Dzirhan Mahadzir - Defence Journalist FB

Pandangan Dzirhan dalam facebooknya.


Assessing Malaysiakini’s article Pt. 1

Having read Malaysiakini’s series of articles on defence spending in Malaysia, I would have to say that despite all the hype of it being an exposure and shedding light into Malaysia’s defence spending, the truth is, it really doesn’t, what it is actually, is more an article which while containing some elements of the truth, provides a distorted picture of defence in Malaysia and directed to suit Malaysiakini’s political slant. Unfortunately much of the general public, which doesn’t really understand defence issues is likely to swallow everything said in the article as the gospel truth. Having read the article, I decided that somebody ought to set the record straight on some of the things said in it and offer an alternate view, of course, I’m sure the pro-pakatan, pro-malaysiakini and anti-BN crowd are going to term me as a BN lackey for doing so, as it is even my writings in foreign publications has seen me being accused on Militaryphotos.net of having a political slant though naturally the amount I ask the accuser to provide proof or point out specifics, nothing came out of him. I will state in my defence, that I’m neither pro-BN or pro-Pakatan , as I tell everyone that trying to tell the difference between BN and Pakatan politicians is like trying to tell the difference between Moria and Mordor orcs, and in the end it doesn’t matter as they are all orcs anyway. The purpose of my critique is to set the record straight and point out that a lot of what was written needs to be looked at critically rather than swallowed whole and I would do the same thing for any similar article written in the mainstream media in the interest of ensuring the public gets an alternate view, and no this is not to serve any political agenda or promote myself to become a political advisor, one look at what happen to Razak Baginda is enough to convince me never to get mixed up with politicians at all.

The other thing to note is that I will not be reproducing Malaysiakini’s articles in whole because of copyright issues as they are meant for subscribers though anyone interested can easily find them freely reproduced on mailing lists around the net, however I will include paragraphs which I need to comment on. I’m breaking my analysis into three parts which will correspond with each part of the Malaysiakini series. Now enough rambling on this and let’s get to the critiques,
Now the opening of part 1 states that the total of Malaysia’s defence spending since 1987 has been RM180 billion giving the impression that we squandered this much money buying military equipment, it omits or fails to mention the fact that at least 65% of this amount lies in operating costs rather than procurement, which includes salaries for the troops and Mindef civilian, training costs, operations along with the day to day costs of running the armed forces and the Ministry. This isn’t the first time the total defence budget has been distorted to seem as if everything is spent on buying arms as Sin Chew ran an editorial stating the same in regard to the 2010 defence budget.

The 65 percent figure is not something I’m making up, as the annual Mindef annual reports which are available publicly show that operating expenditure for 2007 was 66.3% of the defence budget and for 2008, it was 67.9 percent of the budget, and each year the percentage increases as a result of a combination of rising costs of fuel/material along with the need to increase salaries while at the same time the defence budget doesn’t increase significantly enough to keep pace with the increased operating costs. Keep in mind also that from 1987, the MAF has been involved in significant and cost intensive deployments such as Bosnia, Somalia, Lebanon along with the Ops Pasir deployments to ensure another Sipadan kidnapping does not occur all of which accounts for a high portion of the defence budget. Taking the 65 percent figure gives us the fact that operating costs amount to RM117 billion for that period, leaving us RM63 billion spent on development, though to be honest my figures are on the low estimate. RM63 billion is still a significant sum of money but we have to bear in mind that this works out to an average of RM2.7 billion over the 23 years cited by Malaysiakini, now factor in the fact that development includes the building of facilities and not just military buildings but also housing for soldiers and their families and the fact that the ringgit has a lower value compared to foreign currency which then translates into the amount being much less than the ringgit value, it isn’t surprising that our armed forces haven’t grown in great leaps or bounds when compared to say neighboring Singapore and it should be borne in mind that they do spend more on defence than Malaysia does. This isn’t to say there hasn’t been wastage or misspending, however the fact is that in contrast to the hype of RM180 billion spent to no avail, what was actually spent has bought some capabilities to the country rather than the image of a ramshackle military force that Malaysiakini tries to portray which brings me to the point of Malaysiakini quoting KL Security Review’s Lam Choong Wah as saying Malaysia’s Armed Forces as not being able to conduct any operations beyond Military operations other than War, now while this is Lam’s opinion and I do know him from the defence journalists beat here, I would say that he should know better than to say that, having attended some of the military exercises and displays here which clearly shows we do have a capability to a certain extent to fight a conventional war. In any event, to state if the MAF has the capability to fight a conventional war also depends on what yardstick one uses, obviously if the yardstick is to be able to invade or occupy China, then we do fail that test , but I think it’s safe to say that the MAF is able to prosecute a conventional war depending on the situation rather than to say not being able to do so at all. The other point to note is that Malaysiakini might have made the article more credible by speaking to other defence analysts or journalists about it but then again it could be that no one was willing to talk to them (I wouldn’t because I trust them as far as I can throw a PT-91M tank, which is not very far, and can’t count on them not to twist anything I say to suit their agenda).

