Kamrul refutes ASA Philippines (2)
Despite the contract expiring in 2020, Jyosna continued its services without payment to prevent disruption of ASA’s operations
Daily TribuneDespite the contract expiring in 2020, Jyosna continued its services without payment to prevent disruption of ASA’s operations
ASA Philippines President and chief executive officer Kamrul Tarafder
Photo from ASA Philippines Foundation|FB
The following is a continuation of the letter of former ASA Philippines president and CEO Kamrul Tarafder as a response to the statements of Cruz, Marcelo, and Tenefrancia law office, counsel of the microfinance foundation formerly led by Kamrul, which Daily Tribune printed starting 15 November under the title, “President’s ouster row, ASA Philippines gives side”:
Cyber attack on ATMOS system
Neither Kamrul nor the Board was directly involved in the contracts with Jyosna and other providers. IT decisions were made unilaterally by Mr. Dee and later Mr. Gotuaco including deciding/dictating how much Jyosna should charge for its services. This reflects a troubling double standard: unilateral actions by Mr. Dee and Mr. Gotuaco were permitted, while similar actions by Mr. Kamrul, acting within his authority, were unfairly criticized.
Records show that the Jyosna contracts for ATMOS were disproportionately beneficial to ASA, with service fees set significantly below market value — reportedly 1,500 percent below fair market rates.
Despite the contract expiring in 2020, Jyosna continued its services without payment to prevent disruption of ASA’s operations. The supplementary contract was put in place only on 10 October 2022, to aid in transition to CAMS.
Though expired by the end of 2023, ASA still has full access to ATMOS to date despite having no contract at all.
Claims that Kamrul exploited the 2023 BIR issue to pressure ASA into upgrading its system are patently false. The only immediate viable solution was presented to the Board and the Board did not register any opposition to it. The system upgrade, executed under urgency, ensured compliance with BIR’s CAS requirements, sparing ASA potential penalties at no immediate cost to the Foundation.
ASA’s refusal to pay for these services to date, despite Jyosna incurring all associated expenses, reflects a failure to honor obligations.
The allegation that Kamrul obstructed CAMS’ adoption in favor of ATMOS is equally unsubstantiated. Again, how could he when that very power was already taken away from him and transferred to the IT Committee? He supported the transition in good faith, prioritizing ASA’s harmony and stability.
CAMS’ failure to deliver viable solutions lies in its inherent shortcomings, not in Kamrul’s influence. Employee feedback would corroborate this reality.
ASA’s internal investigations
ASA’s decision to abandon the PNP Cybercrime investigation into the ATMOS cyberattack, also not allowing Kamrul to initiate any investigation, raises concerns about impartiality and transparency.
Despite initially reporting the incident, ASA shifted to conducting its own internal investigation, which it subsequently abandoned. This pattern of one-sided internal investigations over law enforcement cooperation suggests questionable motives. (To be continued)
