View Comments (20)

• Not a lawyer but it seem the oversimplification of the legal term is likely similar to what tok mat told parliament

  1) Contraves want money due to them & compensation for cancelling their LOA which the previous & current gov seem to agreed

  2) they wanted immunity from presecution which MINDEF say they could not provide as it is the job scope of MACC.

  The biggest problem to complete LCS is likely money. BNS don't have money, her parents don't have money in fact her parents are lost making & going to go private.

  It is likely MOF would take the previous bailouts approach they did with Tabung haji & take away the non performing asset from Boustead leaving LTAT only with profitable companies to protect LTAT investors.

• What a cockup.

  The question is who's going to be accountable [those behind the NGOPV fiasco were never held accountable]? Are those who've been charged really responsible or are there hidden hands? When are we going to be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that this whole cockup occurred because the system enabled it and not because of changed in design; BNS or other reasons people come up with. Unless or until the system is revamped it will be a case of history repeating itself.

  Yesterday in Parliament an opposition MP called for the setting up of non partisan body to oversee procurement. I would like to see something like FMV or ARMSCOR; a non partisan procurement entity comprising MAF, MOF people; as well as those from other agencies/ministries. Not to select anything as Zaft suggested but to oversee and scrutinise procurement; to ensure we're getting the best value for money and to ensure those awarded contracts adhere to contractual obligations.

  The opposition MP also asked that local companies with the expertise be considered rather than foreign companies. Fine in principle but when the wrong companies are awarded contracts; when the government has little continuity and can't commit; when we don't have economics of scale; etc; what looks great in principle can be a disaster in reality.

• 2 subsidiaries making losses, Boustead Holdings better be cash rich or else LTAT will be in big trouble.

  "any statements ... is irresponsibly optimistic"
  As are all our politicians from both sides. The public doesn't care to hold them accountable nor can we lawsuit ministers for not making good their words.

• I think there's a fair chance that the dispute with MTU can be settled. BNS has already paid half of the outstanding amount and settlement negotiations are still ongoing. There's plenty of time since the next hearing is more than 3 months away. Even if they can't conclude the negotiations on time, during the case management on 12 June they can request for the hearing to be rescheduled. Courts normally grant such requests.

• The legal problem is not the money. It has to be paid for services rendered (buying and delivering the equipment). The problem is the declarations requested by Contraves essentially says, BHIC/BNS are the ones that are at fault. Any dishonest acts is the action of BHIC/BNS. The demand is really impossible to agree to. The Contraves claims really need to be settled between the parties not in court. Without settlement the project cannot proceed because Contraves has claims on the equipment. Going to court only means project cannot proceed. If no settlement, just cancel the project and fight Contraves in court as long as needed.

• One doesn't just go create committees for the sake of creating committees because PAC and the Special Select Commitee on Security are committees already exists that can look at defence matters. The reason why MPs don't like committee assignments is because it requires the MP to do work - hold hearings, conduct interviews, do research, review documents, write reports. Not just make statements in the Dewan Rakyat or issuing press release. All the hot air on creating new committees is just hot air for soundbites. There are already parliamentary committees with the power to do what they request. This is no different than the ridiculous calls by MPs to setup Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) for every event they don't like. A RCI is a big thing reserved for the major events. Not understanding parliamentary powers and unwilling to do the leg work is why parliament isn't doing an effective role checking the executive branch. Until PN names all of its MPs that will sit in the PAC and Select Committees, and issue the directive they will use the committees power to its fullest, everything about should do this and do that is just hot air. Instead of "someone should do something", it should be "we will do it".

• kel - '' PAC and the Special Select Commitee on Security are committees already exists that can look at defence matters.''

  Both only are formed after the shite has hit the fan [as was mentioned to you previously]. What I was referring to was [to quote myself] a ''non partisan procurement entity comprising MAF, MOF people; as well as those from other agencies/ministries''; to ''oversee and scrutinise procurement''; to ensure we’re getting the best value for money and to ensure those awarded contracts adhere to contractual obligations''.

  This is a different to a 'PAC and the Special Select Commitee '' as nasi lemak is as different to sauerkraut or as gin is different to martini...

  kel - '' Instead of “someone should do something”, it should be “we will do it”.

  Indeed. Like in a motivational talk where everything's possible if only one had the will and determination. Like saying we should end world hunger; scrap nukes; love the planet; love ourselves and not consume harmful substances; etc., Easier said than done and appreciate the motivational talk again but if we put aside the rhetoric and be realistic;
  changing things requires deep fundamental institutionalised revamps which have to flow from top to bottom and require genuine political will .... It's harder when the problem is deeply entrenched as a reflection of various other things in this country.

• @Kel
  "Instead of “someone should do something”, it should be “we will do it”."
  There are tools for that, the Govt itself could call for Inquiries to issues but it can be sided with friendly committee members (unlike a PAC or an RCI) and often such results could side with the Govt that sets it up, so again there are other ways to "do something" but what that "something" to be achieved is depends on the intentions of setting it up. The trend of setting up "investigation committees" came about lately when then Opposition were clamouring for PACs & RCIs into various different matters; from 1MDB, to subs that cannot dive, to Pulau Batu Puteh, to Covid management, just about every topic that could be used to stir the rakyat will be called upon to setup a committee of sorts. So its not something just recently new but had been a trend since years ago. Until such when the Govt calls for another PAC investigation, PN MPs can't officially do anything much until then.

• Just pay the contractor what is due and be done with it. It’s a shame. By my calculations cancelling the projecr is the only way out. We gonna lose money either way. Calculated risk, time, cost & worth. RMN would be better of finding another manufacturer directly. Let it go & return all unpaid equipments but sell the already paid one in an auction. I am sure many navy around the world want it lol

• What you describe already exists. MAF does the evaluation, submits recommendation to MOF, MOF decides. Attorney General's office scrutinises the legal documentation. Auditor General's office checks for compliance with government policies and report to parliament on any breaches. Its already there. I thought people already understood where the key fault in the existing process is. Hint: Who actually makes the final decision. Something the PAC report alluded to. Creating another committee of people will not fix the issue if the key fault isn't fixed. I can already point out the issues with the recommendation. 1) By recommending a "dirtier" process by allowing more stakeholders (e.g. ministers) to insert themselves into the decision making process, even more national interest nonsense end up being attached to the purchase. 2) Anyone that has done tenders always hope for a simpler approval process. The less stakeholders, the better. The more stakeholders, the longer the sign-off page which means the slower the decision making process. As-is, decisions take a long time despite only needing two real sign-offs (Minister of Defence and Minister of Finance). Imagine recommending a whole long list of other ministers to also sign-off the deal where everyone will only be interested in CYA. 3) Even assuming the process is smooth, the final decision still lies with the MOF, and someone up the chain still can overrule MAF's recommendations - which is the root cause of the problem. 4) It is not MOF's responsibility to find "value". Their job is to find the money or make sure appropriation request is within budget. The direct negotiation with the SPH is an example why MOF's role should be to make sure things stay within budget. It is the role of Mindef (and MAF) to recommend what they want based on the budget they have been given. It is Mindef (and MAF's) job to make the case for a bigger defence budget, not the MOF. For MOF and other ministers / stakeholders to understand value requires them to have opinion on what the MOF should be buying. What happens when 10 different ministers each articulating a different vision of the military gets to decide on what is "value" vs. 1 minister, 1 voice articulating the vision?