There was a view expressing no confidence with the Auditor General (AG) but at the same time have more confident with the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Maybe the suspicion is AG could be fixed up. When paranoia sets in, rationale could be put aside.
AG has a different role than PAC, thus it is not an apple to apple comparison to put more confidence in one over the other. AG could function without PAC but AG's role is integral for PAC to do their work. Without AG, thus far PAC has yet to be effective. [Read back our posting on PAC here]
In that posting, reservation was placed on PAC to be effective and fair. There was also the question of their capability with only two Accountants in PAC. If Dato Chua Tee Yong no more sit on PAC, there is only Dato Nurjazlan.
Even Tony Pua has no credential to talk on accounting matter. Deputy Chairman is a skin specialist. Businessmen members are dealmakers and wheeler dealers!
We wrote to soon. They did pry into areas they have no expertise.
Complain to MIA
The Edge and TMI reported in a one-two tag team to report dissatisfaction on Deloitte. They disagreed with the audit's opinion on "on-going concern" and an account's item for asset for sale. [Read The Edge and TMI here and here]
PAC's interpretation can be found in the report but to avoid the trap of news portal spinning, a proper definition and it's implication can be found in Accounting-Simplified.com here.
"If the going concern assumption is considered by the management to be invalid, the financial statements of the entity would need to be prepared on break up basis. This means that assets will be recognized at amount which is expected to be realized from its sale (net of selling costs) rather than from its continuing use in the ordinary course of the business."
Be it PAC or the website information, it is merely opinion. Only Deloitte has the authority to give an audit opinion or verify accounts. PAC can only comment but does not have the authority to do anything.
It maybe demeaning for Parliamentarians but they can write-in a complain to the Malaysian Institute of Accountants which are vested the authority under the act of Parliament. Tony Pua acknowledged PAC limitation to complain to MIA[read MMO here] but will he agree to MIA decision?
They could also write in to Deloitte International. Will it be Enron II in the making?
If so, this blog will be ever ready to do a U turn but subject to proof from the dissatisfied accuser, in which the ball is in his court, to show how RM42 billion disappeared.
Political play
The statement today could be an attempt at face saving attempt by PAC. So they say PAC never said satisfied [read MD here].
It was also to cover-up a "retreat" statement yesterday when they asked 1MDB to direct Deloitte to commence audit for March 2015. [Read The Star here] This begin by an allegation by Tony Pua that MOF stopped Deloitte from auditing.
How is 1MDB to start audit for the year when they have got AG auditors all over their office? Who will get priority over the documents? To use Outsyed's seldom used insult, why be "dunggu"?
As written before, PAC is filled with politicians thus the inclination on PAC to politicise is inevitable. In Malaysia's third world politics, there is no facts but only rhetorics of shallow and narrow perception play.
The obvious example was Nur Jazlan's statement to deny Dato Najib's son involvement in the audit operation. [Raed MMO here]. His son is involved in Consulting and those familiar with accounting firm operation knows that there exist a "Chinese Wall" like separating into different companies as to avoid conflict of interest.
Although it was visibly viralled by some prominent key player in the move within UMNO to bring down Najib, it was Oxford PPE graduate Tony Pua started it.
Yesterday, Nurjazlan was reported to have said that the meeting with Deloitte was a blessing in disguise. [Read FMT here] and announced the August dates for Arul Kanda and Dato Shahrol's appearance [read FMT here].
It sounded him admitting of being hasty for calling PAC to convene before AG report is ready.
Deloitte insisted their March 2014 account is legitimate and had confirmed the existence of fund in the tune of RM13.4 billion in BSI Singapore [Read MyKMU here]. This is in contrary to allegations started by Sarawak Report that BSI account is empty and fake documents.
With IPIC willingly to take up the BSI US$920 million fund, only the fanatics and in-denial that could not accept that the investment in Petrosaudi did not disappeared. By December. all should be cleared.
Getting aggresive
Arul Kanda is now on more aggressive and responsive mode. He responded to Tun Dr Mahathir's blog post against him on the insistence of the missing RM42 billion. JMD responded here but was slammed by Lim Sian See here.
He denied allegation by Penang DAP's Ng Wei Aik that 1MDB had taken RM2 billion loan from Amanah Raya and Chairman Reezal Merican is expected to sue.
Lastly he slammed PAC member Tony Pua for the wild allegation that Ministry of Finance stopped Deloitte for commencing audit. How are we to trust PAC with an irresponsible member like this?
On The Edge game to link UBG acquisition in the past to Jho Loh, it proved unsuccessful. Facebooker Lim Sian See highlighted major discrepencies in their fact. [See here and here]. Jho Loh should sue this liars, otherwise they won't clarify their wrongful accusation.
So lets not keep harping on explained issues like a warp CD repeating itself unless they have proves to show.