I had in August 2009 posted an article concerning the intended purchase of the Army War Game Simulation System (AWGSS) for the Army War Game Training Center being built at Gemas Camp that drew lots of flak from readers. This purchase has been mooted since the 80’s, but till today army has yet to have a system. Even getting an army officer to develop a computerized war game system jointly with USM in 1988, and subsequently with UTM was to end in failure.
I was informed that in 2005, Army decided to purchase the AWGSS outright from a reliable OEM through an open tender bidding. A tender bid was called in 2006, and a local company i.e. Softlab Technology Sdn Bhd won the bidding and the company was later issued with an LOI. Soon after the issuance of the LOI, Army decided not to proceed with the purchase due to reports of alleged abuse and corruption in the award of tender. I am told that a case has been filed and pending in the courts against some officials involved in this particular tender exercise for alleged abuse and corruption.
Early this year, a retender exercise was called and the closing date for tender submission was April 19th 2010. From the tender bidding list displayed at Mindef’s Procurement Division on 28th May 2010, there were a total of 12 bidders, and the bidding price ranges from RM73 million to RM35 million; the former being the highest bidding price and the latter being the lowest.
Now, there is already a talk in the market that this latest tender exercise is riddled with suspicion, because the officer heading the tender evaluation is an alleged crony with links to the previous army leadership. If this allegation is true, then they say that the winning bidder will most likely be the same company that had won the bid in 2006. Allegation like this does not auger well for the new army leadership and as such, it should not be taken too lightly, if army is indeed serious in wanting to eradicate abuse and corruption. Previous records of army purchases are said to be mired in alleged abuses of cronyism, favoritism and corruption, and this has angered many local businessman.
As I have suggested in some previous postings, in order for the new army leadership to rid itself of the stigma of abuses and corruption said to have been caused by the previous leadership, then drastic changes has to be made to replace those officers that are known to be cronies that are still lingering in the corridors of power at Army Headquarters. These officers are known to many, but many are just too afraid to spill the beans for fear of retaliation against their career.
I trust the new army leadership is one that is determined to shake off the bad legacies and poor perception left behind by the previous leadership. Integrity among some officers is badly tarnished and this has to be rectified. I am also pleased to hear that the new Army Chief has given specific instructions to his commanders and staffs recently on some restrictions with regards to the game of golf, among others, one that disallows officers to be accompanied by businessman in their casual round of golf.
There are certainly many ways to curb abuse and corruption in the army. Maybe it time that army device a system of check and balance in its tender processes, and including some form of due diligence be conducted on officers selected to be members of the Tender Board, as well as the Tender Evaluation Team to ensure that they are officers of the highest integrity. Surely, such officers are not too difficult to find.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
Showing posts with label army-corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label army-corruption. Show all posts
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
US ARMY RECALLS ADVANCE COMBAT HELMETS
It was reported that the US Army had recalled 44,000 Advance Combat Helmets (ACH) that was supplied to them by ArmorSource for some defects that does not meet US Army's technical specifications.
It was reported that US Army Program Executive Officer, Brig Gen Pete Fuller in rejecting the ACH remarked that, “Soldiers safety is our number one priority”.
Here we note the mark difference between the Malaysian Army and the US Army when dealing with equipments that are known to be defective, where the former would just close an eye if a defect is observed. I blame this solely on the lack of integrity on our officers who may have been on the 'pay roll' of the agents or suppliers of such defective equipments.
The US Army has shown us what integrity is all about, and that soldiers safety is paramount. Will the Malaysian Army be bold enough to do likewise, in rejecting some known defective combat helmets that was supplied to the army recently?
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
It was reported that US Army Program Executive Officer, Brig Gen Pete Fuller in rejecting the ACH remarked that, “Soldiers safety is our number one priority”.
Here we note the mark difference between the Malaysian Army and the US Army when dealing with equipments that are known to be defective, where the former would just close an eye if a defect is observed. I blame this solely on the lack of integrity on our officers who may have been on the 'pay roll' of the agents or suppliers of such defective equipments.
The US Army has shown us what integrity is all about, and that soldiers safety is paramount. Will the Malaysian Army be bold enough to do likewise, in rejecting some known defective combat helmets that was supplied to the army recently?
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
Monday, May 10, 2010
RM8 BILLION – IS IT WORTH THE SPENDING?