The Malaysiakini article also seems to give the impression of a Defence Ministry simply able to sign any contract or spend money at will, the problem is that the reality is different, there are procedures and protocols for spending and it should noted that in most cases any major spending would be with the agreement of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and at the same time the MOD has to get final approval from the Treasury/Finance Ministry to spend the money, Dr. Kogila’s excellent thesis at Cranfield on the Malaysian defence industry, pg 492 clearly shows the process and can be downloaded here at https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/2504/1/final%20thesis07ver7.pdf

So in short if anything, blame also needs to be attached to the Prime Minister and Finance Minister of the time who just as much are responsible in their oversight capacity though interestingly Malaysiakini harps a lot about defence spending from 1987 but then choose to only cover issues from 2000 onwards ignoring the period of 1987-2000, during which one of the country’s finance minister was a certain Anwar Ibrahim. At the same time Malaysiakini also fails to point out in the litany of defence ministry wrongdoing that some of the examples cited, in particular the OPV, Sukhoi and submarine deals, not only just took place in the time when Najib Tun Razak was Defence Minister, but also when Tun Mahathir was PM and had the final say on such deals so Tun Mahathir could just as easily be blamed for not exercising enough oversight on the procurements, however these days, Tun Mahathir, to the anti-govt crowd, seems to be like Lord Voldermort in Harry Potter in that Tun Mahathir is “he who must not be named” when it comes to assigning blame for things that went wrong in this country, as Tun M does a good job of criticizing the BN when he’s not criticizing Pakatan or Tony Blair.

To some extent some of the problems that exist with defence in Malaysia can be laid not only on Tun Mahathir’s door but his successors as Prime Minister as well, all of whom were willing to postpone or defer crucial defence programs at various times which led to the MAF’s having too many things needed to fix when they finally obtained funding. This itself could be a chapter by itself but suffice to say is that the Malaysiakini article cannot simply lay the blame for everything at the door of the Defence Ministry.

Speaking of the wrongdoing list, the Malaysiakini article simply lists the same accusations/issues again rather than anything new, I would have expected the journalist involved to have turned up something new or shed more light into some of the accusations, the thing is, if you are going to make any sort of accusations in defence spending, the details are important rather than generalized remarks, while clearly there are valid issues raised from the list of issues, it should be borne in mind that some of the matters mention merited more detail and examination,
In the case of the submarines, what Malaysiakini and other critics fail to do is differentiate the circumstances of how the deal for the submarines was made and the actual operation of the submarines, too much has been made of the Tun Razak’s time when it was temporarily unavailable to dive, this kind of issue is routine to submarines and happens in any navies, yet the tack of many has been to see it as validation that we bought a piece of junk from the French and our Navy can’t do anything right, this is a tremendous disservice to the RMN, particularly the submarine crews and their support units which have been working extremely hard on the program, unfortunately too many people seem inclined to believe the idiotic ramblings of Tian Chua, who seems to think it’s a simple and cheap matter to install a Chinese-made missile into the subs, among other thing.

