MAS paid US$3.35 million under anti-trust law in US

Updated @ 12:25 am 19-12-2011: Please readAzman Mokhtar must Go (part 3)” by Jebut Must Die and judge for yourself.

Updated @ 12:30 am 15-12-2011: MyCC to investigate into the MAS -AirAsia share swap comes Jan 1, HERE.

MAS has announced on 18-02-2010 that 0n 16-2-2010 it had received a complaint filed in the US District Court for Eastern District of New York on behalf of Benchmark Export Services and six other plaintiffs against MAS and 11 other defendants on the allegations of price fixing airfreight shipping services and fuel surcharge and etc. MAS has denied such infringement. On 11-7-2011 MAS paid US$3.35 million as an out of Court settlement which can be considered as the lowest settlement sum under anti-trust laws.

MAS is not the only airline that had to face charges of violating of anti-trust laws in Australia, USA, Europe, South Korea and other countries.  

In 2006 Korean Air has been found to have violated the anti-trust law in US and has been fined by US Court US$300 million by US Court. In 2008, Japan Airlines has been fined US$110 million, Qantas Airways US$61 million, British Airways US$300 million and settled US$135.9 million in civil claims in the US Court.

There are also other complaints against Air France, Cathay Pacific, Asiana Airlines, Singapore Airlines, Air New Zealand and Thai Airways in the Courts in USA, Australia and South Korea where the complaints are still pending in the various courts.    

On 18 January and 28 March 2008, MAS has also been served with various complaints under the anti-trust laws in the US District Court Northern District of California and Central District of California involving allegations of price fixing for transpacific fares and related surcharges. These cases are still pending.

Yours truly hope that both Tan Sri Azman Mokhtar, MD of Khazanah and his ex-business partner in BianFikir Sdn Bhd, En Mohammed Rashdan Yusoff aka Danny (now appointed deputy CEO of MAS), were fully aware of these complaints against MAS. Yours truly hopes that these two ex-founders of BinaFikir Sdn Bhd, which was sold to MayBank for RM8 million in 2008, were fully appraised of the anti-trust laws in Malaysia and other jurisdictions when the secret MAS – AirAsia share swap and the Collaborative Framework agreements were signed in a rush on 9-8-2011.

After the signing of the said agreements,  we have heard of many statements concerning the “STRATEGIC ALLIANCE” between MAS and AirAsia which has resulted in MAS or Firefly having to terminate profitable routes from JB to Kuching and Kota Kinabalu from 24-8-2011, MAS terminated Bandung route from 4-10-2011, Firefly terminated its routes within East Malaysia and the impending termination of routes from KK to Korea, Japan and Perth.  But AirAsia has not terminated any of its profitable routes that are in competition with MAS like London, Singapore and others.

It will be incomplete if yours truly does not mention about Rahsdan rushing to London on 16-8-2011 (7 days after the said secret share swap) to “GIVE AWAY” RM18 million of MAS money to sponsor QPR’s home jersey when MAS is bleeding.  It must be noted that in April 2011 Tan Sri Tony Fernandes (Tony) had bought a substantial share in QPR.  Most of the above decisions were made, when Rashdan was in full control of MAS via the newly formed EXCO comprising of  Tony and Datuk Kamarudin Meranun. yours truly leaves it to you to judge whether there were conflicts of interest in making those decisions.

By the way AirAsia or AirAsia X Sdn Bhd have been competing with MAS over these routes and are still operating these routes. After the inking of the said secret share swap on  9-8-2011, Tony and Datuk Kamarudin Meranun, both are from AirAsia Bhd and AirAsia X Sdn Bhd,  are also sitting on the Board of MAS where the said decisions may have been subsequently endorsed.

Read HERE for related article.

37 thoughts on “MAS paid US$3.35 million under anti-trust law in US

  1. insight

    Tuan Wee, the fixing of routes and coverage is already a violation of antitrust. See this link item 7 where it stipulated :

    Click to access AIRASIA%20(COLLABORATION).pdf


    The entry into the Collaboration Agreement does not have any effect on the issued and paid- up share capital of the Company and is not expected to have any material effect on the earnings, gearing and net assets of AirAsia group for the financial year ending 31 December 2011.