The hefty RM8 billion worth Letter of Intent (LOI) awarded to Deftech for the production of 257 of the 8x8 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) and other variants by the government recently has come under public scrutiny. The public demands an explanation for such hefty spending, for little is known to the public as to what really constitutes the RM8 billion spending. To the ordinary man on the street, they will just divide 8 billion by 257, and the answer is RM32 million for each IFV. This figure is certainly out of the ordinary; an unbelievable amount.
As a basis of comparison, the British government in 2007 opened to all international 8x8 IFV manufacturers to compete for a 16 billion pound sterling supply of 3,500 vehicles to the British Army. If one were to convert the total costs into RM and divide it by the total number of vehicles, the cost per vehicle would just be around RM22 million i.e. RM10 million cheaper than that offered by Deftech. RM10 million is certainly not RM10 ringgit, and this is where the government need to come out with a comprehensive explanation to appease public skepticism.
I have in an earlier posting argued that an 8x8 IFV is not suited for the Malaysian terrain. My views differed from that of the present army leadership; hence the purchase. But what I do believe is that the army has not given serious thoughts to the practical utilization of this huge monster vehicle in an actual battle situation in the Malaysian environment. Having such a huge and cumbersome vehicle does not mean that it can outperform other armoured vehicle, or has a much superior combat capabilities. This is a false notion, as size of the vehicle is certainly not the primary factor to determine combat superiority.
I am not an armoured trained officer; hence I cannot speak for the armour corps. But I have gone through some military exercises with the Indian Army in armoured warfare while a student at the Indian Staff College. It was difficult enough to deploy the vehicles in a tactical armoured maneuver in the Indian plains, and I think it will be worse in the Malaysian terrain. The emphasis here is in the effective tactical armoured maneuvers, and I do not see such a maneuver anywhere in our terrain. What good if the IFV is strung along the highway in single file formation without the opportunity of utilizing the inherent characteristics of the IFV? May I suggest that students of our staff college be given the opportunity to exercise the deployment of the 8x8 IFV during TEWTs; not just a troop but a regimental deployment in support of a formation? I would also like to suggest that the Armour Corps itself conducts an exercise and to evaluate the practicability in the effective tactical maneuver of such monstrous vehicles. I can bet that the deployment is going to be a major fiasco.
Here, I would also like to raise the issue with regards to awarding Denel of South Africa as the subcontractor for Weapons System Integration and the joint manufacturer of turrets for the IFV. I am told that the IFV will be equipped with the Denel Land System turret incorporating Denel’s Two Man Light Compact Turret 30mm, Denel’s ATGW, and Denel’s Prototype 30mm Cannon; the latter I am told is currently not used by the SA Army, and neither is it used by other armies, for reason that the weapon is believed to have some ‘unresolved problems’.
It was reported that in early November 2009, a team of selected senior army officers had made a quick visit to Denel’s facilities in South Africa, together with the local agent. Upon their return, the team quickly decided to support Denel as the integrator of the weapons system for the 8x8 IFV project. What actually transpired during the visit is not known, but rumours have it that there were some promises of a hefty kickback to a certain senior army officer by the local agent. I hope this isn’t true, but if it does, it calls for some serious rethinking and of necessity, a thorough investigation. Will the Military Police Criminal Investigation Division be willing to start the investigation, or are they toothless to do so?
The question that needs to be asked is what was the purpose of the visit? Was it to observe a weapon shooting demonstration of all the weapon systems earmarked for the project, or was it merely a visit of the facilities, and to be briefed of the systems? If it was merely a briefing and a visit around the facilities, then I would say that the visit was a worthless one. If it was a shooting demonstration, then there must be an evaluation report, and this report must be transparent to others as well. The concern of many is about the Prototype 30mm Cannon which may be a cause of problems later, and will the local agent or the manufacturer be willing to offer a guarantee that the weapon does not cause any problems, and a replacement made at their costs? And most importantly, why was the final decision to offer Denel made in such haste? Wasn’t there an open tender? To those involved in the decision making, it is pointless to hide because everyone knows who represents Denel, and the reason why Denel was selected.
Anyway, one would tend to believe in a rumour that there was a kickback, because the deal was done without inviting tenders to other international bidders. It was an arbitrary decision, so they say. Most would have thought that the 30mm Mk 44 Bushmaster would be the better choice for the 8x8 IFV, as the Turkish version is equipped with the 30mm Mk 44 Bushmaster, a weapon system that is already proven with the Turkish Army. And why was the 30mm Mk 44 Bushmaster not given a chance to be evaluated?
