I’m always interested in the defense spending of the Malaysian government, especially after the brutal murder (using military-grade explosive) of a Mongolian woman who was linked to a multi-million submarine deal between the Malaysian government and a French supplier, and one of the suspects (he was acquitted later) was an aid to the current prime minister.
In the first of this 3-part series, I analyzed the expenditure of defense ministry since 1987 to investigate the trends, and reviewed all the major controversies surrounding defense procurement in recent years.
The second part examined the check-and-balance mechanism in monitoring the defense spending and identified the weaknesses in the current system. I also explored the phenomenon of the “revolving door” in which senior defense officers to move from government agencies to the business sector after retirement. Several high-ranking officers were identified and named in the report.
In the last part, I presented the best practices suggested by international transparency organizations and policies implemented by other countries to increase the transparency and accountability of defense expenditure.
This investigative reporting project opened my eyes to one of the most secretive ministries and industries in Malaysia. Rather than uncovering wrongdoings or new information, this series acted more as a compilation and analysis of the different facets and weaknesses of the defense procurement system. More investigation is needed to examine the issue.
RM180bil defence bill: Little bang for the buck
2:22PM Jul 26, 2010
By Kuek Ser Kuang Keng
SPECIAL REPORT Over the last 23 years, Malaysia’s defence spending has taken a whopping RM180 billion from the national coffers.
The average annual defence spending each year is close to 2.5 percent of the nation’s GDP from 1987-2004, which should turn Malaysia into a country with decent defence capability, according to a defence analyst.
However, Malaysia’s defence forces is in a sorry state which can only deal with ‘military operations other than war’ (MOOTW).
This is not surprising as allegations of corruption and mismanagement relating to defence procurement continually crop up.
Defence expenditure has been the second-largest item in the national budget until the global financial crisis hit Malaysia in 2008, resulting in other items overtaking it in the 2009 budget.
Defence Ministry expenditure has grown more than five times, from RM2.09 billion in 1987 to RM11.013 billion in 2010.
The total expenditure during this period was RM178.989 billion – the equivalent of building six Putrajayas or 60,000 primary schools.
The defence allocation ranges from 1.6-3.2 percent of the nation’s GDP. According to Lam Choong Wah, editor of defence portal KL Security Review, this is moderate compared to the international average of 2 percent.
He pointed out that this level of spending should give Malaysia an appropriate level of military capacity but the reality shows the opposite.
But with so many obsolete weapons and equipment in hand, the defence system can only face low levels of military conflict and perform MOOTW such as peacekeeping, he said.
Justifying this disturbing fact with the lavish military spending begs questions.
Expenditure on big-ticket items should always come with strict monitoring and high accountability. Unfortunately doubtful defence procurement, sometimes reaching scandalous proportions, is said to be a common phenomenon in the Defence Ministry.
In this three-part special report,Malaysiakini attempts to uncover the root causes of suspicious procurements and ways to enhance the current check-and-balance mechanism.
It begins with a list of questionable defence deals in recent years, compiled from media reports. These involved RM26.8 billion and were completed under the watch of Najib Abdul Razak who helmed the Defence Ministry from 2000-2009.
Questions raised about most of the transactions have been left unanswered. Although some were investigated and elements of corruption and mismanagement were found, no senior official has ever been held accountable.
Submarines in global spotlight
The Defence Ministry signed a contract with France’s DCNS and Spain’s Navantia in 2002 to purchase two Scorpene submarines. The deal is expected to cost RM7.3 billion including maintenance and other services.
What has raised eyebrows is the payment of 114 million euros (RM510 million) to a local company called Perimekar. The sum was alleged to be a commission but the ministry has insisted it was for ‘coordination and support services’ involving the submarine deal.
Perimekar is wholly owned by another company, KS Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd, which in turn is controlled by Abdul Razak Baginda, a close confidante of Najib.
The deal turned into a scandal when Abdul Razak was charged with abetting two of Najib’s bodyguards in the murder of Mongolian interpreter Altantuya Shaariibuu, who was shot in the head on Oct 19, 2006, and then blown up with C4 explosives available only to the military.
According to testimony revealed in court, Altantuya was apparently blackmailing her then-lover Abdul Razak for US$500,000 for reasons unknown. She accompanied Abdul Razak to Paris when the ministry was negotiating the submarine deal.
The case attracted international attention when judges in the Paris Prosecution Office prompted a preliminary police inquiry after two French lawyers filed the case on behalf of Malaysia’s human rights organisation Suaram.