    However it is expected to contribute positively to AirAsia group’s earnings moving forward.

  2. Anonymous

    On another note, if the USD 3.35M out-of-court settlement is the lowest ever settlement paid by an Airline, then I would then have to credit Dr Wafi for the excellent work…..

  3. The Anti Pariah

    If MyCC is upright then the share swap and with collaborative framework will be caught by the anti-trust laws here and other countries. Let’s wait for 1 January 2012 to see MyCC is able to do its job like US District Court. If MyCC cannot do a proper job let’s complain to other countries where MAS and the pariah airlines fly to.

  4. MAS guy


    If that Panamera deadwood is doing his job well then MAS will not have to pay a single Sen and no need to appoint Bain & Co to advise on anti-trust laws. The fact that MAS had to appoint Bain & Co shows that Wafi is on a gaji buta scheme. Anti-trust expert had to appoint consultant. What a joke!

  5. Azmi MAS

    Anonymous @ 8:01 pm

    You got to be joking. You are flatering Dr Wafi. Even he himself knew that he had done a poor job. If he did his job well, then MAS will not be the subject of complaint in the first place. We in MAS know better about Dr Wafi. He has a Panamera ok but performance of not even cubcai!

  6. Anonymous

    Azmi MAS,

    This is where I fear you have lost your objectivity. I think I wouldn’t be wrong if I were to say that it is usually the business users acted in violation of the law. Only after the act is done and the company gets caught, are corporate counsel like Dr Wafi, brought in to save the day. In the case of MAS, this happens despite the high state of awareness of the airline industry of anti-trust over the last few years and programs that was in place to educate the business users.

    I posed a point for all of us to ponder in giving credit where it is due. Given the extremely low amount of out-of-court settlement, the counsel whoever he is and whatever car he drives, must be given credit. Keep in mind that the amount paid out is a small faction of the fines paid out by the other airlines. I shudder to think that MAS would have gone under if MAS had to pay the kind of fines paid by Korean Air or even British Air.

    I put it that the real culprits in this case or as you put it incompetent deadwood are the business users who acted in violation of the law in the first place. Has action such as sacking as suggested by you, been taken against these perpetrators? Or have they been let off?

    To MAS guy,

    I do not believe Bain & Co was brought in to advise MAS on anti-trust laws. If I correctly read Dr Wafi’s email posted here previously, Bain & Co was brought in in order to become the arbiter in and auditer of the information being passed between MAS business users and the 2 board members who are also owners of Air Asia. I believe given the circumstances, letting an independent neutral party perform this function, is the best course of action. Dr Wafi could not have done this job because he is an interested party.

    Dont let envy and the need to blame others make us blind to the truth.

  7. saga

    I am not sure whether you already know the information about the decision of changing the MAS logo colour to totally blue , the red part is to be eliminated because maybe Tony doesn’t want the red to appear in MAS logo. What on earth is going on in his mind ? Perhaps he thinks red colour belongs exclusively to him only and his Air Asia outfit. There is a slight change in shape of the wau. Did AJ faithfully follow Tony’s wish ? The MAS Board had already approved it. And so has the P.M. it seems. It is as though Tony has the sole prerogative to unilaterally decide on the change of the MAS logo which has been known to be MAS identity for so many years and it is so close to most Malaysians’ hearts. MAS is one of Malaysia’s strong brand names and I feel its not about what Tony likes or dislikes about the logo. The logo is MAS’s identity, It’s beautiful and the blue and red colour signify the colours of the Malaysian flag to appropriately reflect its status as a national carrier.
    Another significant decision was on the cutting of routes. The implementation of this is catching us unaware. More routes are to be cut are:
    Effective 6 January 2012 : Daily flights KL – Surabaya
    Effective 10 January 2012 : Thrice weekly KL – Dubai
    Effective 12 January 2012 : Twice weekly KL-Karachi-Dubai
    Effective 13 January 2012 : Twice weekly KL-Dubai-Damman
    Effective 30 January 2012 : Daily Langkawi-Penang-Singapore
    Effective 31 January 2012 : Thrice weekly KL-Johannesburg
    Effective 1 February 2012 : Thrice weekly KL-Cape Town-Buenos Aires
    Effective 2 February 2012 : KL-Rome
    Is this cutting of the routes benefiting Air Asia and Air Asia X?.
    With the delivery of 200 aircrafts they will need routes that already have infrastructure and everything in place.