The other thing to note is that in relating the issues of the missing jet engines and the Eurocopter Cougar purchase, the article makes it sound that the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee simply rubberstamps the governments, not mentioning that the PAC is bipartisan and that some of the Pakatan’s key MPs sit on it, this actually brings up the matter raised in Pt. 3 of the article in which it is argued that there needs to be a bipartisan Parliamentary Committee on defence which just leads me to point out that if the Pakatan MPs on the PAC can’t find any wrongdoing while sitting on the PAC, what makes anyone think they can do the same on anther committee. In any event anyone who can read BM and wants a good laugh can download from Parliament’s website the transcripts of the PAC hearings into the Eurocopter purchase, and see how woefully little our MPs on both sides of the divide know on defence.

Furthermore in regard to the Eurocopter, the old canard about no flight test on the helicopters was raised again, the thing is flight tests and evaluations on all the helicopters had been done long prior to the tender ever being issued. As it is if the RMAF ever wanted to test a Mil-17 anytime, they could easily asked the Fire Services to lend them their helicopter. The other thing most of the critics of the no flight evaluation fail to notice is that conducting a fly-off test and evaluation not only costs money but the fact that the RMAF had already done such evaluations on separate occasions. And the other thing was that the tender was not based on costs alone but in the helicopter meeting the requirements of the RMAF, in which the Mil-17 did not. One of the key things that ruled against the Mentari bid was that the company was not the manufacturer of the Mil-17 so the RMAF had doubts as to whether the supply of spare parts could be assured. The problem is that Malaysiakini and many of defence spending critics fail to understand that the cheapest option is not always the right option in defence.

The thing about the missing jet engines has nothing to do with defence spending at all yet Malaysiakini seems inclined to lump it in as part of example of questionable defence deals, I’m not sure how that a theft can be construed as a defence deal so anyone with any ideas please enlighten me.

On the ACMI deal, the problem is there needs to be details as to what equipment is being leased etc, clearly the costs where cheaper at Thailand, but it has to be borne in mind that there are security implications in training in a foreign country and at the same time, the Thais could lease out lower since the equipment was purchased with the intention of use by the RTAF whilst Aerotree would be bearing all the cost solely by itself with the sole customer being the RMAF. Also we do not have details as to how long was the use available to the RMAF under the Thai deal in contrast to the time available under the Aerotree deal. This illustrates the problem on assessing defence deals, one needs to get into the details before passing judgement if you want to get it right.

The same thing exists in regard to the AV8 program, unfortunately what most Pakatan MPs and Malaysiakini thinks that average costs can be estimated solely by dividing total cost by number of items and comparing it through the internet. The problem is that it is not so simple, as defence deals vary based on the training, logistic, support and other ancillary options taken under the deal. Starting an indigenous defence program such as the AV8 is expensive and the merits of which can be debated either way but to simply label it as a questionable deal is wrong not to mention the fact that Malaysiakini lists it as a deal done during Najib’s time as defence minister which is not the case.

Overall my impression of Part 1 of the article seems that it is geared more to suit Malaysiakini’s anti-govt slant rather than a proper honest assessment and exposure of the way the Malaysian government manages defence spending.

panjang tapi padat dgn info yang menarik... neutral tapi berasas dgn fakta... two thumbs up utk Dzirhan..

patut ada terjemahan dlm Bahasa Melayu....

matamata wrote:patut ada terjemahan dlm Bahasa Melayu....

kalau pki website mau terbalik sana sini...

hasil artikel selepas ditranslate di google :

