SHAH ALAM: Prime Minister DS Anwar Ibrahim on Warriors Day (July 31) has again hinted of his intention to revamp the military procurement system. He said the revamped was to ensure outside parties can no longer rake in excessive commissions.
Speaking at a veteran entrepreneurship porgramme at Mindef, Anwar said the revamp must be done as the country’s defences were not coordinated with its economic growth and geopolitical and strategic position.
He was quoted as saying by Bernama
“Why I choose to mention this to all of you is because for veterans, for the military and, of course, for all of us, the country’s preparedness in the field of defence is an important matter.
“So, we suggest to the military leadership to revamp the procurement system; there can be no more interference from outside parties.
“The chiefs of staff are responsible for choosing the best warships, aircraft, tanks, and other equipment and should not repeat the same mistakes,” he said
This is the second time within two months, Anwar had stated that he wants to revamp the military procurement system. He last spoke about this on June 17 during a visit at the Butterworth air base.
As he was not quoted as saying anything in detail of the revamped he wanted to make at today’s function, it is likely that it is something still in the works. As he is busy with the current political situation – the August 12 elections in six states in the peninsula.
To be honest I was not expecting that PMX would have more details on the potential revamp as he had not even decided on the new secretary-general for the Defence Ministry as the previous one had retired on June 1 (after getting a one year extension).
Also apart from the military procurement system, PMX who is also the Finance Minister should looked into the procurement system of agencies under the Home Ministry, which are also prone to leakages and other shenanigans.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (25)
Well let’s see if it leads to anything tangible - we hope for the best but I’m pessimistic. Those who have been observing things for a while know that there have been previous attempts to revamp things.
The problem is that how we handle defence is deeply entrenched in the system. A reflection of various things which have gone wrong in this country. Defence like other things is part of the patronage system. Unless there is the will to make deep rooted fundamental reforms and acknowledge that we’ve been cocking yo for so long; nothing will change and the MAF will remain under equipped with capabilities which don’t reflect all we’ve spent on it and we won’t get the best value for what we spend.
As usual I doubt there will be anything substantial going on. Its more likely the politics doing the talking especially as you said, the 6 state elections are coming. Talk about acknowledgement is one thing, action speaks louder than words.
They had good start with the FA 50 deal, afaik. Lets hope future procurement will be along those model rather than using local agent. Better straight to OEM or government to government.At least 10% atas angin commission can be taken out
The local agent is still heavily involved thats why they are about talking about TOT etc
As long as procurement always have to benefit local industry - even in the absence of any business and economic sense for doing so - there will always be leakages. Local assembly with no follow on orders - waste. Indigenous development with no follow on orders - waste. Developing multiple national champions with insufficient contracts to support everyone - waste. Companies (or agents) know this so they still end up with rent-seeking behaviour, focusing on getting their commission instead of developing the company.
FA-50
Yes, RMAF got the best aircraft/platform for their LCA/FLIT requirement
but we are still stuck with doing non-value added stuff, like local assembly.
I would prefer offsets consisting of used defence equipment from South Korea, rather than meaningless IKEA-assembling of the FA-50 in Malaysia.
Korean used stuff that can be great offset acquisition
- KIFV
- UH-60P blackhawk
- Metis-M reloads
- M167 VADS anti-aircraft gun
- Frigates/corvettes/OPVs
... - “– KIFV
– UH-60P blackhawk
– Metis-M reloads
– M167 VADS anti-aircraft gun
– Frigates/corvettes/OPVs”
ROKN frigates/corvettes are high mileage and aged; we need them like we need a hole in the head. As it stands the RMN is struggling with operational costs [we can’t even afford to sustain all 6 Lynxs] and is trying to reduce its logistical/support footprint.
Getting Metis rounds might lead to the bean counters cancelling the ATGW tender [such things have happened] and we need a non wire guided round with a top attack capability. In your mind we go ahead with the ATGW tender whilst adding to Metis; well the bean counters don’t think that way.
The FA-50 deal is worth USD 920 million
2-3 free ulsan class (value at USD 90 mil) to be used by RMN for 5-8 years to ramp up manpower training for the Gowinds. Then the weapons (3 ulsans have 6x 76mm oto melara, 9x 40mm twin DARDO, 6x triple tube torpedo launchers) could be used for future RMN frigates. If RMN cannot afford to operate the ulsans, how can it afford to operate the Gowinds?
I won't mind having 200+ KIFV (value at USD 100 mil) for free, freeing up IFV budgets for loitering missiles, UAV, MERAD etc for Tentera Darat. The aim for mechanized formations in east malaysia can be fulfilled with the additional KIFVs.
Also won't mind 12-20 free blackhawks (value at USD 100 mil) for PUTD, freeing RMAF medium lift helo budget for AEW and EW Attack.
All above is valued at just 1/3rd of the FA-50 contract, while costing South Korea virtually zero as all of them has been paid for.
dengar boleh percaya jangan
No update on Tun Fatimah Opv marhalim?
... - ''to be used by RMN for 5-8 years to ramp up manpower training for the Gowinds. ''
Never mind what you think looks great but did you even ask yourself if the RMN [the entity who does for real what we discuss in the cyber world] actually needs anything ''to ramp up manpower training for the Gowinds'' [to quote your good self] or has it got things sorted out?
... -''If RMN cannot afford to operate the ulsans, how can it afford to operate the Gowinds?''
The RMN can't afford high maintenance aged hulls ... Why do you think it has rejected various offers for pre used hulls before? Aged but well used platforms are inherently maintenance extensive; same with aged but well maintained aircraft. The MAF is resourced strained and the RMN can't even afford to keep all 6 Lynxs running for crying out loud.
... -'' The aim for mechanized formations in east malaysia can be fulfilled with the additional KIFVs.''
On paper yes but what looks great on paper can differ in reality and we've been through this before. The KIFVs are but one element; where are the other needed components for these mechanized formations to come from? Where are the training grounds in Sabah to enable these mechanized formations to exercise at battalion level and to conduct live fire? How long will it take to get the needed manpower for these ''mechanized formations''? Do you need a reminder that we're tight on manpower and that existing units has to be poached to raise new units in Sabah? Remember the conversation we had [when you were under a different guise]about how hard it would be for the army to enlarge Gerak Khas [you maintained it wasn't hard] because its yearly intake [for those who pass selection] runs only in the dozens?
If we want to discuss all that can be done and looks great on paper we can write a whole tome and blow our own trumpets but unfortunately in the real world other factors come into play.
... - ''Also won’t mind 12-20 free blackhawks (value at USD 100 mil) for PUTD''
Great but how long will it take for the Army Aviation Corps to get the manpower for these ''2-20 free blackhawks''? If you need a reminder; the Army Aviation Corps wasn't flushed in manpower and resources to begin with and it's stretched as it is operating the A-109s and Littlebirds plus the leased platforms. You also realise that it just barely has enough pilots?
You have a penchant for looking at prices and looking at how things look great on paper [neat like a P/L sheet or a PowerPoint slide]; well I'm not trying to piss on your parade and yes in case you need to make another reminder; you have the interests of the country at heart [you're not the only one] and are looking at options [of course you are] but look at other realities as well.
... - ''while costing South Korea virtually zero as all of them has been paid for.''
- Assuming they see value in doing what you think sounds obvious. To you the stuff is cheap and surplus to their requirements but would they actually agree to such a demand?
- They do it with us and then every customer after that demands the same thing. Lest it be overlooked we bought a mere 18 airframes with nothing firm to indicate we'll actually buy more and we get a whole list of goodies? A whole list for a mere 18 airframes?