  8. Flyguy


    can’t comment much on Dr Wafi but if u see the figure other airlines paid in anti-trust compared to MAS, u must give some credit to him, when the credit is due… all the breach that expose MAS to all anti-trust, u tot he knew ka??? he only knew when we need serve by court…

    i have conversation with him last time and actually nothing he can do within his “salary scale” to prevent this CCF and suap deal. he alredi advice mgmt on this but if the top guy don’t want to listen, what on earth he can do????? what he can do now just a damage control and make sure the we don’t pay tooooooo much for this “drama tamil”

    this game played by big white shark and beyond our wildest imagination. don’t take my word for it, but who is the broker/banker behind this arrangement ????????

    even MYCC cleared MAS/AK, do u thing other countries like singapore, indon, EUR, US, Australia which already implement anti-trust earlier than Msia, will allow MAS/AK do whatever their pleased… stupid mistake my man..

    but the sad thing is once MAS been penalise, the impact will be on staff… no more OT, not more bonus (BTW, we never get bonus for the past 8 years tenure myself with MAS. the highest boss was 2007 when MAS recorded RM 800++ M profit, staff get 1 month after kerja macam nak mampus) and things that MAS MD like to do…REDUCE STAFF… big boss mistake, staff yg tanggung :-(

    just wait for few days and it will be a surprise announcement on our route rationalization but hold ur horses my man… this just 1st stage…

    2nd stage it will have bigger SURPRISE.. for all the boom or doom…. just wait and see how this game played by THE MASTER….

    YB Wee….

    do u know that MAS have a paid adviser but it really unsurprised when this paid adviser huk hek pong tidak when MAS in crisis

    u will do us a big favour if u can find a replacement killer…… opsss adviser to do what he/she suppose to do, which is ADVISE, not zzzzzzzzzzzzz

    just my 2 cents

  9. Staff only

    Anonymous and flyguy, i am with you and yes, Dr. Wafi has done a great deeds for MAS despite some individual still trying hard to discredit him and his team. I work in MAS and I know how MAS is like suchlike decisions were all made first before consulting the rest. and that’s how MAS always get into trouble because the uneducated idiots above us are always thinking they’re the clever one..the uneducated above us is Khazanah Azman Bodoh.

  10. Economist Kampong

    YB CK Wee

    Please look into the matter of cross directorship in competing companies. Someone suggested – on another blog – this is specifically disallowed by the Companies Act of Malaysia 1965.

    If this is so – then Tony and Din are in clear breach of the Companies Act 1965.

    If this illegal act had been committed, then Khazanah and the 2 persons should do the necessary actions immediately or the ROC should take immediate actions to prosecute.

    Please look into this.

    Thanks YB and please continue with the EXCELLENT work you are doing.

    Where will you be standing in the next election? I will be more than willing to campaign for you.

    Very best regards

  11. Suap the swap

    Well done, people. Keep the pressure on. Give MyCC more bullets

    MyCC to probe MAS-AirAsia deal
    December 14, 2011
    The commission has received complaints from consumers about the pact.
    KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC) will look into the share swap deal between Malaysian Airline System Bhd (MAS) and AirAsia Bhd when the Competition Act 2010 comes into effect Jan 1 next year.
    Its chief executive officer, Shila Dorai Raj, said there were already complaints from consumers and they had urged MyCC to look into the deal and whether it would affect them.
    “We have not seen the agreement yet but from our initial analysis, we think that there could be something.
    “However, we’re not sure because we really need to read the agreement to ensure there’s an anti-competitive element.
    “It’s just from newspapers that we have done our own analysis.
    “So far neither MAS nor AirAsia has submitted anything to MyCC,” she told reporters after a CEO Business Luncheon with MyCC chairman, Siti Norma Yaakob, here today.
    Shila said a lot of consumers were aware that MyCC would come into effect on Jan 1.
    “Where consumers are concerned, they would become our priority. If there’s a complaint, we will investigate and take action but it does not mean we will be pursuing every complaint.
    “It has to be substantial for us to use our resources,” she said.
    On whether companies were ready for the Competition Act, Shila said that although the state of readiness could be relative, there’s no reason for them not to be ready.
    “We have given them ample time, about 18 months to get ready,” she added.

