's suspension from time to time subject to the latter providing assurances and evidence satisfactory to the TM group that it had implemented clear enforceable policies and measures to prevent a recurrence of any improper acts.

Proof lies in the sex video, Anwar! Whistleblower seen in sex tape: The 3 Datuks

Proof lies in the sex video, Anwar!
Comment By Joceline Tan, 
Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah (L) and Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Chik (R). -PHOTO: NSTP

Tweet
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s political allies must insist that the controversial sex video be sent for scientific testing if they are sincere about his political survival.

THE burning question now is whether or not the man in the sex video is Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Only a handful of people can answer that with some degree of authority because everyone else talking or writing about it has not viewed the video.

One of those who has watched it is Anwar loyalist and Sungai Petani MP Datuk Johari Abdul who called a press conference to declare that he is convinced that it was not Anwar in the video. He is the only one so far who has disputed the identity of the man having sex in the video.

The conclusion of the others, mostly media people, vary from remarks that “the face looks like Anwar but the stomach is too big” to an outright affirmation.

A newspaper editor who had viewed it said that he had thought to himself, “Oh my goodness, that’s Anwar Ibrahim,” the moment the video showed a man entering a hotel room wearing a towel around his waist. The resemblance was that close.

Pakatan Rakyat politicians from the top down have since slammed the video, claiming it is doctored.
A giant question mark will continue to hang over the identity of the man in the video until and unless the video is sent for scientific verification.

But Pakatan leaders seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room in their bid to do damage control.

Anwar’s allies and supporters should be demanding for a conclusive verification of the video rather than disparaging the people behind it and running down the way it was screened to a select group.

They should be demanding a copy of the video so that they can decide for themselves and more importantly, verify it with an independent film studio of their choice.

The best place, it is said, is the FBI lab in the United States.

That way, they can check whether the video is doctored and if Anwar’s head has indeed been superimposed on the naked body of someone else.

As DAP strategist Liew Chin Tong said: “If it’s a fake, Anwar will emerge stronger than ever. If it is authentic, it’s the end of Anwar’s political career.”

It is true that it is an offence to possess or view pornographic material and the law should take its course here.

At the same time, there is little doubt that the three people connected to the video – Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Chik, Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah and Datuk Shuib Lazim – have motives of their own.


Anwar had a direct hand in Rahim’s fall from grace back in the 1990s and this is probably payback time.

Shuib is treasurer of Perkasa, a group which feels that Anwar has let down the Malay cause.

Eskay’s motives are a little more complex. Eskay, who is from Kedah and of Thai descent, was the former honorary consul to Thailand.

He has had quite an interesting career, having worked as a sports therapist in the United States, including for the US Olympics gymnastics team as well as the Dallas Cowboys, a professional American football team.

He has a land in Naka, Kedah, where he rears goats and rides about on his horse wearing a stetson hat and carrying a rifle. That is why he is also known as Datuk Cowboy.

He is one of the few people to have stayed close to two arch enemies, namely Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar.

Dr Mahathir, always on the lookout for successful Malaysians abroad, brought Eskay back to Malaysia to help Anwar with his backaches caused by the latter’s riding injury.

That was the start of the friendship between Eskay and Anwar. Again, Anwar has demonstrated poor judgement in his choice of friends.

And while allies and supporters have rallied around Anwar, Nurul Izzah, his daughter and party vice-president, has been far too quiet. She has not uttered a word about the controversy but she was present at Johari’s press conference on Wednesday where she sat with her arms crossed, looking solemn and unsmiling. She was clearly uncomfortable when Johari attempted to describe what he had seen in the video.

Nurul Izzah rose on the family name but she showed an independent streak in the way she carried herself during the PKR polls last year and has gone against Anwar’s will on a number of occasions.
Her silence and her body language speak volumes about her anxiety and concern regarding the latest allegations against her father.

Even Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail has not been her usual self since the controversy exploded. She has been by her husband’s side like the loyal wife that she is but she has looked sad and somewhat deflated.

Her station as the president of PKR has been completely overwhelmed by her role as the wife of a political leader fighting for his survival.

Regardless of whether the video involves her husband, this is not the best of time for her. The lady has had to take on more hardship than she deserves in this lifetime.

Anwar on the other hand is in top fighting mood. He has pointed the finger at everyone from the Prime Minister down.

But if he truly wishes to clear his name on the video issue, he should initiate the process of sending the video for scientific testing without further delay.

And if he is innocent as he claims, he will come out stronger.

Whistleblower seen in sex tape 

by NG CHENG YEE  chengyee@thestar.com.my 

Tweet

KUALA LUMPUR: Businessman Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah is sure that the sex video is genuine because he himself is seen in the footage.

 “I can 100% confirm because I was in the tape. This is not a body double. You see me in the tape,” said Eskay at a packed press conference at a hotel in Jalan Pinang here yesterday afternoon.