Menilai Malaysiakini's pt. 1

Setelah membaca siri Malaysiakini tentang artikel tentang anggaran pertahanan di Malaysia, saya perlu mengatakan bahawa walaupun semua hype itu menjadi suatu pendedahan dan menumpahkan cahaya ke dalam anggaran pertahanan Malaysia, sebenarnya, itu benar-benar tidak, apa yang sebenarnya, lebih sebuah rencana yang sementara mengandungi beberapa unsur kebenaran, memberikan gambaran yang terdistorsi pertahanan di Malaysia dan diarahkan sesuai dengan cerun politik Malaysiakini's. Malangnya sebahagian besar masyarakat umum, yang tidak benar-benar memahami masalah pertahanan kemungkinan akan menelan semua yang dikatakan dalam buku sebagai kebenaran Injil. Setelah membaca buku tersebut, saya memutuskan bahawa seseorang harus meluruskan beberapa hal yang mengatakan di dalamnya dan menawarkan pandangan alternatif, tentu saja, aku yakin, pro-pro-pakatan Malaysiakini dan orang ramai yang anti-BN akan istilah saya sebagai budak BN untuk melakukannya, seperti yang bahkan tulisan-tulisan saya di penerbitan asing telah melihat Aku dituduh pada Militaryphotos.net memiliki suatu pandangan politik walaupun secara alami jumlah saya meminta penuduh untuk memberi keterangan atau menunjukkan khusus , tidak ada yang keluar dari padanya. Aku akan menyatakan membela diri, bahawa aku tidak semua orang seperti yang saya katakan pro-BN atau pro-Pakatan, yang cuba membezakan antara ahli politik BN dan Pakatan adalah seperti cuba untuk membezakan antara Moria dan Orc Mordor, dan di akhirnya tidak menjadi masalah kerana mereka semua Orc pula. Tujuan dari kritik saya adalah meluruskan dan menunjukkan bahawa banyak dari apa yang ditulis oleh harus memandang kritis daripada menelan semua dan saya akan melakukan hal yang sama untuk setiap artikel yang sama yang ditulis di media mainstream di bunga menjamin masyarakat mendapat pandangan alternatif, dan tidak ada ini bukan untuk melayani setiap agenda politik atau mempromosikan diri untuk menjadi seorang penasihat politik, satu melihat apa yang terjadi pada Razak Baginda sudah cukup untuk meyakinkan saya tidak pernah untuk terlibat dengan para ahli politik sama sekali .

Hal lain yang perlu diperhatikan adalah bahawa saya tidak akan menyalinkan rencana Malaysiakini di seluruh kerana masalah hak cipta, seperti yang direka untuk pelanggan walaupun setiap orang yang tertarik dapat dengan mudah menemukan mereka tidak direproduksi di milis sekitar bersih, tetapi saya akan memasukkan perenggan yang saya perlukan untuk mengomentari. Aku melanggar analisis saya menjadi tiga bahagian yang akan sesuai dengan setiap bahagian daripada siri Malaysiakini. Sekarang hanya mengoceh ini dan mari kita pergi ke kritik,
Sekarang pembukaan bahagian 1 menyatakan bahawa jumlah pertahanan pengeluaran Malaysia sejak tahun 1987 telah RM180 bilion memberikan kesan bahawa kita menghamburkan wang sebanyak ini membeli peralatan tentera, mengabaikan atau gagal lagi fakta bahawa sekurang-kurangnya 65% daripada jumlah ini terletak kos operasi daripada pengadaan, termasuk gaji untuk tentera dan Mindef awam, kos latihan, operasi bersama dengan hari ke hari kos menjalankan angkatan bersenjata dan Jabatan. Ini bukan pertama kalinya anggaran pertahanan total telah terdistorsi nampak seolah-olah semuanya dihabiskan untuk membeli senjata sebagai Sin Chew berlari editorial yang menyatakan hal yang sama dalam hal kewangan pertahanan 2010.