  12. Jamal

    Staff Only

    It is no good to now say that everything in MAS was done without consultation. Dr Wafi as a professional should have stood his ground and resigned. To now state that his advice was not sought was a lame excuse. We in MAS know this Panamera dead wood too well. He is good in appointing lawyers and consultants. What is the point of having a person to head it when almost all matters were out sourced. Anybody could do the job of appointing outside consultants to do the job. An idiot can also do it.

    Why stayed on to hold on to the post when one opinions have not been sought. Staying on under such circumstances, if it was true, amounted to gaji buta, no self respect and lack of professionalism.

    The Panamera is more important than self respect and professionalism.

  13. Nordin

    MyCC should make the shaw SUAP its first case and to show how it practices transparency and accountability. Also to show how it protect public inters to ensure that competition is not stifled in the aviation industry in Malaysia. Open sky must come with open market with no market control. AirAsia must not be allowed to dictate terms to MAS or MAHB.

  14. Namza

    YB WCK,

    Is there any sign of a rainbow at the end of this issue? A lot have been said with facts presented but I feel nothing positive is forthcoming. It’s like MAS is a goner and being shred to bits daily. At the end of this ‘never ending story’, I wonder what MAS will be known.

  15. Flyguy


    easier said than done…

    base on ur advice, i believe u change job 1 to many because once ur boss don’t accept ur advice, u resign, right?

    BTW, i’m not backup or bodek anybody, just show the actual picture what happen not just in MAS, but in corporate world……..

  16. shankarprasad

    YB WCK,

    I agree with what Namza Said. So much has been said but where we are going from here. From MAS catering to SUAP swap. We know Malaysia is best known for the cover up and it bolehland skill

  17. cantmiss

    how heroic. anyone notice that the fact that a penalty was imposed against MAS meant that it was guilty of the charges against it? Even if the penalty was USD1, it’s still a conviction. Also, do you know why MAS’ penalty was lower vs other airlines? Was their liabilty/exposure naturally less compared to the rest or did the superstar antitrust lawyer really won that ‘low’ penalty when it should have been higher?

  18. Staff Only

    Jamal, i am not wasting my time debating whether Dr. Wafi has done his job correctly or not but my point is I’m not the only who knows what he’s been doing. Credit is credit unless you have done better than him for MAS. Whatever you say would not change my view on Dr. Wafi and his team. The problem you have is “barking at the wrong tree” all the time. You should be barking at AZMAN MOKTHAR AND THE THAMBY ROBBERS. That’ll be worth your barks.

  19. ........

    Antitrust: Commission fines 11 air cargo carriers €799 million in price fixing cartel

    The European Commission has fined 11 air cargo carriers a total of €799.445.000 for operating a worldwide cartel which affected cargo services within the European Economic area (EEA). Several known airlines are among the 11 undertakings fined, namely Air Canada, Air France-KLM, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Cargolux, Japan Airlines, LAN Chile, Martinair, SAS, Singapore Airlines and Qantas. The carriers coordinated their action on surcharges for fuel and security without discounts over a six year period. Lufthansa (and its subsidiary Swiss) received full immunity from fines under the Commission’s leniency programme, as it was the first to provide information about the cartel.

    “It is deplorable that so many major airlines coordinated their pricing to the detriment of European businesses and European consumers” said Vice President for Competition Joaquín Almunia adding:” with today’s decision the Commission is sending a clear message that it will not tolerate cartel behaviour”.

    Today the Commission fined 11 air cargo carriers a total of €799.445.000. The cartel members coordinated various elements of price for a period of over six years, from December 1999 to 14 February 2006. The cartel arrangements consisted of numerous contacts between airlines, at both bilateral and multilateral level, covering flights from, to and within the EEA. Airlines providing airfreight services primarily offer the transport of cargo to freight forwarders, who arrange the carriage of these goods including associated services and formalities on behalf of shippers.

