Friday 7 February 2020

Dr Mahathir is right about the AirAsia case

I couldn't agree more with Dr Mahathir when I read this yesterday,

PM defends AirAsia, 

says “offset” is not bribery


He said it is normal to ask for an “offset” in business dealings provided the money is not taken for personal use.

Dr Mahathir said even the government would ask for an offset when making purchases.
“For instance, when we buy planes we will ask for an offset. Whether you consider an offset as bribery, it is up to you, ” he told the media after a session with Education Ministry staff here.
Dr Mahathir, who was asked to comment on the allegations against AirAsia also questioned why an offset should not be accepted when making a purchase on a high-priced item.
In business, an offset is when losses in one business are made up for by increases in another, or when payments due and owed are used to cancel each other in accounting.
I have from the start of this issue felt that AirAsia was not guilty and that's why I posted this,

Shooting down AirAsia, the Malaysian whacking culture

Seriously, I believe that many of those who joyfully jumped at the opportunity to accuse the budget airline of wrong doing that day were mostly its old enemies.

They simply whacked AirAsia as if it's already guilty.

I never like it when someone was judged  even before being given the right to defend himself/herself.

It always never ends well.

In this case, it's basically AirAsia being judged guilty because Airbus sad so and so to the UK authorities to get its neck off the chopping block.

AirAsia was never even contacted by the UK authorities to defend itself.

You can read about that here,

AirAsia was never approached 

by SFO over Airbus case

And they did try to explain what the facts of their case.


Their statement today noted that Caterham F1, the company alleged to have been sponsored improperly by Airbus, was at the relevant time a Formula 1 Racing team that had gone round the globe promoting amongst others AirAsia, AirAsia X and Airbus.
It added that throughout the period when the duo were shareholders in Caterham, the company made no profits and was eventually disposed of in 2014.
It stressed that Caterham was a company for branding exercise and not to make profits.
That's the "off set" thing there, I guess.

Anyway, I'm glad that Dr Mahathir said what needed to be be said about the case.

Politics aside, when he's right, I'm going to say that he's right.

Well, I hope AirAsia will continue to fly and its thousands of staff as well as others can continue to "cari makan".

The country needs Malaysian entities such as AirAsia to do well, especially in these troubled times.


  1. The prime minister probably read your blog Annie. Despite his super duper extremely outrageously busy schedule as prime minister, gotten even more and a lot more busier after taking over MOE (The largest ministry in the cabinet), let alone already being 94, he seemed to have time checking out blogs..

  2. have to disagree with you annie. AA is a listed company with public shareholders, bound by rules & regulations. High degree of public disclosure. If it was privately owned, there wont be any issues to offset purchases to another privately own company like catherham. AA spent the cash & a private company owned by Tony benefits. That is wrong.

    AA will continue flying, but Tony will be held accountable.

  3. Tu pasai Islam menekan betapa bahaya dan kejinya perbuatan fitnah;

    Heran amat sgt ada dari golongan2 Muslim yg tua2 yg tak faham?.. kuboq dok mengamit tak renti tiap hari mulut hebiaq kentut tak renti2. ... menghakim dan menghukum org lain, padahal yg dtuduh belum lagi ddakwa dalam mahkamah??

    Biasanya kaki fitnah ni banyak yang sebenarnya takut akan bayang2 sendiri.

    Professor Nasi Lemak

  4. go read the PMO statement annie.

  5. Wow! You would do anything for Tony. My god! Marry him already lah.