He was replying to questions from reporters over whether the video footage was genuine and if the man in the tape was indeed Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Question: What were you doing there (in the footage)?

Answer: I cannot tell you! I am in the tape, why should I lie to you? Many people know me, I have given you my name.

Q: In the statement, you said you were not going to hand over the video to the police, but then why do you say now that you are going to do so? Are you under pressure?

A: I received an SMS that PKR president and Anwar's wife Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ahmad wants to view the tape. They even sent a mediator to ask me for the tape, which you know I would never give. Datuk Anwar is also my friend. They decided to go to the police so we are also going to the police.

Q: Is there only one tape or are there more?

A: Only one. Nobody has it. I could have sold it but it's not about money; it's about the truth
Eskay, who is embroiled in a court case where he sued a company for RM20mil for a breach of contract, also stressed that he was not an Umno member.

It was reported that Eskay discovered the tape when he was asked by the man in the video to retrieve a gold Omega watch.

Eskay claimed that while searching for the watch he discovered the recorder in a drawer.
Earlier, Eskay and former Malacca Chief Minister Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Chik spoke to the press after their identities were exposed by PKR Sungai Petani MP Datuk Johari Abdul at a press conference.
Rahim told reporters that Datuk T was a monicker for him, Eskay and Perkasa treasurer Datuk Shuib Lazim.

“The three of us are Datuks. You can say Datuk T stands for Datuk Trio or Datuk Tiga,” said Rahim, stressing that they did the expos on the video because they wanted to ensure that the people knew the truth.

On whether he was a spectator in the sexual acts, Eskay said: “I will give the full cooperation to the police. I will tell the police the truth and nothing but the truth.”

On why he did not go straight to Anwar if he was so sure it was him in the video, Eskay said: “I never knew there was going to be a tape. If I have the tape, somebody else will also have the tape, think about it.”

Eskay, who stressed several times that he and Anwar were friends, said there was no fallout between them. “It's about time, enough is enough. I had enough of being used,” he said.

Eskay also denied that the revelation of the video was a blackmail attempt.

“No, it's not blackmail. I did not ask for money. I will go straight to Anwar Ibrahim if I were to blackmail him and I would not be going to the press,” he said.

He also denied suggestions that the revelation was politically motivated, saying that if that was the case he would have distributed copies of the video in Sarawak.

On whether he is worried about his safety, Eskay said: “Of course I am worried about my safety. I hope now the police can take some precaution and help me out.”

Related Stories:
Rahim, Eskay and Shuib unmasked as men behind video
Datuk T trio want royal inquiry on steamy scandal
PKR man: Video an attempt to get me and five MPs to defect
Pahang PKR hits out at outdated political ploy'
Kit Siang calls for fair treatment
Step down in interest of nation, Anwar told
Prove your claims, Hisham dares accusers
Shuib confident truth will prevail
Press clamoured to watch video, says Eskay

Dr Mahathir, Politician to the core

Review by OOI KEE BENG

Tweet

This long-awaited autobiography is more about the political than the personal

BELIEVE it or not, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has been a part of Malaysian politics since World War II. Thus, his long-awaited memoirs easily drives home the fact that his influence runs deep and continues unabated, over 60 years later.

Not one to shy away from controversial views, he expressed grave disappointment with every one of Malaysia’s prime ministers and deputy prime ministers, barring Tun Abdul Razak Hussein.

Studying his words, one also sees that Mahathir was often in conflict with himself, for example when denying the key role he must have played in many failures and controversies.

He is also known for his willingness to do whatever it took to remain in power once he had reached the pinnacle in 1981. His deputies never had an easy time, and all of them fell by the wayside. Not even Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, despite being the only one to reach the position of prime minister, could remain safe from Mahathir’s assailment.

The stamp of ownership Dr M put on Malaysian nation building is undeniable, and no one today doubts that both the good and the bad from his long period of dominance will continue for quite some time yet.

His 22 years in power were controversial ones, during which scandals broke one after the other, and opponents were at times arrested without trial. The latter actions, he now claims, were against his will.

But his tenure was also the time when Malaysia gained global prominence, not only as an economic wonder and a showcase for “moderate” Islam but also as a multiracial society that posed as champion of the South and the Muslim world as well.

However, after he stepped down in October 2003, the long-term effects of his method of nation building have become obvious. Institutional degradation threatens to be his lasting legacy, and the establishments ruined in his time include Umno itself.

One can thus understand that his memoirs was eagerly expected. Many wish to know how he perceives his own achievements, and even more want to see some regret.

Now that he is no longer a politician, can he exercise enough distance from his own past to achieve a credible narration of his life and achievements?

