SHAH ALAM: The Dewan Rakyat on March 3 approved the Supplementary Supply (2024) Bill 2025. This bill authorises additional expenditure for services in 2024, amounting to no more than RM20,191,299.50 from the Consolidated Fund.
Finance Minister II, Datuk Seri Amir Hamzah Azizan, presented the bill, which was passed through a majority voice vote following debates by both government and opposition Members of Parliament. The bulk of the allocations are for operational expenditure, which are for the the Treasury’s General Services amounting to RM12,624,721,830, allocations to the Statutory Fund (RM3,151,419,300), Education Ministry (RM1,763,672,170), the Public Services Department (RM1,148,146,080), and Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry (RM1,077,146,050).
The allocations also include the Higher Education Ministry (RM417,999,870) and the Election Commission (RM8,194,200). Also approved was supplementary funding for development expenditures amounting to RM RM2,308,070,450.
As for the Development Expenditure, the bulk of the supplementary funding are for the Finance Ministry (RM1,860,270,300); RM407,800,000 million for the Defence Ministry and RM40,000,000 for the Prime Minister’s Department. The money for the allocation has been used using funds under the Consolidated Funds so the approval was just a mere formality.
Anhow, according to the budget document, the extra allocation for the Defence Ministry was for the maintenance of aircraft and radars of the RMAF. As usual it did not give a detailed breakdown of the allocation. And usual the MPs during the debate did not really press the deputy Defence Minister Adly Zahari to give a detail breakdown of the funding or the justifications. They instead play to the galleries, pontificating about the leasing contract for the helicopters and other things. One even suggested that an airbase is built on Beting Patinggi Ali. I understand that they need to put out their messages across to the public, but it is also pertinent to seek out details especially when it comes to budget allocation.
Thankfully, in his reply, Adly gave some details about the extra allocation. He confirmed that the RM407.8 million extra allocation was for the maintenance of aircraft and radars but also payments for the procurement of the 18 Korean Aerospace Industries KAI FA-50M FLIT/LCA. He did not give a breakdown of the payments though.
In explaining the need for extra allocation for maintenance, Adly revealed that ministry has obligations for 52 maintenance contracts for aircraft and radars are worth RM1.4 billion annually but the ceiling for funding was RM800 million. Hence the need for the extra allocation.
He said the extra allocation was needed for the A400M fleet in 2024, which had brake problems leading to issues with the hydraulic system and tyres, as well. This was also the same for the FA-18D Hornets fleet when cracks were found the aircraft and components.
I believed the cap for the annual maintenance allocation (RM800 million) is likely one of the reasons that the government approved the leasing programme with Weststar Aviation Services Sdn Bhd. Again this is just an excuse. As they had approved the extra allocation to make up the difference, the government also has the power to increase the budget for the Defence Ministry to cover maintenance.
The relevant part of the debate on March 3 via the Hansard:
Seperti mana kita tahu bahawa bajet tambahan kita ini yang berjumlah
RM407,000,800 adalah terkait dengan dua perkara. Pertama, terkait dengan senggaraan
pesawat dan juga radar. Kedua, terkait dengan pembayaran perolehan Fighter Lead-in
Trainer ataupun kita sebut Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) fasa yang pertama.
Jadi kita seperti mana yang kita tahu, seperti mana yang disebut juga oleh Yang
Berhormat Tanah Merah tentang bajet kita di mana keperluan bajet di Kementerian
Pertahanan itu melalui penyelenggaraan sama ada radar mahupun pesawat kita yang
melibatkan 52 kontrak pertahanan ini menelan belanja hampir RM1.4 bilion setahun. Jadi,
kalau kita tahu bahawa siling kita setakat ini adalah sebanyak RM800 juta. Jadi, sudah
barang pasti kita cuba memanfaatkan bajet yang telah diberikan oleh Kementerian Kewangan
kepada kita tetapi dalam masa yang sama kita tahu bahawa ada beberapa isu yang
mengekang kita juga untuk memastikan bahawa kita memerlukan bajet tambahan.
Antaranya saya lihat bahawa kita di Kementerian Pertahanan memang kita
menggunakan garis 20 peratus daripada garis luar jangka kita tetapi kalau kita melihat kepada
apa yang berlaku sekarang di mana kita ada peningkatan antara 30 hingga 40 peratus luar
jangka ini yang melibatkan penyelenggaran kita. Sebab itu kalau kita lihat kita memerlukan
bajet-bajet tambahan ini. Contohnya kalau kita lihat macam A400, kalau kita lihat pada tahun
2024 kita menghadapi masalah brake dan kosnya agaklah tinggi kerana ia bukan sahaja
melibatkan brake tetapi melibatkan hidraulik dan juga keseluruhan daripada sistem tayar itu
dan ini memerlukan peningkatan kepada keperluan bajet kita.