What we do not wish to see is a similar failure in the weapons used in the Scorpion and the Sibmas, or has army failed to learn from past lessons and experience? Hence, a review of the Denel’s Prototype 30mm Cannon by the new army leadership needs serious consideration.
For the billions spend, the army deserves something that will truly improve its fighting prowess. The people will also demand that the money is well spend, as the nation’s defence and security will be in jeopardy if the army is to be equipped with a worthless weapon system. Let not this RM8 billion become another blunder, and blunders in defence acquisition seemed quite in vogue and trendy of late.
Finally, let it be known that it is not the agents to decide what and how the army should be equipped; it is the army’s leadership. And if army fails, it is the leadership that will bear the brunt; not the agents.
Now, may I ask……………is the army leadership willing to accept such blame? And this is also the very reason why I have said all along that the army’s top leadership should avoid being associated or being seen to be associated with local defence agents. The army, and I suppose the same goes for the other two services as well, has assigned committees to study, evaluate and make their professional recommendations on all major equipment purchases. Heed the findings of these professional committees, and the top leadership must never exert the authority or influence in the final decision making. I am made to believe that there was top army leadership influence in the final decision to accept Denel.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
As a basis of comparison, the British government in 2007 opened to all international 8x8 IFV manufacturers to compete for a 16 billion pound sterling supply of 3,500 vehicles to the British Army. If one were to convert the total costs into RM and divide it by the total number of vehicles, the cost per vehicle would just be around RM22 million i.e. RM10 million cheaper than that offered by Deftech. RM10 million is certainly not RM10 ringgit, and this is where the government need to come out with a comprehensive explanation to appease public skepticism.
I have in an earlier posting argued that an 8x8 IFV is not suited for the Malaysian terrain. My views differed from that of the present army leadership; hence the purchase. But what I do believe is that the army has not given serious thoughts to the practical utilization of this huge monster vehicle in an actual battle situation in the Malaysian environment. Having such a huge and cumbersome vehicle does not mean that it can outperform other armoured vehicle, or has a much superior combat capabilities. This is a false notion, as size of the vehicle is certainly not the primary factor to determine combat superiority.
I am not an armoured trained officer; hence I cannot speak for the armour corps. But I have gone through some military exercises with the Indian Army in armoured warfare while a student at the Indian Staff College. It was difficult enough to deploy the vehicles in a tactical armoured maneuver in the Indian plains, and I think it will be worse in the Malaysian terrain. The emphasis here is in the effective tactical armoured maneuvers, and I do not see such a maneuver anywhere in our terrain. What good if the IFV is strung along the highway in single file formation without the opportunity of utilizing the inherent characteristics of the IFV? May I suggest that students of our staff college be given the opportunity to exercise the deployment of the 8x8 IFV during TEWTs; not just a troop but a regimental deployment in support of a formation? I would also like to suggest that the Armour Corps itself conducts an exercise and to evaluate the practicability in the effective tactical maneuver of such monstrous vehicles. I can bet that the deployment is going to be a major fiasco.
Here, I would also like to raise the issue with regards to awarding Denel of South Africa as the subcontractor for Weapons System Integration and the joint manufacturer of turrets for the IFV. I am told that the IFV will be equipped with the Denel Land System turret incorporating Denel’s Two Man Light Compact Turret 30mm, Denel’s ATGW, and Denel’s Prototype 30mm Cannon; the latter I am told is currently not used by the SA Army, and neither is it used by other armies, for reason that the weapon is believed to have some ‘unresolved problems’.
It was reported that in early November 2009, a team of selected senior army officers had made a quick visit to Denel’s facilities in South Africa, together with the local agent. Upon their return, the team quickly decided to support Denel as the integrator of the weapons system for the 8x8 IFV project. What actually transpired during the visit is not known, but rumours have it that there were some promises of a hefty kickback to a certain senior army officer by the local agent. I hope this isn’t true, but if it does, it calls for some serious rethinking and of necessity, a thorough investigation. Will the Military Police Criminal Investigation Division be willing to start the investigation, or are they toothless to do so?