Angka 65 peratus bukanlah sesuatu yang membuat aku bangun, seperti laporan kewangan tahunan Mindef yang sedia secara awam menunjukkan bahawa pengeluaran operasi untuk tahun 2007 adalah 66,3% dari anggaran pertahanan dan untuk tahun 2008, itu adalah 67,9 persen dari anggaran, dan masing-masing meningkatkan peratusan tahun sebagai hasil dari kombinasi kos kenaikan bahan api / bahan bersama-sama dengan keperluan untuk meningkatkan gaji, sementara pada masa yang sama kewangan pertahanan tidak meningkat cukup signifikan untuk mengimbangi kos operasi meningkat. Ingat juga bahawa dari tahun 1987, MAF telah terlibat dalam penyebaran intensif yang signifikan dan kos seperti Bosnia, Somalia, Lebanon bersama-sama dengan penyebaran Pasir Ops untuk memastikan penculikan lain Sipadan tidak terjadi semua yang menyumbang sebahagian quality anggaran pertahanan. Mengambil nombor 65 peratus memberi kita fakta bahawa jumlah kos operasi untuk RM117 bilion untuk tempoh tersebut, meninggalkan kami RM63 bilion dibelanjakan untuk pembangunan, walaupun harus jujur saya nombor estimasi rendah. RM63 bilion masih merupakan jumlah wang yang cukup besar tapi kita harus ingat bahawa ini berjaya menjadi rata-rata RM2.7 bilion selama 23 tahun yang dikutip oleh Malaysiakini, sekarang faktor dalam kenyataan bahawa pembangunan meliputi pembangunan kemudahan dan tidak bangunan hanya tentera tetapi juga perumahan bagi tentera dan keluarga mereka dan fakta bahawa ringgit mempunyai nilai yang lebih rendah berbanding dengan mata wang asing yang kemudian diterjemahkan ke dalam jumlah yang jauh lebih kecil daripada nilai ringgit, tidak menghairankan bahawa kami angkatan bersenjata haven ' t tumbuh di lompatan besar atau batas bila dibandingkan dengan mengatakan jiran Singapura dan harus diingat bahawa mereka menghabiskan lebih pada pertahanan dari Malaysia tidak. Ini bukan untuk mengatakan bahawa ada belum terbuang atau misspending, namun kenyataannya berbeza dengan hype dari RM180 bilion dihabiskan untuk sia-sia, apa yang sebenarnya dihabiskan telah membeli beberapa kemampuan untuk negara dan bukan pada citra bobrok kekuatan tentera yang Malaysiakini cuba untuk menggambarkan yang membawa saya ke titik Malaysiakini memetik KL Keselamatan Review Lam Choong Wah berkata Malaysia Angkatan Bersenjata tidak mampu melakukan operasi yang melampaui Operasi tentera selain Perang, sekarang sementara ini adalah pendapat Lam dan aku mengenal Dia dari wartawan pertahanan mengalahkan di sini, aku akan mengatakan bahawa ia harus tahu lebih baik daripada mengatakan bahawa, selepas menghadiri beberapa latihan tentera dan memaparkan di sini yang dengan jelas menunjukkan bahawa kita memang memiliki kemampuan hingga batas tertentu untuk melawan konvensional perang. Bagaimanapun, untuk menyatakan jika MAF memiliki kemampuan untuk melawan perang konvensional juga bergantung pada apa tolak ukur yang digunakan, jelas jika tolak ukur adalah untuk dapat menyerang atau menduduki China, maka kita gagal ujian itu, tapi saya pikir itu selamat untuk mengatakan bahawa MAF boleh menuntut perang konvensional bergantung pada situasi, bukan untuk mengatakan tidak boleh melakukannya sama sekali. Titik lain untuk diperhatikan adalah bahawa Malaysiakini mungkin telah membuat rencana yang lebih kredibel dengan berbicara kepada para penganalisis pertahanan lain atau wartawan tentang hal ini, tetapi sekali lagi itu mungkin bahawa tak seorang pun bersedia untuk bercakap dengan mereka (saya tidak akan kerana saya percaya mereka sebagai sejauh yang saya dapat membaling tank PT-91 m, yang tidak terlalu jauh, dan tidak boleh mengandalkan mereka untuk tidak apa-apa twist Aku berkata kepadamu, sesuai dengan agenda mereka).