The scandal escalated when private detective P Balasubramaniam, hired by Abdul Razak to protect him from a furious Altantuya, filed a statutory declaration after the trial indicating that Najib had actually been the victim’s lover and had passed her on to Abdul Razak.
However he retracted the allegations the next day and went into hiding before taking up residence in India.
He later claimed that he had been offered RM5 million by a businessman close to Najib’s wife to retract the allegations and leave the country.
He further alleged that he had met Najib’s younger brother Nazim regarding the case.
Balasubramaniam recently met French investigators, and also delivered written replies on July 22 to questions from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission which is investigating his allegations.
In a twist to the sorry tale, the first submarine KD Tunku Abdul Rahman, which arrived in Malaysia last September, could not dive due to technical problems, but repairs left it fully operational in February this year.
Meanwhile, DCNS faces other allegations relating to submarine sales in Taiwan and Pakistan.
Jet engines ‘fly’ to Uruguay
Two Northrop F-5E jet engines from the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) were found to be missing in May 2008, sparking allegations of the involvement of corrupt officials.
The engines were reportedly taken from a military air base in 2007 and sold on the black market to a South American company. The authority later traced the engines to Uruguay and brought these back in June this year.
Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi initially said the engines cost RM50 million each but later clarified that the correct figure is RM303,570.
The ministry claimed that no senior air force officers were involved in the theft. The same answer was given by Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) after investigations.
Former RMAF sergeant N Tharmendran, 42, has been charged with a company director in relation to the case. They have claimed trial in the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court.
Tharmendran has since revealed that he had been tortured by military intelligence officers into confessing while under detention during an internal probe.
No testing of Eurocopter
In October 2008, two letters from Capt (rtd) Zahar Hashim, chairperson of Mentari Services Sdn Bhd – a local company representing a foreign defence company – alleged that the Defence Ministry had overpaid RM1.419 billion to buy 12 Eurocopter Cougar EC 725 helicopters to replace the armed forces’ aging and accident-prone fleet of Nuri choppers.
He claimed that the ministry intended to pay RM2.317 billion for the deal although another company had offered RM898 million for similar choppers.
The letters, written to Najib, outlined several other discrepancies while also accusing him of hastily signing the Letter of Intent dated Sept 15, two days before he moved on to Finance Ministry.
The allegations sparked an uproar and led to the investigation by the PAC, which eventually found ‘no procedural abuse’ in the tender process.
However, the PAC confirmed that there had been no physical examination of the 12 helicopters prior to purchase.
The ministry finally sealed the deal on March 8 this year at a cost of RM1.542 billion.
Sukhoi jet deal
The Defence Ministry paid RM3.2 billion to buy 18 Sukhoi-30MKM jets from Russian state-owned company Rosboronexport in May 2003. This was to replace 14 US-made F-5Es, which have been in service for two decades.
The deal was made through local agent IMT Defence Sdn Bhd, owned by former Umno minister and Malacca chief minister Mohd Adib Adam.
Controvesy broke in 2005 when Mohamad Zainuri Mohamad Idrus, a former director of IMT Defence, lodged a police report and filed a legal suit against Mohd Adib.
He claimed that Mohd Adib had secretly registered a new company in Labuan with a name similar to IMT Defence, in order to channel the RM380 million in commission from the deal to the new company. No action has been taken against Mohd Adib.
The ministry defended the purchase, saying that Rosboronexport had wanted to make the deal with the aid of a local firm.
Naval patrol boats scandal
The Auditor-General’s (AG) Report 2006 tabled in Parliament on Sept 7, 2007 revealed that a contract given to PSC-Naval Dockyard, owned by an Umno associate Amin Shah Omar Shah, to build six naval vessels for the navy had ballooned from RM5.35 billion to RM6.75 billion and was a near failure.
The company was contracted to deliver the patrol boats in 2004 and to complete delivery by April 2008. However only two patrol boats had been delivered by mid-2006, and these could not be fully optimised due to defects.
In all, 298 complaints were lodged on the operation of the vessels. One boat was also found to have 100 incomplete works, while the other had 383.
The report found that the ministry had paid out RM4.26 billion to PSC up to December 2006 although only RM2.87 billion of work had been done, an overpayment of RM1.39 billion.
It said the government had released a big proportion of the RM4.26 billion upon ‘confirmation of order’ for equipment and systems, rather than upon delivery.
Another shocking revelation was that 14 progress payments amounting to RM943.46 million to the company between December 1999 and January 2002 could not be audited as the payment vouchers and supporting documents were missing from the Defence Ministry’s records.