The question that needs to be asked is what was the purpose of the visit? Was it to observe a weapon shooting demonstration of all the weapon systems earmarked for the project, or was it merely a visit of the facilities, and to be briefed of the systems? If it was merely a briefing and a visit around the facilities, then I would say that the visit was a worthless one. If it was a shooting demonstration, then there must be an evaluation report, and this report must be transparent to others as well. The concern of many is about the Prototype 30mm Cannon which may be a cause of problems later, and will the local agent or the manufacturer be willing to offer a guarantee that the weapon does not cause any problems, and a replacement made at their costs? And most importantly, why was the final decision to offer Denel made in such haste? Wasn’t there an open tender? To those involved in the decision making, it is pointless to hide because everyone knows who represents Denel, and the reason why Denel was selected.
Anyway, one would tend to believe in a rumour that there was a kickback, because the deal was done without inviting tenders to other international bidders. It was an arbitrary decision, so they say. Most would have thought that the 30mm Mk 44 Bushmaster would be the better choice for the 8x8 IFV, as the Turkish version is equipped with the 30mm Mk 44 Bushmaster, a weapon system that is already proven with the Turkish Army. And why was the 30mm Mk 44 Bushmaster not given a chance to be evaluated?
What we do not wish to see is a similar failure in the weapons used in the Scorpion and the Sibmas, or has army failed to learn from past lessons and experience? Hence, a review of the Denel’s Prototype 30mm Cannon by the new army leadership needs serious consideration.
For the billions spend, the army deserves something that will truly improve its fighting prowess. The people will also demand that the money is well spend, as the nation’s defence and security will be in jeopardy if the army is to be equipped with a worthless weapon system. Let not this RM8 billion become another blunder, and blunders in defence acquisition seemed quite in vogue and trendy of late.
Finally, let it be known that it is not the agents to decide what and how the army should be equipped; it is the army’s leadership. And if army fails, it is the leadership that will bear the brunt; not the agents.
Now, may I ask……………is the army leadership willing to accept such blame? And this is also the very reason why I have said all along that the army’s top leadership should avoid being associated or being seen to be associated with local defence agents. The army, and I suppose the same goes for the other two services as well, has assigned committees to study, evaluate and make their professional recommendations on all major equipment purchases. Heed the findings of these professional committees, and the top leadership must never exert the authority or influence in the final decision making. I am made to believe that there was top army leadership influence in the final decision to accept Denel.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
Saturday, May 1, 2010
PUBLIC PERCEPTION IN THE AWARD OF ARMY CONTRACTS BAFFLING
I would like to once again raise the much talked about issue regarding the award of two army contracts that is believed to be mired in corruption and abuse by the winning bidder, working in cohorts with certain individuals that has influence in supporting the bidder win the contract. The contracts in question are the supply of Ballistic Helmets (BH), and Bullet Resistance Vest (BRV) for the army. I had in an earlier posting questioned the rational of why does army need 30,000 pieces of BRV; an amount that I think is nonsensical. I had also talked about the defective BH supplied by the contractor, but yet it was deemed acceptable by army. The latter issue is well exposed in public domain.
As far as I know, and having been a staff in the Trial & Development Wing of PULADA at two different periods, I am aware that there are stringent international rules governing the issuance and approval of safety equipments to members of the Security Forces; and both BH and BRV are categorized as safety equipments. I believe too that local companies that are suppliers or manufacturers of such equipments must be in possession of a police permit to deal in both these equipments. I am told too that the plates used in the BRV are restricted items requiring police and import permits.
The recognized international body that governs the issuance of approval for security related equipments for use by the world’s Security Forces is the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which is a research and development agency of the US Department of Justice. The NIJ issues the classification and categorization of various equipments depending on its level of resistance, purpose etc. If NIJ is the authority, then what has the army trial team got to do with the trials of such equipments, or is the army trial team superior to NIJ? I would like to know the nature and level of tests that they conduct, and whether the team members are technically proficient in conducting such trials. What army should have done was to verify the source and manufacturer of the equipment (be it imported or local manufactured), and whether the equipment has the prerequisite NIJ classification and categorization. Verification status can be easily accessible via internet.