Artikel Malaysiakini juga nampaknya memberi kesan daripada Jabatan Pertahanan hanya mampu menandatangani kontrak atau menghabiskan wang di akan, masalahnya ialah bahawa realiti yang berbeza, ada prosedur dan protokol untuk belanja dan perlu direkodkan bahawa dalam kebanyakan kes apapun pengeluaran besar akan dengan kelulusan Perdana Menteri dan Kabinet dan pada masa yang sama MOD harus mendapatkan kelulusan akhir dari Perbendaharaan / Jabatan Kewangan untuk menghabiskan wang itu, Dr Kogila luar biasa tesis di Cranfield pada industri pertahanan Malaysia, pg 492 jelas menunjukkan proses dan dapat didownload di sini di https: / / 20thesis07ver7.pdf% dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/2504/1/final

Jadi singkatnya jika ada, menyalahkan juga harus dipasang ke Perdana Menteri dan Menteri Kewangan masa yang hanya sebanyak yang bertanggung jawab dalam kapasiti kawalan mereka walaupun menarik Malaysiakini kecapi banyak tentang anggaran pertahanan dari tahun 1987 tapi kemudian memilih untuk hanya merangkumi isu-isu dari tahun 2000 dan seterusnya mengabaikan tempoh 1987-2000, di mana salah satu menteri kewangan negara itu adalah Anwar Ibrahim tertentu. Pada masa yang sama Malaysiakini juga gagal untuk menunjukkan dalam Litani kesalahan pertahanan perkhidmatan bahawa beberapa contoh yang dikutip, khususnya OPV, Sukhoi dan menangani kapal selam, tidak hanya terjadi di saat Najib Tun Razak ialah Menteri Pertahanan, tetapi juga ketika Tun Mahathir adalah PM dan memiliki mengatakan final perjanjian tersebut sehingga Tun Mahathir bisa dengan mudah dipersalahkan kerana tidak menjalankan pengawasan yang cukup pada pengadaan, tetapi hari-hari ini, Tun Mahathir, kepada orang ramai anti-govt, tampaknya seperti Lord Voldemort dalam Harry Potter di Tun Mahathir adalah "dia yang tidak harus dinamakan" ketika datang ke menugaskan disalahkan untuk hal-hal yang tidak beres di negara ini, sebagai Tun M melakukan pekerjaan yang baik dari mengkritik BN ketika dia tidak mengkritik Pakatan atau Tony Blair.

Sampai taraf tertentu beberapa masalah yang ada dengan pertahanan di Malaysia boleh diletakkan tidak hanya di pintu Tun Mahathir, tetapi penerusnya sebagai Perdana Menteri juga, yang semuanya bersedia untuk menunda atau menunda program pertahanan penting dalam berbagai masa yang menyebabkan hal MAF mempunyai terlalu banyak diperlukan untuk memperbaiki ketika mereka akhirnya memperoleh pembiayaan. Hal ini sendiri boleh menjadi bab dengan sendirinya tapi cukup untuk mengatakan bahawa rencana Malaysiakini tidak boleh begitu saja menyalahkan untuk segalanya di pintu Jabatan Pertahanan.