The AG further estimated that the government could claim at least RM214 million in penalties for the late delivery but the cabinet decided to waive payment at the request of the shipyard.
The report noted the abnormally generous payment of RM1.07 billion as deposit, which amounts to 20 percent of the contract price upon signing the agreement.
The AG was also dissatisfied with the quality of monitoring by the project steering committee – led by Najib.
He urged both the finance and defence ministries to give “serious concern” to implementation in order to avoid the weaknesses being repeated in the remaining vessels, and urged that a joint committee comprising both ministries be set up.
The company was later bought over by Boustead Holdings Bhd which revived the project and Amin Shah, once touted as ‘Malaysia’s Onassis’ was declared bankrupt in October 2007.
Poser over RM8 billion APCs
In April this year, DAP Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua accused the Defence Ministry of intending to buy 257 armoured personnel carriers (APC) for a total of RM8 billion – which he claimed was far above the market price.
It was reported that ministry had signed a Letter of Intent worth RM8 billion with Deftech Sdn Bhd for the APCs, during the Defence Service Asia 2010 exhibition in Kuala Lumpur.
However the ministry responded that the decision on the pricing of APCs had not been made. It also defended the planned purchase as a necessity to developing the defence system to international standards.
But the ministry confirmed that a Letter of Intent had been sent to Deftec for thorough study of the APCs to see if these conform to the ministry’s standards.
15-year lease of ACMI
In January this year, blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin claimed on his website Malaysia Today that Najib, while he was the defence minister in 2007, had approved the lease of the Aircraft Combat Manoeuvring Instrument from Aerotree Sdn Bhd at a cost of RM21 million per year, for 15 years.
The lease was to provide training for RMAF personnel. Formerly the training was done in Korat, Thailand, at a cost of RM2 million per year. Hence the cost of the lease was alleged to be more than 10 times what the RMAF had been paying.
Raja Petra furnished apparently official documents that indicate Najib had approved the contract based on direct negotiation without open tender. He claimed that the negotiated contract was not conducted according to procedure.
Sub-standard combat uniforms
The 2006 Auditor-General’s Report released in September 2007 found that combat uniforms, leather boots and ballistic helmets worth RM101.75 million supplied from 2004-2006 did not meet the army’s specifications.
Among others, the report revealed that 5,000 units of ballistic helmets – costing from RM481 to RM484 each – were found to have serious “delamination and trauma effects”, but had still been distributed to the army.
The helmets were supplied by Seri Mukali Sdn Bhd which had been given a RM19.83 million contract from 2004-2006.
Other items that failed to meet the specifications were combat uniforms, webbing sets and leather boots.
The report also pointed out that four suppliers, who were late with delivery, were not fined despite a provision for this in the contract.
Police reports against Airod
Three police reports on alleged corruption were lodged in 2005 against Ahmad Johan, president of Airod Sdn Bhd, which held major contracts with the air force.
He was alleged to have set up a company, Quality Ranch, with his son Edron Hayata to siphon RM5.7 million of commission.
The payments were said to for ‘consultancy work’ involving extensions on two C130 aircraft owned by the air force and contracted out to Airod.
However PKR deputy president Syed Husin Ali, who lodged the report, claimed that the actual consultancy work was carried out by United States-based Lockheed Martin.
He added that the consultancy contract was given to Quality Ranch even though the company did not have any experience in the field of aviation.
Tomorrow: Factors behind questionable procurements
Note: Malaysiakini is interested in hearing from readers with verifiable information on suspect defence procurements. Please email information and your contact details firstname.lastname@example.org
Defence contracts: Evading public scrutiny
2:50PM Jul 27, 2010
By Kuek Ser Kuang Keng
SPECIAL REPORT Three major factors restrict scrutiny of Malaysia’s defence transactions which have amounted to some RM180 billion over the last 23 years:
1. Information is not disclosed on the basis of ‘defence secrets’ and ‘national security’.
2. Price-related information is limited in the defence market and involves many technical issues and specifications that complicate the process of evaluation and comparison.
3. Although the Defence Ministry has regulations and an internal mechanism to prevent irregularities, there is no external independent scrutiny.
Defence researcher Lam Choong Wah(left) said procurement is carried out in one of three ways currently – through direct negotiation, open tender and quotation.
A former journalist who specialised in defence issues, Lam is now editor of defence portal KL Security Review. His first book tentatively titled ‘Uncovering Malaysia’s Defence’ is scheduled to be launched next month.