Begitulah juga kalau kita lihat macam F/A18. So, kita boleh melihat bahawa kadang
kadang ia melihat juga kepada modul ataupun kerangka itu sendiri ada keretakan dan
seumpamanya. Mungkin tidak kita letakkan dalam bajet kita tetapi bila ini berlaku dia
sebenarnya memerlukan bajet tambahan daripada kita.
–Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
How will you fit RM1.1 Billion extra for 15 years in the OPEX when your maintenance limit is just RM800 million?
Normal maintenance if we direct buy is just about RM176.4 million only (this assume all 28 helicopter maintenance is as expensive as the EC725)
Also a reason why, for used assets, it would be good if we have extra airframes as spares, say 20% of the operational numbers.
Cracked parts on the operational aircraft could be quickly swapped with those spare airframes. With zero cost.
The cracked parts can then be repaired slowly (if the fleet is going to be used for quite sometime) off the aircraft, or just scrapped.
Nothing about Scorpenes or LMS b2?
Nothing about Scorpenes or LMS b2?(Qamarul)
Am just wondering when any top honcho in MinDef is going to consider buying a smaller sized modern sub if we aren’t able to procure a full-sized sub. We need more subs so why not consider it.
These supplementary bills to unlock extra funding is what I believe then Najib Govt had wanted to use to coverup the shortfalls in the actual budget for LCS. This was the plan but was scampered when PH Govt did not play ball to give more funding instead froze the project for few years which then further increase cost.
But I dont understand why FA50 buy needs supplementary money if it was ady budgeted in RMK. Would that also make this program actually cost more than the announced figure given to the public?
There was no way the shortfalls in the LCS to be covered in the supplementary budget. We will not know whether it will increase the cost or not unless there is a breakdown of the payments.
LCS was evidently underfunded from the get go, moreso when parts were used for lawatan sambil belajars & BNS upgrading. Unless the intention was for this project to fail, its very likely the core planners knew they had to get funds which doesnt create a sensation. This supplementary was hardly reported in mass media, and I guess only yours was reporting on defence portion.
Tain – “Am just wondering when any top honcho in MinDef is going to consider buying a smaller sized modern sub if we aren’t able to procure a full-sized sub”
Despite advantages in technology there are still inherent issues with a smaller sub – less capable sensors, less space for weapons and fuel, less capable sensors, etc.
Also what is a “full size sub”? The displacement of the Scorpene is ideal for our needs. A littoral boat as opposed to an ocean going boat like the Collins and Kilo.
Tain – “Am just wondering when any top honcho in MinDef is going to consider buying a smaller sized modern sub if we aren’t able to procure a full-sized sub”
No one make a mini subs anymore (or not yet if turkeye STM to be believe). And if we were to pay R&D to build one we might end up paying the price of an off the shelf littoral subs for a mini sub. Just like how we bought the gowind “corvette” for the price of a *frigates.
If the Turks do make one. I don’t see why not. Thought as an addition rather than a replacement to a littoral subs.
Zaft – “No one make a mini subs anymore”
They do. Look it up. The Italian company Cosmos use to deliver quite a few. Not all countries have a requirement for mini subs and there is a difference between a mini sub and a coastal sub. Taib was not referring to mini subs.
There are currently 3 countries making or promoting mini subs
Korea, Italy & turkiye
Korea for unnamed customers (HDS-500)
Italy for Qatar
Turkiye for unnamed customers (STM-500)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnuZnWaacAEBOe6.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnuZpOYaQAEf4t_.jpg
Right now I would prefer to get additional scorpenes 1st before getting any mini subs, but at 500toms displacement, they are as big as German Type 206 subs. With li-ion batteries, short ranged limitation of small subs like Type 206 could now be remedied.
“gowind “corvette” for the price of a *frigates.”
Whats that mean? While LCS were based on Gowind corvette, it was upsized to a frigate class vessel.
… – “With li-ion batteries, short ranged limitation of small subs like Type 206 could now be remedied”
But not other factors inherent with size limitations. It’s also one thing to operate in the confined Baltic in a small sub and another in the more open South China Sea.
@joe
At this point in time most publications would identified a 3000 tons ship as a corvette rather than a frigates.
Or if you prefer the previous considerations then we are turning a corvette into a frigates at the price of a destroyer. Which sounds a whole lot worse.
@ azlan
Most current available mini subs seem to be a specialized tool for a specific task rather than something like a modern version of type 206 as A type 206 is the one that comes to mind when taib mention “a smaller size modern subs”.
The one that seems close to building a modern version of type 206 is the Turks. Thought the jury is still out there whether a smaller size modern sub is a better alternative to XL-UUV
“most publications would identified a 3000 tons ship as a corvette”
Most publications also categorise SG Formidables which are of similar size & tonnage to be frigates. So while you may call it corvette, convention termed these boats as frigates.
Zaft – “Most current available mini subs seem to be a specialized tool for a specific task”
That “special task” is SF related work.