    The infringement

    The contacts on prices between the airlines concerned initially started with a view to discuss fuel surcharges. The carriers contacted each other so as to ensure that worldwide airfreight carriers imposed a flat rate surcharge per kilo for all shipments. The cartel members extended their cooperation by introducing a security surcharge and refusing to pay a commission on surcharges to their clients (freight forwarders).

    The aim of these contacts was to ensure that these surcharges were introduced by all the carriers involved and that increases (or decreases) of the surcharge levels were applied in full without exception. By refusing to pay a commission, the airlines ensured that surcharges did not become subject to competition through the granting of discounts to customers. Such practices are in breach of the EU competition rules.

    On the other hand, Commission allegations of collusion on two other surcharges and regarding freight rates in the Statement of Objections have been dropped from the case for insufficient evidence. The Commission also dropped charges against another 11 carriers and one consultancy firm which had previously received the Statement of Objections for the same reason.

    The fines

    In setting the level of the fines, the Commission took into account the sales of the companies involved in the market concerned, the very serious nature of the infringement, the EEA-wide scope of the cartel and its duration.

    All carriers were granted a 50% reduction on sales between the EEA and third countries in order to take into account the fact that on these routes part of the harm of the cartel fell outside the EEA. The Commission increased the fine for SAS by 50% for its previous involvement in a cartel in the airline sector (SAS/Maersk cartel, see IP/01/1009). All carriers received a reduction of 15% on account of the general regulatory environment in the sector which can be seen as encouraging price coordination. Four carriers were also granted a 10% reduction for limited participation in the infringement. As the fines on two companies would have exceeded the legal maximum of 10% of their 2009 turnover, the amount (before possible leniency considerations) was reduced to this level.

    Lufthansa (and its subsidiary Swiss) received full immunity under the Commission Leniency Programme, as it brought the cartel to the Commission’s attention and provided valuable information. The fines of the following carriers were also reduced for their cooperation with the Commission under its Leniency Programme: Martinair (50%), Japan Airlines (25%), Air France-KLM (20%), Cathay Pacific (20%), LAN Chile (20%), Qantas (20%), Air Canada (15%), Cargolux (15%), SAS (15%) and British Airways (10%).

    Five carriers applied for a reduction claiming inability to pay the fine. However, none of the applications met the conditions for a reduction

    The individual fines are as follows:

    Fine (€)*

    Includes reduction (%) under the Leniency Notice


    Air Canada

    21 037 500



    Air France

    182 920 000



    127 160 000




    29 500 000



    British Airways

    104 040 000




    79 900 000



    Cathay Pacific Airways

    57 120 000



    Japan Airlines

    35 700 000



    LAN Chile

    8 220 000




    8 880 000




    70 167 500



    Singapore Airlines

    74 800 000





    Swiss International Air Lines



    (*) Legal entities within the undertaking may be held jointly and severally liable for the whole or part of the fine imposed.

    Action for damages

    Any person or firm affected by anti-competitive behaviour as described in this case may bring the matter before the courts of the Member States and seek damages. The case law of the Court and Council Regulation 1/2003 both confirm that in cases before national courts, a Commission decision is binding proof that the behaviour took place and was illegal. Even though the Commission has fined the companies concerned, damages may be awarded without these being reduced on account of the Commission fine.

    The Commission considers that meritorious claims for damages should be aimed at compensating, in a fair way, the victims of an infringement for the harm done. A White Paper on antitrust damages actions has been published (see IP/08/515 and MEMO/08/216). More information, including a citizens’ summary of the White Paper, is available at:

  20. Staff Only

    The last time I remember was that Lufthansa sold out STAR alliance through organizing a meeting for fixing prices. Many executives including people in Khazanah and the thamby for example do not know what is anti-trust.

