Revisiting the Alcatel bribery scandal

Some clarifications are in order. I wrote a number of articles about Telekom Malaysia and the Alcatel issue.

One writer demanded an apology from me for questioning the technical accreditation of Alcatel. He says it's one of the Fortune 500 companies and has a number of inventions to its credit.

That's not relevant for my article. When I said, it didn't secure the technical accreditation, I meant in the context of this deal with Telekom Malaysia and Celcom then and in the context of providing 3G services. No apologies needed there.

The fact was, it didn't get through the technical evaluation phase but some people in Telekom Malaysia and Khazanah and even MOF wanted Alcatel to be in. Further, as one anonymous commented and his comments seemed to match my own internal notes

The former financial and technical guy in XL happened to be my acquaintance who told me that they were cornered by two of the company's Commissioner, both Malaysian. Let's refer them as YA and FA. Two of them cornered those guys separately and force them to change their recommendation to Alcatel. Of course both of them refused, insisting onwritten instructions (which were not given). YA then send a Malaysian technical expert, let's call him M, to re-evaluate and find fault in XL's recommendation. But again he found nothing wrong and all evaluation process was in adherence to the objective and procedures.

For his opinion, M, was then shipped out to somewhere in Africa (either Malawi or Guinea). Meanwhile, the financial and technical guys were eventually forced out of the company as the consequences. Both of them are happy somewhere else, one in Bakri Group and the other is in Singapore Technologies.

Yet YA and FA are still around in XL doing their things.

Yes, what are the things they do?

I think the quickest and direct route to identify the identity of the 2 Malaysian constants is to remit the whole case to the police and MACC. I am surprised this route is not taken. Instead it has spawned a mini McCarthyite hunt for the identity of Malaysian Consultants A and B. some even linked the identity of one of them to KJ the Ketua Pemuda UMNO and impute his declaration not to contest the Rembau seat, as a means to escape prosecution.

A number of pro UMNO bloggers or UMNO friendly bloggers have written on this topic. One of them is Brick in the Wall. By the way, I shall write about this myth and hype being classified as pro UMNO or government friendly bloggers. Suffice for me to say, some of the raving sirens are not even UMNO members and have no inkling about the happening at the grassroots level.

In his article BIW writes:-

Sakmongkol had disclosed that the consultant paid for USD200,000, referred as Consultant A was Dato Dr Norraesah, Chairman of Alcatel Malaysia, French trained economist and appointed member of UMNO Supreme Counsel.

Sorry, this is not quite right. I didn't say it was Noraesah who got paid. I wrote on her role and position in this Alcatelgate. She was Alcatel Malaysia's boss at the material time.

Sakmongkol revealed one of the Celcom insiders was Celcom CEO, Dato Shazally Ramly, someone socially closed with Khairy during Pak Lah's time but now have distanced himself away.

Also, not quite right. Didn't say Shazaly was such other than suggesting that if we need to know, we camp outside KL Hilton and wait up on Shazaly and asked him some 'penetrating' questions.

The two consultants were actual and real live employees of either Telekom or Alcatel.

Just a few days ago, it was the reaction by Telekom Malaysia and Axiata( nee Celcom) that shicked me.I hope, it has the same effect on many other people.

Telekom Malaysia Bhd (TM) and Axiata Group Bhd have jointly appointed KPMG Corporate Services Sdn Bhd and Shearn Delamore & Co as forensic accountant and legal adviser respectively to assist in an internal probe over alleged payments received by TM employees from Alcatel-Lucent SA. In a statement to Bursa Malaysia, TM said its board had also approved the setting up of a sub-committee of the Board Audit Committee (BAC) to conduct an independent and comprehensive internal investigation into the alleged improper payments to TM employees. The BAC sub-committee would submit its report and findings to the BAC for further guidance and the next course of action, it said. The sub-committee is chaired by Tunku Datuk Mahmood Fawzy Tunku Muhiyiddin, a member of TM board. Fawzy is also a member of TM's board audit committee and chairman of TM board risk committee.

What is the meaning of this? Over there in America, Alcatel has been fined or legally punished for bribing. It clearly said bribed Malaysian guys to get the USD85 million contract. Here you are forming a subcommittee to report to a supervising committee. You are reporting on yourself. Will you incriminate yourself?

Here we are putting up an elaborate show inviting people to do some forensic investigation. That is certainly a cause for misgiving- since in most cases; such so called forensic exercise will exonerate the perpetrators of the wrong.

Set up a committee to see what must be done with the system put up by Alcatel and explain why it's failing. My question again and again, of the proposal put forth by Alcatel then was clearly technically wanting, why was it accepted despite that? Once accepted, why should we now turn around and disclaim our choice of Alcatel?

Clearly in the case, heads must roll. Why is it so difficult to identify Malaysian consultants A and B? Get Noraesah under the spotlight. Place a helmet over her head, and knock the helmet repeatedly for one hour. I am sure at the end, whatever we want to know about Alcatelgate will come out via a more cost effective way rather than having to employ a hotshot accounting firm and a big named legal firm.