I am told that there is an existing government policy that gives preference to locally manufactured products, and that the company has ready been manufacturing such products either for exports or for domestic use. In the above two issues, the company that was awarded the contract is believed to neither have the manufacturing facility, nor has been manufacturing such equipments for exports or for domestic use. But yet, I am told that there is already a local company that is manufacturing the BRV with export capability, and yet the company failed the army’s test. If it is true that the winning bidder does not have a ready manufacturing capability, than one can assume that the equipment that was presented for trials has been brought in from a foreign manufacturer, without verifying the NIJ status of the manufacturer itself. What is even worse is that neither has all other bidders who have failed in their bid, be given access to the trial reports conducted locally, which in itself can be a source of abuse and manipulation by the trial team, and I believe this happens most of the time. Now, where is the transparency that one talks about? This has been the general complaint by bidders, with some having lost the desire and confidence to do any further tender dealing with Mindef.
I am still puzzled as to how the two contracts were awarded out, and I do hope someone from within Mindef itself will be bold enough to open up an investigation into these two tender awards. Will the new army leadership that is scheduled to take over the reins of the Army in the next few days be willing to do this? I hope they do.
Let us all take a cue from the submarine deal where the case of kickbacks is still open to investigation by the French government.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
As far as I know, and having been a staff in the Trial & Development Wing of PULADA at two different periods, I am aware that there are stringent international rules governing the issuance and approval of safety equipments to members of the Security Forces; and both BH and BRV are categorized as safety equipments. I believe too that local companies that are suppliers or manufacturers of such equipments must be in possession of a police permit to deal in both these equipments. I am told too that the plates used in the BRV are restricted items requiring police and import permits.
The recognized international body that governs the issuance of approval for security related equipments for use by the world’s Security Forces is the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which is a research and development agency of the US Department of Justice. The NIJ issues the classification and categorization of various equipments depending on its level of resistance, purpose etc. If NIJ is the authority, then what has the army trial team got to do with the trials of such equipments, or is the army trial team superior to NIJ? I would like to know the nature and level of tests that they conduct, and whether the team members are technically proficient in conducting such trials. What army should have done was to verify the source and manufacturer of the equipment (be it imported or local manufactured), and whether the equipment has the prerequisite NIJ classification and categorization. Verification status can be easily accessible via internet.
I am told that there is an existing government policy that gives preference to locally manufactured products, and that the company has ready been manufacturing such products either for exports or for domestic use. In the above two issues, the company that was awarded the contract is believed to neither have the manufacturing facility, nor has been manufacturing such equipments for exports or for domestic use. But yet, I am told that there is already a local company that is manufacturing the BRV with export capability, and yet the company failed the army’s test. If it is true that the winning bidder does not have a ready manufacturing capability, than one can assume that the equipment that was presented for trials has been brought in from a foreign manufacturer, without verifying the NIJ status of the manufacturer itself. What is even worse is that neither has all other bidders who have failed in their bid, be given access to the trial reports conducted locally, which in itself can be a source of abuse and manipulation by the trial team, and I believe this happens most of the time. Now, where is the transparency that one talks about? This has been the general complaint by bidders, with some having lost the desire and confidence to do any further tender dealing with Mindef.
I am still puzzled as to how the two contracts were awarded out, and I do hope someone from within Mindef itself will be bold enough to open up an investigation into these two tender awards. Will the new army leadership that is scheduled to take over the reins of the Army in the next few days be willing to do this? I hope they do.
Let us all take a cue from the submarine deal where the case of kickbacks is still open to investigation by the French government.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
Thursday, February 11, 2010
A REVELATION
I wish to take my readers back two years i.e. 2008, and to be exact September 5, 2008 at a time when Army had already took possession of one regiment worth of the Brazilian Avibras ASTROS-11 Multi Launched Rocket System (MLRS), where negotiations for the acquisition began back in 2003/04, or thereabout. The concluding deal was to acquire an additional regiment, and this was openly mentioned by the Chief of Army at the 76th Army Day Parade on 1st March 2009 (refer to my article 'Who is Sydney Franklin?' posted Wednesday, March 4, 2009), that saw the delivery of its rockets in two batches i.e. December 2008 and May 2009, and the first Battery in January 2010, to be followed by the remaining two batteries in June 2010.
I am not disputing the need for the Malaysian Army to acquire the MLRS, that had proven to be an effective weapon system against the Iranian during the Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988). In fact, the army should acquire at least a brigade worth of the system, to be effective and to pose a deterrent.
However, my main concern is the manner in which the deal was struck with Avibras Aeroespacial, the manufacturer of ASTROS, and the 'ugly hands' behind the deal. I am not wrong in saying that Sydney Franklin had a hand in managing through this deal, including several other army defence procurement deals, and he seemed to be a favourite foreign defence agent for some of army's top officials, for unknown reasons.