    Once all airlines entered into the meeting with Lufthansa fixing prices for cargo, it’s considered “antitrust” activity and therefore, they were all charged in EU court. The difference between MAS and STAR alliance was MAS is not the member of STAR alliance and thanks to Dr. Wafi where he has had conducted classes/meetings for almost all part of MAS offices worldwide. During that crucial moment, Dr. Wafi had proven MAS wasn’t involved in the fixing of prices for cargo and so he won the case on behalf of MAS. The only problem MAS would have is sometimes we do have stubborn idiots who refused to abide the standing law. It takes only one of our executives to make those mistakes proving to antitrust regulators of our participation in fixing or dumping prices. In court, lawyers can plead for lessor charges if it was the first time offender if proven guilty. Simple logic! If not a lawyer, don’t try lawyering with speculation because it makes that “person” looks very gullible in the eyes of public.

  21. Kamal

    Dear YB, if MAS staff got any balls and a slightest intelligence to demand Wafi to file official complaints. If Wafi cannot do it, thus confirm he is a panamera deadwoods. End of argument.

  22. Flyguy


    based on today session with union, business plan by whix kid danny, he is looking to sell maskargo and engineering to 3rd party if the price is right. like a wonderful WAU 2002 when this Danny the con-sultant sold MAS catering to u-know-who. when union raise a concern that selling kargo and engineering will repeat same mistake when MAS sold catering, danny answer very simple ” we will be more careful this time”… wau, what an intelligent answer from our 2nd man……

    sorry can’t provide more detail as i not there…maybe union rep can shed more light on this and other matter

    YB WEE

    not sure if all we say and fight, either during townhall with mgmt or cyber world, will make any changes…..

    MAS becoming more ridiculous now and really feel hopeless when thinking about the future on this once a global icon….

    only 1 man can put the stop to this “drama tamil” which is our PM but sad to see that he also don’t say anything…… if he just keep quite doing nothing, ppl will assume all these been planned with his blessing……. really not sure who to vote in GE next year…………

  23. AYAMAS

    In the US, MAS was not convicted but only a “settlement without admission of liability” of USD 3.35m (the lowest amongst airlines) as lawyers say.

    Europe was a different proceeding and MAS was not guilty at all and no settlement was made i.e zero pay out. KLM-Air France was fined Euro 310m for this and so too JAL, Singapore and Cathay.

    Even the mighty Singapore airlines has paid USD 150m in fines and damages. BA has paid USD 460m to date. Same too with Qantas which was fined heavily and had 2 executives sent to jail.

    Separtely in UK, MAS got itself discharged as a co-defendant of British airways -again huge savings from liabilities. Both Alliance and non-Alliance airlines have been charged under antitrust laws.

    Mind you, this was at a time when there was no antitrust law in Malaysia but MAS was without doubt successful in these cases. At that time, all of us Malaysians were ignorant about antitrust law. Suddenly Malaysia has woken up and now everyone claims to be an antitrust expert.

    If MAS had lost these cases, MAS would definitely been bankrupt – liability of around RM 3 billion. We would not even need YB’s efforts and blog on the CCF, share swap etc. In fact, only air asia will exist and no competition at all. Then its back to the bad old days of a monopoly – but this time by air asia and TF. Imagine that.

  24. ...

    Guys, the air cargo cartel involving MAS started in 1999 and the decision was in 2010 see link –

    in YB’s earlier posting about this Dr. Wafi, it stated that he joined MAS in 2003. How can he be responsible or didnt do enough for the antitrust fines when he wasn’t even in MAS? We can conclude that he came later and saved MAS from huge fine unlike other airlines.

    Somebody said about barking up the wrong treelah…..deadwoodlah…

    We (including me) must be objective. Jangan sampai benci membakar diri sendiri di neraka.

  25. Time Traveller

    Guys, let’s focus on something not yet happening but is about to happen soon. Maybe if we put our forces together, this thing can be stopped. i am talking about the selling of cargo and engineering. Why are we selling the most profitable business in the company is beyond understanding? why are we not selling the other businesses like the masholidays which is not making money. too many travel agents outside already.
    The new lady appointed to take over the head of communication position, heard that she is related to one of the directors from AK. maybe someone can investigate further. Big actions must be taken to wake the management up. Like the time when ESOS was given, the silent and subtle action by the staff especially the airport and engineering guys who can teach the management a lesson or two. No point waiting for union to act.

