OH NAZIR, OH NAZIR

There was an excited voice that asked me, did you hear what Nazir Razak("NR") did? I said no, and was promptly told that the gentleman ("NR") had taken an immediate leave of absence to ensure an independent inquiry as to whether he had done anything wrong in facilitating payments through his account. As the afternoon wore on, I heard that EY (formerly know as Ernst &Young, one of the mega big global professional services firm) had been engaged to undertake this "INDEPENDENT" review!

Now before I proceed to ridicule this perception of an independent review being undertaken, it is important to go back in history. In the late 1990s there were five big professional services firms, Arthur Andersen, Deloittes, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PwC, in the fallout of the Enron saga, Arthur Andersen was forced to cease, and the business of Arthur Andersen in most parts of the world was bought over by Ernst & Young, this also happened in Malaysia. The joke amongst those in the know in Malaysia is that EY bought AA, but today in Malaysia the significant positions of leadership are occupied by legacy AA partners.

So Dear Nazir Razak, could you please explain to us the following, not withstanding that you have taken an immediate leave of absence,

• Whilst you have taken leave, is the process truly independent considering that Datuk Zainal and Cik Habibah are members of the board within CIMB. Was not Datuk a Managing Partner of AA, and Cik Habibah a partner of EY (when E&Y bought AA)- based on google search. Is the current Managing Partner of EY not a product of AA.

• Is there not a senior person in your organisations that is married to a partner in EY?

• Considering the ongoing saga relating to this case and especially to absolve yourself, would it have not been better to have formed an eminent group of elders that would have communicated absolute independence, like Justice Harun, Justice VC George and even the Royal Prince that is winning the hearts and minds of ordinary Malaysians, imagine what the rakyat would say.

• Considering what transpired is a compliance and governance issue, would it not be better to have chosen a legal firm that would be better experienced in law and regulations than a firm that is better know for auditing and taxation.

• Should this not be a matter for regulators like BNM, whats the end game, EY says, "no compliance or regulatory issue with money flowing through NR's account". If that be the case then would it not make a mockery of all our banking rules and regulations, and would it not be a tacit approval for money laundering. I am just looking at the risk scenario.

To EY here are a couple of questions to sleep on,

• Did global risk management approve of this. 

• You guys do remember why AA ceased, don't you?, because in that case too it was a case of being pandai, pandai!

Finally Datuk NR, you really need better advisors, had no one done their homework before this charade was executed? Remember two things, in today's world there are no secrets, and what President Kennedy said,

You can fool some people all the time,

All the people some time

But not all the people all of the time!