A Finance Ministry circular issued in 2007 stipulates that a tender must be called for all government procurements priced above RM500,000.
Direct negotiation is the least transparent method of the three, but the number of procurements completed via this process has increased in recent years.
Lam explained that direct negotiation is allowed under specific circumstances: when only one company can provide the equipment or service; to standardise the specifications of equipment; emergency needs; and due to strategy and political considerations, such as bilateral relationships between countries.
According to a parliamentary written reply by the Defence Ministry in March last year, the number had almost doubled from 52 in 2006 to 100 in 2009, going up in value from RM2.1 billion to RM4.4 billion over the period.
Best management practices
Auditor-general Ambrin Buang stressed that the Defence Ministry is obliged to adhere to the objective of public procurement which is “to ensure all procurements are best managed (efficient and effective, enhancing access, competition and fairness) to get the best value for money”.
In an email interview, he listed how this objective is to be achieved:
- Government officials are responsible for their actions and decisions in relation to procurement and for the resulting outcomes, and thus are answerable for such activity.
- To promote transparency, the Treasury has issued ‘Guidelines on Evaluating Tenders’ which are easily accessible to the public on its web portal.
- When streamlining the process and procedures on procurement through direct negotiations, Controlling Officers are required to sign a Letter of Undertaking that the agreed price is reasonable and offers the best value for money.
- Tender/quotation/e-bidding documents are required to include four new paragraphs to remind bidders that corruption is a criminal offence under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009.
- The Finance Ministry has launched a procurement information centre portal – MyProcurement – to step up transparency and to disseminate information to the public.
- All bidders for government contracts are required to sign an Integrity Pact by way of a Bidder Declaration Letter asserting that no bribe was offered to influence public officials in evaluating the bid. The successful bidder is required to sign another declaration that his successful bid was not due to bribery.
- The government recently decided that procurements exceeding RM100 million are subject to scrutiny by an independent review panel to be set up by the Economic Planning Unit.
- Each ministry is required to set up an Internal Audit Unit. The Defence Ministry has an Internal Audit and Public Investigation Division with a total of 110 personnel. The division reports to ministry secretary-general.
‘No external monitoring’
A long-standing complaint is that it is extremely difficult to scrutinise direct negotiated deals in a system that classifies such details as ‘official secrets’ almost all of the time.
DAP Bukit Bendera MP Liew Chin Tong (left), who has been tracking defence issues, pointed out that the Defence Ministry’s reluctance to divulge information has prevented MPs on both sides from arriving at a consensus on the defence policy.
Such a consensus would have enabled them to debate related matters based on a mutually-acceptable benchmark.
“We don’t even know what weapons meet the requirements of our defence policy, so how can we monitor the procurements effectively?” he asked.
“So we hentam (criticise) everything. When they buy something expensive, we tend to think there is some hanky-panky.”
Asked if there is an external monitoring mechanism, Lam shot back: “Absolutely none”.
The parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) only investigates a transaction if an element of fraud is suspected.
Lam noted that it is impossible for the media and civil society to monitor all defence transactions because the authorities keep a tight grip on information.
He cited the acquisition of a Czech-made VERA-E passive surveillance radar in 2007.
Although a defence magazine later reported the purchase, the government refused to comment on this until Deputy Defence Minister Abdul Latiff Ahmad (right) confirmed in the Dewan Negara last week that the acquisition cost Euro 17.6 million (RM73.7 million).
It took some three years for this to be revealed.
The National Audit Department (NAD), which audits large purchases and publishes the findings in its annual report, conceded that it cannot audit all defence transactions.
“The Defence Ministry has hundreds of procurement transactions in any one year, covering goods or services including consultancies and professional services, construction, maintenance and material supply contracts…,” Ambrin (left) pointed out.
“… We also carry out other types of audit… the NAD normally conducts a maximum of six performance audits a year. In addition to our normal workload, we undertake special audits if there are requests from the Finance Ministry and PAC.”
Lam said defence procurements not like “buying vegetables in the market” where one can compare prices and quality from different vendors. Weapons manufacturers only reveal their price and specifications when a buyer approaches them.
Also, there are no identical defence procurement packages as “a minor change in specification could lead to a huge difference in price”.
“Some weapons-exporting countries quote their price based on political factors. So it is very hard to do price comparisons,” explained Lam.
One factor that has drawn considerable flak is the role of the local agent, often suspected of being paid an enormous commission to facilitate defence transactions and thereby inflating the cost of procurement.
Lam said the ministry has claimed that this enables technology transfer, nurtures local enterprise and helps to monitor foreign companies operating in Malaysia.