  26. Anonymous

    To be fair to Dr wafi, he must have pulled out every trick in the hat, o ensure MAS got away with ONLY RMM49million in fines, when other airlines were hit with much bigger fines. Well and good. No one thinks of asking 2 pertinent questions : 1. How much did it cost MAS to hire external lawyers, the hidden costs of managing these cases including countless overseas trips etc to “get away” with ONLY RM49mill in fines? AND 2. what happened to the people who committed these blunders that cost MAS? I dont have the answer to the first question, but the answer to the second question is : NOTHING. Accountability is an alien concept in MAS.
    from SCOUT

  27. CON-sultant in MAS


    To be fair to MAS employees, there many good staff that had left because of those parachuted panamera deadwood. They have no experience and they were put in position with extremely high salaries just because they have nice degrees to look and to bullshit around like what we are seeing now. Rashdan is a classic example. The Bina tak Fikir that did WAU, which was a total failure. Yet Rashdan is installed by Azman Mokhtar to run MAS. Rashdan knows nuts about anything except to carry Azman ‘s ball and be a crony.

    Come back to the deadwood. If Wafi was of any good and performing his duties, then MAS should be facing the RM49 million fine in the first place. Wafi and Rashdan are no different. Parachuted into MAS. THey are got in appointing Con-Sultants to do job for them and they will hide behind the Con-sultants when there are troubles. I am sorry that I cannot go along that Wafi has done a good job. Ptui!! TO THE PANAMERA DEADWOOD THAT ARE ONE OF THE CAUSES OF MAS IN SUCH A DIRE STRAIT.

    Anyone can do a job by cutting routes and appointing consultants.

  28. Conman Amok

    That Wafi is a waste of time. Definitely a Panamera Deadwood. Please do an audit into the consultant fees that MAS has paid from the day he joined MAS until now. I dare not think of the figure.

    More importantly, after 1-1-2012 as many of us as possible to write to the Anti-Trust bodies in UK, US, Australia and Germany to complaint about the new cartel that have been created by Azman Mokhtar, his crony Rashdan and friend. Lets make the so-called Collaborative Framework untenable. MyCc can cover up for them but once the complaint reached UK, US, AUstralia, I am sure that there will no covering up.

  29. Impartial

    Good point anonymous – those who did it must be punished. By the way, how did you come up with RM49m. the article said USD 3.35m and thats around RM 10m only?

    CON-sultant: you missed an earlier point – the antitrust case happended in 1999 and airlines were fined in 2010. Wafi entered MAS in 2003. sincere advice – Dont let hatred and jealousy make your eyes and heart blind bro.

  30. Ilham Putera

    Please note guys, all Wafi’s good job is done Lee Hishamuddin & Co.
    MAS is paying for all the legal fees plus Wafi’s salary.

    What is so good about Wafi then?

  31. anonymous


    The answer to your question on the RM49mill, this was the figure given to all staff via an email circular from Dr Wafi himself, to ‘showcase’ the good work he and his ‘team’ put in, to protect MAS from being fined a ‘possible’ RM 2billion or some humonguous figure that would have bankrupted MAS. The USD3.35 is just ONE of the many fines MAS had to pay out. But, in MAS Bolehland, no-one will be punished, most probably because many, many ,many would be brought down simultaneously. So, we better scratch each others backs, bro.
    It is common knowledge that even the internal arm to conduct investigations into ‘improprieties’, do so very selectively. Corruption appears in all forms in MAS, including moral corruption.

  32. Queen

    The RM49million paid by MAS includes the case caused by Tajuddin Ramli and the german agents ACL. MAS was sued for Euro 62 million and lost but the payout was brought down to Euro 6.85m. If you add the antitrust and ACL case it roughly amounts to RM 45million (USD3.35m and Euro 7m). Mind you, both cases arose during tajuddin Ramli’s time in 1999 and Wafi entered MAS only in 2003.


    Telekom/Celcom lost USD230 million in an arbitration caused by TR when he controlled Celcom.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.