SHAH ALAM: Former Boustead Heavy Industries Corporation (BHIC) and Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS) managing director Tan Sri Ahmad Ramli Mohd Nor was charged with three counts of criminal breach of trust in connection with the LCS programme today. The 79-year-old was the 11th RMN chief.
According to Bernama, the charges occurred between October 2010 to May 2011, were in total involved some RM21.08 million. Ahmad Ramli plead not guilty to the charges, and he was given bail amounting to RM500,000. The case at the Kuala Lumpur High Court will be re-mentioned on November 24.
Ahmad Ramli was charged under Section 409 of the Criminal Procedure Code which calls for a prison of no less of two years and not more of 20 years; whipping and a fine if found guilty.
What is interesting is that the charges were the ones that were revealed around 2011 and 2012 and was widely reported then (though I can no longer find it anywhere now and cannot confirmed whether the issue was investigated back then). I did write a story about it here.
Ahmad Ramli was appointed to the board of BHIC on 17 August 2005 and served as the managing Director/Chief Executive Officer since 22 August 2005. He was redesignated as MD of the company on May 1, 2019. He resigned from Boustead later that year.
I guess we would have to see if others involved in the project will also face charges in court.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Malaysia will own a “fantastic” and newly designed 155mm SPH called Yavuz through direct nego. Welcome to Malaysia! Bye bye Caesar! Any thoughts on that?
@Kamal
No official news yet but I also heard that somehwere. Doing some simple and stuoid calculation, the Yavuz cost 30%-40% more per unit than the already proven Ceaser! Welcome back to the good old Malaysia procurement stupidity. I stand to be corrected though.
On the LCS charges, I am still waiting for any political names to be charged in court as this ex-BNS guy receive order from his boss which receive order from some politicians (clearly!)
Kamal – ” Bye bye Caesar! Any thoughts on that”
As long as whatever we buy meets requirements; is bought in decent numbers and we acquire the enablers and the needed improvements [ISR assets; FDCs, better organisation; revamped doctrine, etc] in order for our arty to provide timely and accurate direct and indirect fire and for us to be enabled to have mass fire without mass guns whether on the offence or defence in support of maneuver units as part of combined arms formations…
Is the Turkey Army even operating the Yavuz or ordered it? Since their main SPH remains the South Korea’s K9 variant. Markup high because agent company does nothing but provide a letterhead for official business. Do people want to get rid of the agent policy and system?
Am inclined to go with Azlan’s comment. Yavuz SPH is very new. But so long it fits the criteria for purchase and use, it’s all good. Who knows, we’ll buy another 18 to the alleged 18 we are said to order. And read somewhere MKE is throwing in the tactical drones too for the Yavuz purchase.
Well yavuz is basically a panter 155m towed howitzers put on man truck..id say its pretty good on paper as i understand panter 155m towed are being used quite widely in turkish army or no?..And got MRSI capability too
@Kamal
Well some had pooh-pooh’ed open tender so this is good news for them to hear, no?
It has been reporyed to day that to sweeten the deal we will be given 9 units of tactical UAVs to help with recon for the artillery. Each unit consists of two uavs. So 18 units in total
Kel “Markup high because agent company does nothing but provide a letterhead for official business”
It receives the contract and awards it; takes delivery, delivers it to the customer and ensure all contractual obligations are met.
Kel ” Do people want to get rid of the agent policy and system”
Who are the “people”? If it’s the various companies who gain revenue then obviously no; if it’s the average taxpayer he/she remains largely clueless; if it’s the government who uses contracts to reward patronage then no; if it’s the armed services who have long paid price for us not getting the best value for our cash then yes and it’s people like me who have long observed and understands the high penalties we incurr in the long run; then obviously yes.
Firdaus -“id say its pretty good on paper”
If it has been exported or bought domestically there is no such thing as a “bad” gun. We can even buy 40 year old FH-70s but ultimately – as explained in my previous post – it boils down to how we employ them. If we don’t have the right doctrine, organisation and key enablers; doesn’t matter what we buy.
Lee – ” to help with recon for the artillery”
To help with target detection and BDA” not “recon” per see.
Well, if we can get Ankas for free, then its like killing 2 requirements with 1 order.
Its not Anka lah, it will be tactical drones meant for the guns. And its not for free, it will be included in the contract price. So what if its just a commercial drone that does not meet the requirements then? And with a range well below the capability of the gun itself?
Oh well, regardless if its a commercial type drone none in the market has the range anyhow. A typical NATO 155mm has max 30km range and up to 40km with base bleed, the longest ranged DJI Mavic 3 only goes as far as 15km. Prolly will be used for different purposes if not for target spotting and range calibration.
