View Comments (27)

• On the contrary, I think a plan that does not involve handing out tongkats to troubled entities is a great plan!

  Either fully privatised them (for Airod case) or quietly close down (for SMEO), but a plan moving forward that does not involve dragging them along is a plan free of such legacy issues. Why should we have local industries mucking it all up with their petty demands for handouts to survive and cable-cronyism? Not just them but Sapura, who lost a bid to supply radios recently, and many others that took Govt patronage for granted, expecting repeat orders will come forever, and never innovate or expand.

  I am hoping continue open tenders be made throughout and those that cannot compete & survive, let them die.

  • Then why have a local defence and security industry policy then?

  • If thats the case, should'nt the government do the same for MAS, KMTB and other GLCs which are not able to be profitable? Why is the defence industry companies be allowed to die on its own then when other companies also lose more money than them?

• Marhalim - '' it is simply not worth the paper it is printed''

  Indeed but it will be another politically driven exercise which on paper will look good and give the impression will improve things but it will not. The problem is we won't admit where and how we've gone so badly wrong; there is no political desire to admit that our longstanding defence policy is highly flawed or to adopt the needed prerequistes It's aimed at benefiting national interests; not the interests of the end user or the taxpayer. Pakatan's Deputy Defence Minister got it right when he said that deep fundamental changes are needed; including the role vendors and local companies go. I'm not a DAP fan but he said something which no other politicians have the courage to say.

  Until we can reach a stage where we buy in bulk there is no way that SME can be price competitive. It will be cheaper and faster to buy from abroad. though some delusional souls will still harp on and propagate the ''self sufficiency'' myth.

  • LCT said the right things when he was the Deputy but recent comments showed him as just another politician

• Yup, like Proton...so dependent on local market and government subsidy. The policy creates rent seekers and jaguh kampung mentality. Finally, customers also fed up.

  • Yes but the government continue to give preferential treatment to Proton and Perodua even though they are profitable. Should'nt Proton and Perodua be let loose then?

• Well on paper the reasoning was sound. Establish a local company which in due course could supply the needs of the MAF. Not only do we establish an indigenous capability but cash is spent locally and jobs created. The problem is the local company never made the transition from producing ammo and related stuff to conducting R&D on stuff which could really be called 'local'. To be fair SME can't keep its prices down because there is no economics of scale and because almost everything needed for the production of ammo, charges, fuzes and explosives has to be imported and paid for in foreign currency. We've long reached the stage where it's cheaper and faster to buy from abroad.

  • Then why bother with a local defence and security industry policy then?

  • Why is there a need for R&D? Their job was supposed to fill the ammo needs of the government agencies ie police and military. Across the region, state owned arsenals are almost doing the same things with similar resulst but they kept on it. Do we really need to have our own state owned ordnance company make a profit?

• "Then why have a local defence and security industry policy then?"
  The same reason why we have a national car policy, only to sell off Proton to Geely later, meanwhile P2 is merely a facade for rebadged Daihatsus.
  The idea behind both policies were unfeasible in the long run but pushed ahead by a certain long ruling PM (yes, we already had some local defence industry going before him but he took it to new levels of "localisation" & cronyism). This in the backdrop of peace in our time meant defence expenditure stagnated vis a vis our neighbours.

• It wasnt too many moons ago lots of sceptics about the unsuitability of the LWS in near future warfare. But seems like the development and deployment of LWS in some countries is moving quite fast. Israel will deploy a laser wall to counter rockets, uav n missiles in a year. All the big names in military power have them. Even Turkey got its own LWS.
  Hope our defence players have another look at the new weapon system, whether you wanna buy it outright from others or locally develop n produce it, doesnt matter.

• "Proton and Perodua be let loose"
  Proton and Perodua shouldn't have existed in the first place. We lost out to Thailand & Indonesia and upcoming is Vietnam because of our folly with such national projects.
  Lets be honest with our national projects. If its for R&D, and own products, and that we can export to others... it is all BS. If its simply for job creation and the economy spinoff from the workforce, then Im all for it but we must be selective with what we do, ie multi-year production assemblies of ships & vehicles. Purely assembly only, no redesign or local adaptation without approval from the principal nonsense. Also no shortterm small qty assembly ie 1 year project to assemble just 18 units of LG1 arty is BS. It does not have to be profitable, but it does not have to be a continuous loss making venture, and that all losses must be valid and accountable. Once its done, close books and move on.

  That brings us to those other troubled GLCs, should the Govt rescue them? It depends. Those dealing with crucial public services ie KTMB, Rapid, MRT, state & national museums, yes. They are necessary and at same time had to keep impact to public low, so losses are unavoidable. Proton, MAS, MISC, taxi operators, no. These are not crucial and in their place, others would fill in the gaps, ie without taxis we still have ride hailing. The decrepit local defence industry is one of them. If they cannot survive, we can source abroad and unlikely the chances we are in danger of being embargoed or such.

• Marhalim - ''Why is the defence industry companies be allowed to die on its own then when other companies also lose more money than them?''

  Because the average citizen/voter couldn't care less about local defence companies. In contrast; he/she although not being particularly familiar with MAS, KMTB and other GLCs; will be aware of them the role they play; it resonates more. Another reason is that MAS, KTMB and GLCS have much bigger revenues and contribute more to the coffers, as opposed to a small defence company with 75 staff with a modest annual turnover and which has long started to lose money.

  • MAS has lost more money during the pandemic (and much more during the last 10 years) than SMEO has had its long history. I understand the resonance but again ....

• ''Their job was supposed to fill the ammo needs of the government agencies ie police and military. ''

  Its first job was to assemble the HK-33s at Batu Cantonment. It would have been nice if SME could have provided some added value in addition to just producing/assembling ammo/charges/fuzes and explosives. Take the AUG; we manufactured it for more than a decade and not a single modification was done in order to improve it.

• Marhalim - ''Then why have a local defence and security industry policy then?''

  Some things we can produce locally; some we can't. We need a realistic appraisal of what we can achieve and what we can't. Our longstandi9ng policy of ostensibly improving local capabilities has not led to any tangible results; decades later. look at the number of local companies sprouting out of nowhere just to fulfill specific contracts; in an already limited but saturated and highly competitive market.

  To be fair some local companies have been innovative and delivered; problem is most of the rest are merely ''middle men'' and don't have the incentive to transition to anything else.

  -Marhalim - '-recent comments showed him as just another politician'''

  Because he is a politician and by the very nature of being in politics he wants to stay in power. Having said that; a number of things he said; on ''jointness' the local industry, the need to evolve, inter service rivalry; etc, are things never spoken about by any politician.