However Transparency International-Malaysia president Paul Low (right)begged to differ with the practice.
“Why do we need a middle man? If supplier wants to provide service, it is for them to set up operations here. It can be 100 percent owned by them, not a joint-venture company,” he argued.
Also criticised is the practice of hiring retired top ministry officials as directors or senior managers of companies involved in defence-based business.
Lam claimed that the ministry gives priority to companies owned by former personnel when making purchases.
“This policy has its advantages because veterans are familiar with the requirements of the armed forces, but it also gives rise to allegations of cronyism and nepotism,” he said.
Low said the existence of the “revolving door”, which enables senior officers to move from government agencies to the business sector, could build an unhealthy relationship even before they retire.
“These persons are responsible for evaluating tender (documents). The company could hold out an offer of a job (at such a time that) they retire, in order to win the tender,” he cautioned.
“We can’t stop (the officials). They have the right to look for a job (on) retirement. It is hard to stop this practice.”
Who’s who in companies
A number of high-profile retired defence officials have been recruited by several companies that have extensive business links with the Defence Ministry. Those named here are in no way implicated in any wrongdoing in relation to information in this three-part series.
Subhan Jasmon, former Defence Ministry secretary-general
He was appointed chairperson of Sapura-LTAT Communications Technologies Sdn Bhd when he retired. The company had won a RM500 million contract to supply 3,000 communication sets to the armed forces while Subhan was still the Defence Ministry secretary-general.
He is also the non-executive chairperson of MTU Services (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd. It bagged a RM537 million contract in February 2009 to supply spare parts, services and training to the Royal Malaysian Navy for five years.
Zahidi Zainuddin, former chief of defence forces
He was was appointed a director of DRB-Hicom Bhd on June 1, 2005, one month after he retired. A subsidiary of the company – Deftech Sdh Bhd – received a government Letter of Intent to acquire 257 armoured personnel carriers for RM8 billion. An opposition MP later claimed that this was far above the market price.
Ramlan Mohamed Ali, former navy chief
He is the director of Boustead Yachts Sdn Bhd, a company under Boustead Holdings Bhd which is one of the largest defence companies in Malaysia.
It is a government-linked company with the Armed Forces Fund Board, a statutory body, as its major shareholder.
Ramli Mohd Nor, former navy chief
He is the managing director of Boustead Naval Shipyard and executive deputy chairperson/group managing director of Boustead Heavy Industries Corporation Bhd. Both companies are under Boustead Holdings Bhd.
Mohd Shahrom Nordin, former army chief
He is the executive director of SME Ordnance Sdn Bhd, the rifle supplier to the army.
The company is a subsidiary of National Aerospace and Defence Industries Sdn Bhd.
Ismail Nik Mohamed, former air force chief
He is consultant to Zetro Aerospace Corporation Sdn Bhd. The company manages three government contracts.
Among these are the maintenance and repair of aircraft radios, airborne radar, air traffic control and air defence communications, radar and navigational aids.
Tomorrow: What can we learn from others?
Part 1: RM180bil defence bill: Little bang for the buck
Note: Malaysiakini is interested in hearing from readers with verifiable information on suspect defence procurements. Please email information and your contact details email@example.com
Letting in sunshine on weapons deals
12:47PM Jul 28, 2010
By Kuek Ser Kuang Keng
SPECIAL REPORT Defence procurements rate as a top secret in every country. Yet, progressive governments have taken the step of striking a balance between the competing needs of national security and transparency in handling transactions.
Their measures have enabled at least limited discussion and audit of arms purchases, in the interest of protecting tax dollars.
In Malaysia, however, suggestions to bring in similar policies have thus far fallen on deaf ears, said DAP Bukit Bendera MP Liew Chin Tong(right) who outlined two approaches.
First is the regular release of a Defence White Paper by the government to explain defence policy and general strategy.
Liew said all MPs need to understand the defence direction and priorities in order to arrive at a consensus on policy. Such consensus would further enable them to scrutinise and debate procurements, as to whether these are in line with the policy.
The second suggestion is to set up a parliamentary bipartisan select committee on defence. This could train a group of MPs to specialise on defence issues.
Some countries like Australia regularly brief lawmakers on defence issues, even providing classified information on condition they sign a non-disclosure agreement.
“Such measures are useful as they allow for indirect accountability to the people. After all, Parliament represents the people,” he explained.