It would be interesting to see if TDM will play hardball once again and we won’t see a new SPH for at least another 10 years on top of the time they cancelled M109.
“It would be interesting to see if TDM will play hardball once again and we won’t see a new SPH for at least another 10 years on top of the time they cancelled M109”
Why on earth would it play “hardball”? It wanted a new, cheaper to buy and operate wheeled platform; plus one with a lower footprint and that’s what it’s getting.
As expected, ex-service members turned fraud corporate members with no prior qualification/experience, handling multi billion project only to find out they swindled the funds some form or another during their tenure. What a shocker.
There is still people over here defending this practice of hiring corrupt ex-servicemen as board of directors in the company dealing with military acquisition citing, “It’s the standard practice everywhere in the world” as their best argument. Guess we simply forgot to follow the ethics & integrity aspect of the deal.
Let’s hope they get that Capt. AM & all involved and brought them to justice as well lest they exit the country like Amin Shah. Shameful men with no honor, what a disgrace to the whole country and our armed forces.
Bye.
Hafiez – “It’s the standard practice everywhere in the world”’
This maybe a revelation to you but in almost every country in the world ex service members are hired for the inside knowledge/input/connections they have. You make it sound as if all former ex service high ranking members are charlatans or that the practice of hiring ex service members is unique to Malaysia. Look it up.
If you were running a company bidding for MINDEF contracts wouldn’t you hire ex service members? Many years ago an ex DAP politician turned NGO with a history of making poppycock statements made the same silly claim you’re making now.
Also, I realise this might be a revelation to you but it’s not ex service members per see who screw things up but the very system we have in place which enables all kinds of shite to happen.
Hafiez – “Guess we simply forgot to follow the ethics & integrity aspect of the deal”
You preaching “ethics & integrity” here? It’s not unethical to hire for ex service members..
Hafiez -“to justice as well lest they exit the country like Amin Shah”
What about those who enabled them to do what people like Amin Shah did? Those who use defence as a means of dispensing patronage?
Hafiez – “Bye”
Take care
“Why on earth would it play “hardball”?”
Because it had been holding out specifically for Caesar for the longest of time? It didn’t seem like TDM would have considered other platforms or systems, but if they are willing to accept a comparable one with Caesar that’s great! But did it went thru the proper channels & evaluation steps? Something which I doubt and that is why I keep saying; open tender! open tender! open tender!
So H20 is adamant that there will be no additional funds for BNS to complete the first ship by 2024/2025..Can BNS pull it off though
“Because it had been holding out specifically for Caesar for the longest of time?”
It’s the government which has been flirted with by Giat/Nexter since the 1990’s. The army’s preference has always been for a wheeled SPH and that requirement has been approved in principle subject to funding. After waiting for so long the army is unlikely to reject Yavuz; especially if it has been politically selected and fits the criterian for what the army wants.
Kel – ” But did it went thru the proper channels & evaluation steps?”
The question to ask if Yavuz really is a favourite or has been shortlisted?
“After waiting for so long the army is unlikely to reject Yavuz”
Which was pretty much their own doing rejecting the M109 without knowing when they can get a replacement, so if they’d given up playing hardball that’s great! At least we can move forward on this requirement and get it over with. The question is whether Yavuz can replicate some of Caesar’s features; ability to fire VLAP rounds to 50+km, Stanag 4569 protected cab, fully automated ammunition loading system?
Semi automatic loading as two soldiers are needed to put in the shell and charges. Fully automatic loading requires no human intervention in the two processes.
“Which was pretty much their own doing rejecting the M109 without knowing when they can get a replacement”
As has been explained the issue was that the army was; as told by someone who did the paper evaluation; willing to wait longer rather than being stuck for a decade at minimum with something which didn’t suit its operational requirements and something it deemed expensive to operate and sustain based on its perspective [it has ample experience of being incumbered with stuff ill suited for its requirements and didn’t want a short term solution which would cause issues in the long term]. You will also note that the army never asked or expressed an interest in the M109; it was a political decision.
“The question is whether Yavuz can replicate some of Caesar’s features”
Yavuz has an armored cab and can fire all NATO standard rounds. The question is the barrel life and the performance of its FCS compared to Caesar [which has an FCS reported to be overly complex] but my main concern extends beyond the actual gun which is secondary.
It was also a political decision to scrap the M109 deal
According to what I was told that wasn’t the first offer. There had been previous EDA offers before for M-109s. Apparently the manner in which the
M-109s was selected was similar to the mini guns.