Berbicara tentang senarai kesalahan, rencana Malaysiakini hanya senarai tuduhan yang sama / bukan masalah lagi sesuatu yang baru, aku akan diharapkan wartawan yang terlibat untuk memiliki sesuatu yang baru muncul titik terang atau lebih ke dalam beberapa dari tuduhan, masalahnya, jika anda akan membuat sebarang tuduhan dalam anggaran pertahanan, butiran penting daripada ulasan-ulasan umum, sementara jelas ada masalah berlaku dibangkitkan dari senarai masalah, harus diingat bahawa beberapa perkara layak menyebutkan lebih terperinci dan pemeriksaan,
Dalam kes kapal selam, apa Malaysiakini dan pengkritik lain gagal lakukan adalah membezakan keadaan bagaimana perjanjian untuk kapal selam dibuat dan Operasi aktual dari kapal selam, terlalu banyak telah dibuat masa Razak Tun ketika itu sementara tidak tersedia untuk menyelam, isu semacam ini adalah rutin untuk kapal selam dan terjadi dalam angkatan laut, namun banyak taktik telah melihatnya sebagai validasi bahawa kami membeli sepotong sampah dari Tentera Laut Perancis dan kami tidak boleh melakukan sesuatu dengan betul, ini adalah merugikan luar biasa ke RMN, terutama para awak kapal selam dan mereka menyokong unit yang telah bekerja sangat keras pada program ini, sayangnya terlalu banyak orang tampaknya cenderung percaya konyol ramblings dari Tian Chua, yang tampaknya berfikir itu yang sederhana dan hal murah untuk memasang sebuah rudal buatan China ke dalam kapal selam, antara lain.

Hal lain yang perlu diperhatikan adalah bahawa dalam berkaitan masalah enjin jet hilang dan pembelian Eurocopter Cougar, rencana itu membuat suara yang Parlimen Akaun Umum Jawatankuasa hanya rubberstamps kerajaan, tidak menyebutkan bahawa PAC adalah bipartisan dan bahawa beberapa kunci ahli parlimen Pakatan kita duduk di atasnya, ini benar-benar membawa masalah dibesarkan di Bhd. 3 dari rencana di mana ia berpendapat bahawa harus ada sebuah Jawatankuasa Parlimen bipartisan pertahanan yang hanya menyebabkan saya ingin menunjukkan bahawa jika ahli parlimen Pakatan di PAC tidak dapat mencari kesalahan apapun sementara duduk di PAC, apa yang membuat orang berfikir mereka boleh melakukan hal yang sama pada jawatankuasa anther. Dalam setiap ada acara yang boleh membaca BM dan ingin tertawa dapat men-download dari laman web Parlimen transkrip dari sidang PAC ke pembelian Eurocopter, dan melihat bagaimana ahli parlimen kami sedikit sayangnya di kedua-dua sisi membahagi tahu pada pertahanan.

Selanjutnya berhubung dengan Eurocopter, di Canard lama tentang ada ujian penerbangan di helikopter dibangkitkan lagi, masalahnya penerbangan ujian dan penilaian pada semua helikopter telah dilakukan lama sebelum tender yang pernah dikeluarkan. Karena jika RMAF pernah ingin menguji-Mil 17 kapan saja, mereka dengan mudah bisa bertanya Perkhidmatan Api meminjamkan helikopter mereka. Hal lain yang sebahagian besar pengkritik penilaian penerbangan tidak gagal untuk diperhatikan adalah bahawa melakukan ujian terbang-off dan penilaian tidak hanya kos wang tetapi kenyataan bahawa RMAF sudah dilakukan penilaian seperti pada kesempatan berasingan. Dan hal lain adalah bahawa tender tidak didasarkan pada kos sendiri, tetapi dalam helikopter memenuhi keperluan dari RMAF, di mana-Mil 17 tidak. Salah satu hal kunci yang memerintah terhadap tawaran Mentari adalah bahawa syarikat tidak pengeluar-Mil 17 sehingga RMAF telah keraguan apakah bekalan suku cadang boleh terjamin. Masalahnya adalah bahawa Malaysiakini dan banyak kritikus anggaran pertahanan gagal untuk memahami bahawa pilihan termurah tidak selalu merupakan pilihan yang tepat dalam pertahanan.

Hal tentang enjin jet hilang tidak ada hubungannya dengan anggaran pertahanan sama sekali belum Malaysiakini tampaknya cenderung untuk bersabar dalam sebagai sebahagian daripada contoh transaksi pertahanan dipertanyakan, aku tidak pasti bagaimana pencurian boleh ditafsirkan sebagai perjanjian pertahanan sehingga orang dengan idea-idea sila mencerahkan saya.