Liew said he had privately suggested to Defence Ministry that it holds briefings for lawmakers, while the parliamentary Public Account Committee had proposed that the government sets up an independent review panel to monitor big-ticket purchases. There have been no takers.
Defence researcher Lam Choong Wah said the US – which has the world’s largest defence budget – offers two versions of its defence policy report.
One is accessible to the public but the other restricted to members of the bipartisan Armed Service Committee, which oversees almost all matters related to defence policy in the House of Representatives and the senate respectively.
The influential committees are empowered to hold public inquiries into alleged irregularities and to summon government officials to testify.
They also have power to approve candidates for senior posts, including that of secretary of defence and commander-in-chief, upon nomination by the president.
South Korea is another country that allocates a huge part of its budget to defence. Following a series of allegations about purchases, the government made a bold decision in 2006 to merge eight government agencies, including the Defence Ministry’s acquisition offices.
A single organisation named the Defence Acquisition Programme Administration was created to reduce corruption and improve transparency in weapons deals. This introduced integrity-building measures such as an Ombudsman’s Office to oversee purchases.
The office is led by three ombudsmen recommended by civil society and has the power to investigate complaints and instigate audit on defence contracts, should defects be discovered.
The Ombudsman received 41 civil complaints from 2006 to October 2008, of which 29 have been investigated and 12 are pending investigation. An audit was requested into one case.
Civil society role
Apart from creating mechanisms at legislative and executive level, there is a key role for civil society involvement in monitoring procurements.
Lam noted that there are more than 2,000 non-government military analysis institutions in the US that publish reports regularly and monitor defence purchases.
He is of the view that specialised NGOs or think-tanks could do a lot to simplify and disseminate information to Malaysians, so that public discussion is stimulated.
Lam (left) himself started up defence portal KL Security Review for this purpose. And his first book tentatively titled ‘Uncovering Malaysia’s Defence’ is intended to decipher complex issues for the layperson.
Transparency International (TI) has published a handbook, ‘Building Integrity and Reducing Corruption Risk in Defence Establishments’.
It suggests that, apart from voluntarily disclosure of defence information, the government and Defence Ministry should engage civil society in drafting defence policy and procurements.
This will not only reduce corruption and increase transparency, but also enhance public confidence in the Defence Ministry.
In 2007, TI had hosted a roundtable event in Zagreb, Croatia, with participation of senior defence and government officials, members of international organisations including Nato and the European Union, and representatives of defence companies, academia, civil society and the media.
The meeting initially focused on a major procurement of armoured vehicles, but ended up publishing Croatia’s defence procurement needs and the full defence budget for the next 10 years.
Another example cited in the handbook is the South African defence policy, which was reformulated when the apartheid system collapsed.
“South Africa quickly embraced the concept of civil society participation in the development of security policy, developing White Papers on various facets of defence policy,” the handbook says.
The consultation was done with interest groups and NGOs on issues like transparency and freedom of information, military professionalism, regional security, budgetary considerations, control of movement of defence equipment, and the defence industry.
Structural reform ‘not necessary’
On the home front, though, auditor-general Ambrin Buang maintained that Malaysia does not need structural reform to reduce irregularities and mismanagement in government.
This is because there are sufficient laws and regulations to enable the government to act against wrongdoers, he argued.
“The government has set up a task force headed by Chief Secretary Mohd Sidek Hassan (right) to review the 2008 Auditor-General’s Report and take action against those responsible for the financial irregularities revealed therein,” Ambrin said in an email interview.
He revealed that the government has acted against at least 70 officers, including those who have retired, officers from government-linked companies, police personnel and several companies found to be involved in financial irregularities and malpractices.
“Among actions (against individuals) are termination of employment, a fine equivalent to two or four days’ emolument, surcharge, warning and civil action. For companies, actions include blacklisting them or suspending membership in their professions,” he said.
Ambrin is also of the view that any system or mechanism is only as good as the people running it.
“It is very important for everyone involved in procurements to exhibit competency, diligence and integrity when making decisions…,” he said.
“Also there must be stern action by the respective secretaries-general against those who flout the law and really enforce the penalty provisions in contracts.”
He conceded that public procurement is often vulnerable to conflicts of interest and corruption but is confident that the government is committed to improving this aspect.
“The government’s stance is reflected in the inclusion of (ways to reduce) leakage of funds in procurements as one of the focus areas of the National Key Result Areas on fighting corruption,” he added.
Given the lucrative returns to be derived from defence procurements in a ‘close-one-eye’ environment, cynical taxpayers are likely to counter that ‘improvements’ will only drive malpractice deeper underground.