Zaft – “A type 206 is the one that comes to mind when taib mention “a smaller size modern subs”
Like I said: he meant coastal not mini subs.
Zaft – “At this point in time most publications would identified a 3000 tons ship as a corvette rather than a frigates”
No they would not. Depends on who and what.
Also, has been done to death with but what in one navy is a corvette could be a frigate in another and what is a frigate in one navy could be a destroyer in another. Just like how a OPV doesn’t necessarily have to be lightly or modestly equipped [the Marikhs and Kedahs] or a corvette necessarily lighter armed than a frigate [the Kora class has 16 Urans].
Azlan “Like I said: he meant coastal not mini subs.”
Thus like I said, there’s no such thing off the shelf on the market right now.
Joe “So while you may call it corvette, convention termed these boats as frigates.”
So much effort being made on what classified as something or not but no so much effort to recognise the fact that the price of turning a corvette into a frigates cost as much as buying an off the shelf destroyer.
Zaft – “Thus like I said, there’s no such thing off the shelf on the market right now”
Have no idea what your’e on about.
The discussion was on subs and there clearly are “off the shelf” mini and coastal sub designs available.
Zaft – *So much effort being made on what classified as something or not”
No such effort – either you understand it or not and it’s pertinent to the subject.
Speaking of LCS, does anyone know if LCS1 started its HAT?
“So much effort being made”
So much effort being wrong. The cost of a destroyer is far higher. And we have no need for such a ship. Its overkill for our deterrent stance use.
It has done limited harbour trials.
Azlan “The discussion was on subs and there clearly are “off the shelf” mini and coastal sub designs available.”
There are mini and coastal sub on sales off the shelf but a mini coastal sub are not.
Zaft,
I have zero clue what a “mini coastal sub” is and I suspect you don’t too, even though you might think you do. A coastal sub is in my definition something like the Type 206 and a mini sub is something like the designs Cosmos used to sell and designs use by the likes of North Korea and Russia for SF related work. If we go back to WW2 a “mini sub” would be the X Cract and the Katien. Look them up.
Azlan
Considering that most of the current coastal subs have a displacement of 1500 tons ish and above then a 500 tons ish type 206 or STM 500 can be considered as a mini coastal subs. Neither the type 206 or STM 500 are a mini subs related to SF works it’s just a smaller version of a coastal subs Which is what I assume the original question is.
Zaft,
Let’s keep it some. Coastal going subs are like the Type 206 which was designed for Baltic use or the Sauro [the Scorpene is only slightly larger]. A mini sub are the type used by Pakistan, North Korea and Russia for SF and sabotage work. WW2 mini subs would be the X Craft [the one which attacked Tirpitz in a Norwegian fiord and a IJN cruiser in Singapore] and the Katien. Then we have larger ocean-going boats like the Kilo and Collins.
Taib I believe was referring to mini subs per see but scaled down versions of littoral subs which exist. DCNS/Amaris have/had a scaled down version of the Scorpene.
Sure why not scale down version of littoral subs then since you so allergic to calling it a mini littoral subs.
I’m not “allergic” to anything. You seem incapable of fathoming the fact that there are “mini subs” and there are “coastal subs” – examples were provided more than once.
SDR Zaft & Azlan,
I am inclined to say I am referring to smaller sized littoral or coastal subs, and not mini subs per se. I don’t see say, a new Turkish designed STM500 patrolling the deeper and more open Andaman Sea, instead the Malacca Straits and at a stretch, the South China Sea.
I am just veering to the thought the navy’s need for MRSS ‘could be replaced’ by the using commercial ferries or container ships.
And quickly free some funds for a new sub fleet.
Taib,
Yes as I pointed out to Zaft you were referring to smaller designs of existing subs and not mini subs.
On a commercial design in p mm ace of the MPSSS and instead focusing on more subs is sound on paper. Howecer a RoRo simply does not have what it takes to replace a MPSS [measure of success versus measure of efficiency] and there is a greater need to replace the Saktis which have both a wartime and peacetime role. As pointed out they can be leased or requisitioned and are complementary not a substitute to a dedicated lift asset which also has the needed DC and sea keeping.
On subs. We should get more but not necessarily at the expense of other things. We should also do away with the notion that because they are “invisible” they are more survivable and therefore can do their job when other assets can and can always deter others. Plenty of things others can do to not only destroy our subs but also prevent them from operating effectively. Another point often overlooked is that not all circumstances call for for subs to do their own thing alone. At times they have to operate in conjunction with other assets to be effective.
To get an accurate assement of anything one needs to have an objective, sobered and holistic view of things, looking and noting both the pros and cons.
Taib – ” a new Turkish designed STM500 patrolling the deeper and more open Andaman Sea, instead the Malacca Straits and at a stretch, the South China Sea”
Their primary operating area is the Black Sea, the Sea of Mamara, the Bosphorus, Dardenelles, etc, mostly confined areas.