I am told that the President of Avibras Brazil, Mr. S. Hassuani being a direct party to the deal had struck a arrangement with Sydney Franklin (being the agent) around early September 2008, for a payment to be made through Banco do Brazil (Bank of Brazil) to Affin Bank, Kuala Lumpur. The payment is said to be made in the form of a Bank Guarantee for an unknown amount. (I suppose a Bank Guarantee transaction for a business deal is very normal)
Interestingly, what is not normal however was a mention of an army senior officer who is supposedly a recipient of a largess (reportedly for his role in the deal), who is said to be in possession of an overseas account. In a corresponding email, this officer upon being informed about the above transaction wrote, “Got your email – thanks. I sincerely hope it can be done on 10 Sep (2008). That would make my day”.
The contents of the email written by the senior army officer can mean many things. By saying, “that would make my day” raises a lot of speculations, one of which is that he is 'totally grateful and joyous that something exciting to his benefit is about to happen'. I am not saying that he is about to receive cash to be credited into his overseas account as a result of the successful deal. What I am saying is that the tone of the email raises to a lot of suspicion, and one can be forgiven if one suspects that corruption is involved.
I do know that the circle of exclusive friends (subordinates) that this particular senior army officer has around him are privy to the dealings he has had with the foreign defence agent, and to be seen with the latter (who happens to live in KL) is enough to raise suspicion.
To this mysterious senior army officer, this article will only hurt you if you have indeed been involved in this unscrupulous and immoral deal, and if you do, I hope you are brave and honorable enough to own up to your misdeeds, or be damned as the most corrupt senior army officer ever. And to all his exclusive friends, you are not save either and it will only be time when you too will have to answer to your misdeeds.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
I am not disputing the need for the Malaysian Army to acquire the MLRS, that had proven to be an effective weapon system against the Iranian during the Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988). In fact, the army should acquire at least a brigade worth of the system, to be effective and to pose a deterrent.
However, my main concern is the manner in which the deal was struck with Avibras Aeroespacial, the manufacturer of ASTROS, and the 'ugly hands' behind the deal. I am not wrong in saying that Sydney Franklin had a hand in managing through this deal, including several other army defence procurement deals, and he seemed to be a favourite foreign defence agent for some of army's top officials, for unknown reasons.
I am told that the President of Avibras Brazil, Mr. S. Hassuani being a direct party to the deal had struck a arrangement with Sydney Franklin (being the agent) around early September 2008, for a payment to be made through Banco do Brazil (Bank of Brazil) to Affin Bank, Kuala Lumpur. The payment is said to be made in the form of a Bank Guarantee for an unknown amount. (I suppose a Bank Guarantee transaction for a business deal is very normal)
Interestingly, what is not normal however was a mention of an army senior officer who is supposedly a recipient of a largess (reportedly for his role in the deal), who is said to be in possession of an overseas account. In a corresponding email, this officer upon being informed about the above transaction wrote, “Got your email – thanks. I sincerely hope it can be done on 10 Sep (2008). That would make my day”.
The contents of the email written by the senior army officer can mean many things. By saying, “that would make my day” raises a lot of speculations, one of which is that he is 'totally grateful and joyous that something exciting to his benefit is about to happen'. I am not saying that he is about to receive cash to be credited into his overseas account as a result of the successful deal. What I am saying is that the tone of the email raises to a lot of suspicion, and one can be forgiven if one suspects that corruption is involved.
I do know that the circle of exclusive friends (subordinates) that this particular senior army officer has around him are privy to the dealings he has had with the foreign defence agent, and to be seen with the latter (who happens to live in KL) is enough to raise suspicion.
To this mysterious senior army officer, this article will only hurt you if you have indeed been involved in this unscrupulous and immoral deal, and if you do, I hope you are brave and honorable enough to own up to your misdeeds, or be damned as the most corrupt senior army officer ever. And to all his exclusive friends, you are not save either and it will only be time when you too will have to answer to your misdeeds.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
Monday, November 16, 2009
CORRUPTION – IT GETS BOLDER BY THE DAY
If the PKFZ scandal is dubbed the ‘mother of all scandals’, what then would the electrified double tracking rail track from Kuala Lumpur to Ipoh be referred to. Can it be called the ‘daughter of all scandals’? And with such massive scandals involving billions of ringgit of public fund, the reported RM500 million commission paid for the purchase of the two French made submarines, is a mere pittance.
