The Defence Minister, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi yesterday dismissed the need for a bi-partisan parliamentary oversight committee over defence expenditure, claiming that he “is confident in the ability and transparency of the evaluation committee of the three branches of the Malaysian Armed Forces (ATM)”.
Such contemptuous arrogance towards parliamentary oversight over defence expenditure which amounts to tens of billions of ringgit annually has proven Transparency International (TI) right by scoring Malaysia at only 4.5 points out of a maximum of 12, or only 37.5%, well below the failure mark. This was the score given in the inaugural “Transparency of Defence Budgets Report” launched on 19 November 2011.
Director of the International Defence and Security Program for TI in United Kingdom, Mark Pyman, who launched the report in Subang Jaya said “Malaysia ranked far below other countries (for this), where the budget lacked details and no audits were undertaken of the secret programmes.”
Malaysia is ranked alongside Afghanistan, Rwanda, Georgia and Azerbaijan in the report, well below other countries such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. The results of the research indicate that approximately 14 per cent of the countries under review in this study scored high and these are primarily developed countries with strong democratic systems in place.
The Minister’s disdain towards transparency and accountability is best epitomised in his reply to the question which I had posed in the recently concluded parliamentary sitting. I had asked for the Minister to explain the gap between the RM7.55 billion paid for 257 armoured personnel carriers to Deftech Sdn Bhd, and what latter will be paying to FNSS Defences Systems, a Turkish defence manufacturer – RM1.7 billion for the same items. Deftech is a subsidiary of DRB-Hicom Bhd based in Pekan, a company controlled by Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Syed Bokhari.
The Minister had acknowledged the above transactions, but had the gall to claim “no knowledge” of the details of the Deftech-FNSS transactions and hence was not able to explain what makes the difference in the 2 contracts. The Minister was also not forthcoming in explaining other sizeable transactions such as the RM6 billion purchase of 6 Second Generation Patrol Vessels as well as the RM2.3 billion acquisition of 12 Eurocopter EC725 helicopters.
The answer most often given by the Minister and defence officials to justify the much higher pricing had been that the military equipment were “customised to our specific needs”. Mark Pyman had stated that it is in the best interests of the government that customisation is kept at a bare minimum as it disproportionately drives costs up. He said that “it doubles the base price before you can say good morning. It’s not value for money, difficult and dangerous”.
However the best justification for a Parliamentary Oversight committee is the annual litany of scandals and transgressions reported in the Auditor-General Report on the Defence Ministry.
We call upon the Government to honour the Prime Minister’s Government Transformation Plan (GTP) which pledged for transparency and accountability by setting up the Parliament Select Committee on Defence, modelled after the United States House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations which looks after defence policies as well as the US Defense Budget Appropriation Committees which review and approve detailed defence expenditure.
Otherwise, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi’s contemptuous attitude towards transparency and accountability marks the lack of honesty and sincerity by the Prime Minister to honour his GTP pledges.
3 comments:
Yb... also call for RCI on all military purchase.
Never believe in this moronic Bumno... and even those at the committee and those with many stars on their solders.
We will get them someday.
You must understand that most of the defense business conducted by countries like the US, UK, France and many others are done in what the industry term as “Grey Market”. This means that the deals are conducted through legal channels but undertaken covertly often utilized by government to have an unlawful impact on foreign policy. This system is in place to obscure information on defense activities made by these governments.
UK government is also well known for suppressing information to the public when it comes to defence procurement. In 2009, UK Ministry of Defense had censored information to conceal an official report from exposing profligacy in defense procurement. Lets look at Canada, the purchase of the new F-35 jets with the cost of USD18 billion without an open competition from aircraft maker. This procurement when done will be Canada’s largest defense procurement in history. Where is the transparency in that deal?
What about the fact that within a year George W. Bush assuming the presidency, over thirty arms industries executives, consultants and lobbyist occupied senior position in his administration. Half a dozen of those senior executives are from Lockheed Martin and they were given crucial position in his administration. As a result of that, the company was awarded by Pentagon the biggest Military contract in US history.
If Mark Pyman would investigate the examples that I had supplied above, the conclusion to the report would be the same as Malaysia. “The budget lacked details and no audits were undertaken of the secret programs.” To justify their existence, Transparency International would have to pick on countries like Malaysia and give comments that just do not make sense. For this study I would give transparency international the rating far below the failure mark.
Ronald Reagan once said, “Trust but verify.” My advice to all of you is to do the same especially on matters regarding defense related issues.
You must understand that most of the defense businesses conducted by countries like the US, UK, France and many others are done in what the industry term as “Grey Market”. This means that the deals are conducted through legal channels but undertaken covertly often utilized by government to have an unlawful impact on foreign policy. This system is in place to obscure information on defense activities made by these governments.
UK government is also well known for suppressing information to the public when it comes to defence procurement. In 2009, UK Ministry of Defense had censored information to conceal an official report from exposing profligacy in defense procurement. Lets look at Canada, the purchase of the new F-35 jets with the cost of USD18 billion without an open competition from aircraft maker. This procurement when done will be Canada’s largest defense procurement in history. Where is the transparency in that deal?
What about the fact that within a year George W. Bush assuming the presidency, over thirty arms industries executives, consultants and lobbyist occupied senior position in his administration. Half a dozen of those senior executives are from Lockheed Martin and they were given crucial position in his administration. As a result of that, the company was awarded by Pentagon the biggest Military contract in US history.
If Mark Pyman would investigate the examples that I had supplied above, the conclusion to the report would be the same as Malaysia. “The budget lacked details and no audits were undertaken of the secret programs.” To justify their existence, Transparency International would have to pick on countries like Malaysia and give comments that just do not make sense. For this study I would give transparency international the rating far below the failure mark.
Ronald Reagan once said, “Trust but verify.” My advice to all of you is to do the same especially on matters regarding defense related issues.
Post a Comment