As it turns out, he can’t. Dr Mahathir cannot not be a politician. Perhaps how he sees himself is best noted in what he says about his daughter: “Marina turned out to be a lot like me: argumentative, stubborn, opinionated and always believing she is right. She does not mind expressing her views: and that makes things very difficult sometimes. (Tun Dr Siti) Hasmah always said that an elephant could get crushed between two people who think they are always right”. (Page 216.)

Doctor In The House, stretching over 800 pages, varies in style. It varies in depth as well, with some subjects studied much more at length and in detail than others.

Taking too long to finish a book has many drawbacks, the chief of which is that the parts will not gel well, making the final product feel like a collection of chapters written by different people. It does not help that Dr M dwells excessively on the chapters that are lessons in official history and not biographical.

I was certainly left wishing that he had had expert help or that he had listened more to whatever expert help he may have had when finishing the book.

The lack of proper referencing gets exasperating after a while since many claims made in the book certainly cry out for verification. Yet, it is not historical errors that are the major irritant. Many concepts, especially nationalistic notions, are thrown in without any consideration of their dubiousness. “Tanah Melayu” is used as if it were a reference to a bygone polity and not a term used by early anthropologists.

Mahathir’s potential for controversy was obvious already when he began publishing articles in The Sunday Times after the war. His first piece saw the light of day on July 20, 1947. It was about Malay women empowering themselves, and about how their “fervent nationalism and sympathetic understanding” actually inspired their men to struggle for their own survival.

This view on women is one of the more commendable aspects of Mahathir (page 235), as is his affection and respect for his wife, Dr Siti Hasmah, and his joy in fatherhood.

Some of his passing memories are amusing to read as well, and I am sure they bring a recognising smile to older Malaysians the way Lat’s cartoons do; by capturing passing pedestrian scenes that otherwise remain outside description.

Most other areas that he draws attention to are done in a much less amiable fashion. The issue of race, a 19th century notion that most social scientists today find well nigh impossible to define, let alone use, is not a problem for Dr Mahathir. And he does realise that much of what he had to say can be construed as racist or narcissistic (page 24).

But although that is not his stated intention, I have to say that the fervent and categorical use of “race” is disturbing and certainly makes his book unnecessarily racialist, if not racist.

Some narcissism is apparent when he exaggerates his role in the resistance against the Malay Union (pages 92-95) or when he claims that after his expulsion from Umno, “no one else was championing the cause of the Malays” (page 210).

He is probably right when complaining that he became persona non grata after Tunku Abdul Rahman kicked him out of Umno in 1970, but to be flabbergasted and to protest as avidly against being ignored after his retirement in 2003 is surely unjustified (pages 210, 243).

“Successors, even if they are of the same party, do not wish the people to remember their predecessors. Many try in different ways to obliterate memories of the recent past. This is easy if the predecessor is disgraced, yet even if the predecessor willingly surrenders power, a successor may be uncomfortable if he is remembered too kindly (page188).

The lack of a serious class analysis in the book is disturbing, as is Dr M’s tendency to place blame on others in analysing history.

He accuses the British of being unfair in devaluing the pound sterling without first telling Malaysia about it (page 189). But currency devaluations do not work unless they come as surprises; that is how capitalist finance is played. And accusing voters of being vindictive when not supporting him in 1969 also shows a warped understanding of what popular will and democracy is (page 196).

Dr Mahathir claims that Umno was being magnanimous in not playing racialism to the hilt when they cooperated with non-Malays back in the 1950s instead of embracing the Islamist splinter group, PAS, thus forgetting in the process that independence would not have been impossible otherwise (page 222).

Here, the myth of complete Malay unity as a default situation looms large despite the evidence. Umno’s subsequent weakness is blamed on non-Malay demands and not on the obvious reality that, for most people, ethnicity-based dominance is not always the paramount consideration in politics. Other dimensions such as inter-personal conflicts, profession, class, gender, education and urbanity, not to mention an endless array of historical circumstances, are equally relevant.

Needless to say, PAS is also blamed for being betrayers of the Malay cause (page 223), while Datuk Onn Ja’afar is not judged the same way despite his departure from Umno and his forming of alternative parties.

The Malays as such are also blamed. Shortcomings in the New Economic Policy are not blamed on the state and its administrators but on the greed and poor money management of the individual Malay (pages 232, 267).

Doctor In The House seeks to be more than a mere memoirs but ended up disappointing this reader, both as an autobiography and a lesson in Malaysian history. If the goal is to leave to posterity a simplified version of history easily digested by people prone to ethnocentric thinking, and highlighting the role Dr Mahathir played in it as understood by him in his twilight years, then that is immediately achieved.

But in presenting half truths, selective recollections and opportunistic rationale, Dr Mahathir’s book fails to bring greater understanding to his time in history.

Ooi Kee Beng is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. He is the author of The Reluctant Politician: Tun Dr Ismail And His Time (ISEAS 2006).