And now there is also a memorandum submitted by UMNO Youth Kelantan requesting for the MACC to investigate Kelantan’s Menteri Besar, Ustaz Nik Aziz and his son-in-law over a report that they were offered a sponsorship worth RM65,000 each to perform the Haj this year.
Now what is RM65,000 compared to the RM24 million that Khir Toyo supposedly paid to build his palace, and the millions he spend to ‘tour the world’ with his family and including his maid………..what a lucky maid. And between Ustaz Nik Aziz and Khir Toyo, which one of the two ought to have a higher preference to be investigated first? My read is that Ustaz Nik Aziz surely must have a higher preference over Khir Toyo simply because of Malaysia Boleh.
This Malaysia Boleh slogan seem to be creating wonders, and there can be no denying that Malaysia’s lowly placed international rating for corruption is all but true. Just look at the recently released Auditor General’s report. Where on earth can a laptop computer be bought for RM24,000 a piece, except in Malaysia. I suppose the laptop has gold trimmings and the screen must be made of crystal.
Now the MACC is reported to have said that they have opened up more than 40 investigation papers based on the Auditor General 2008 report. How many of these papers will be closed, and how many will find its way to the courts is what concerns the general public. Citing numbers of investigation papers alone is not enough to satisfy the public. Mind you, this is public money; not private funding from some billionaires. And what of the Auditor General 2007 report?
Talking about Malaysia Boleh, this slogan has infected some in Mindef as well. I am not just referring to the uniform staffs alone, but the civilian staffs as well. They have to be working in tandem to get things going.
Just look at the comments that I get from my recent write-up on the army’s purchase of the 120mm Rifled mortars. There is no hiding the fact that the Evaluation Team recommendation was for the 120mm Smooth Bore mortars; not the Rifled Mortars. Someone must have arbitrarily changed the recommendation of the Evaluation Team to satisfy someone’s greed. I would like to suggest that MACC gets down to the bottom of this by looking at the Evaluation Team report, and to also look at the company that was offered the contract and the costs. The market is rife with talks that it was corruption being the primary reason for the change.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
And now there is also a memorandum submitted by UMNO Youth Kelantan requesting for the MACC to investigate Kelantan’s Menteri Besar, Ustaz Nik Aziz and his son-in-law over a report that they were offered a sponsorship worth RM65,000 each to perform the Haj this year.
Now what is RM65,000 compared to the RM24 million that Khir Toyo supposedly paid to build his palace, and the millions he spend to ‘tour the world’ with his family and including his maid………..what a lucky maid. And between Ustaz Nik Aziz and Khir Toyo, which one of the two ought to have a higher preference to be investigated first? My read is that Ustaz Nik Aziz surely must have a higher preference over Khir Toyo simply because of Malaysia Boleh.
This Malaysia Boleh slogan seem to be creating wonders, and there can be no denying that Malaysia’s lowly placed international rating for corruption is all but true. Just look at the recently released Auditor General’s report. Where on earth can a laptop computer be bought for RM24,000 a piece, except in Malaysia. I suppose the laptop has gold trimmings and the screen must be made of crystal.
Now the MACC is reported to have said that they have opened up more than 40 investigation papers based on the Auditor General 2008 report. How many of these papers will be closed, and how many will find its way to the courts is what concerns the general public. Citing numbers of investigation papers alone is not enough to satisfy the public. Mind you, this is public money; not private funding from some billionaires. And what of the Auditor General 2007 report?
Talking about Malaysia Boleh, this slogan has infected some in Mindef as well. I am not just referring to the uniform staffs alone, but the civilian staffs as well. They have to be working in tandem to get things going.
Just look at the comments that I get from my recent write-up on the army’s purchase of the 120mm Rifled mortars. There is no hiding the fact that the Evaluation Team recommendation was for the 120mm Smooth Bore mortars; not the Rifled Mortars. Someone must have arbitrarily changed the recommendation of the Evaluation Team to satisfy someone’s greed. I would like to suggest that MACC gets down to the bottom of this by looking at the Evaluation Team report, and to also look at the company that was offered the contract and the costs. The market is rife with talks that it was corruption being the primary reason for the change.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)