Pada kesepakatan ACMI, masalahnya adalah harus ada butiran tentang apa peralatan yang disewakan dll, jelas kos mana yang lebih murah di Thailand, tetapi harus diingat bahawa ada implikasi keselamatan dalam latihan di negara asing dan pada masa yang sama, orang Thai boleh menyewa lebih rendah kerana peralatan dibeli dengan tujuan penggunaan oleh sementara RTAF Aerotree akan menanggung semua kos semata-mata dengan sendirinya dengan pelanggan tunggal menjadi RMAF. Juga kita tidak memiliki butiran sebagai untuk berapa lama adalah penggunaan sedia untuk RMAF bawah perjanjian Thailand kontras dengan waktu yang tersedia di bawah perjanjian Aerotree. Ini menggambarkan masalah pada transaksi mengadar pertahanan, kita perlu masuk ke dalam butiran sebelum melewati penilaian jika anda ingin mendapatkan yang benar.

Hal yang sama ada dalam hal program AV8, sayangnya apa yang paling Pakatan ahli parlimen dan Malaysiakini berfikir bahawa kos rata-rata boleh dianggarkan hanya dengan membahagi jumlah kos mengikut jumlah item dan membandingkannya melalui internet. Masalahnya ialah bahawa hal itu tidak begitu mudah, sebagai perjanjian pertahanan bervariasi berdasarkan latihan, logistik, sokongan dan pilihan tambahan lain yang diambil berdasarkan kesepakatan. Memulakan program pertahanan adat seperti AV8 adalah mahal dan manfaat yang boleh dipertikaikan baik dengan cara tetapi hanya label sebagai kesepakatan dipertanyakan salah belum lagi fakta bahawa Malaysiakini pendaftaran sebagai kesepakatan dilakukan selama Najib sebagai pertahanan menteri yang tidak terjadi.

Secara keseluruhan kesan saya Bahagian 1 dari artikel tampaknya itu lebih diarahkan untuk memenuhi Malaysiakini miring anti-govt bukan penilaian yang jujur dan pendedahan yang tepat dari cara kerajaan menguruskan kewangan pertahanan Malaysia.

not bad ven...
janji mesej tu sampai...

venez wrote:panjang tapi padat dgn info yang menarik... neutral tapi berasas dgn fakta... two thumbs up utk Dzirhan..

Kalau suruh Msiakini jawab balik apa yg Dzirhan ulas.. mau muntahdarah dirog carik fakta!

apa dzirhan punya FB page..tolong beritau stand!

ni bukan dari fb personal page dia muchi, tp fan page dia

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dzirhan-Mahadzir-Defence-Journalist/120482317981520?ref=ts

tks atre..aku pun belum log in fb..

Dia marah MalaysiaKini pakai article dia untuk tujuan politik dan akan membuatkan dia dicop sebagai pro PR dan bukan pro BN, walaupun sebenarnya dia neutral, tak menyokong mana2 parti politik tetapi melahirkan keprihatinan tentang dasar pertahann negara dan cuba memberi pandangan yang paling telus~

sambungan....

Pt.II of the Malaysiakini article deals with the procurement process, and I’ll put in inverted commas and italics where I’m quoting the text of Malaysiakini, I’m splitting this into two parts as I will look to the involvement of retired military officers in the second part and my thoughts on that.

The first para continues to repeat the lie about RM180 billion spent on defence deals and then states the factors restricting scrutiny of defence purchases as:


“1. Information is not disclosed on the basis of 'defence secrets' and 'national security'.”

Now this actually depends on what information is being asked about really, problem is that Pakatan MPs do often ask questions dealing with the specifics of our operational capabilities which in any other country also would not be answered unless the MP signs a non-disclosure agreement (such as the specific readiness state of the RMAF’s fighter fleet which Liew Chin Tong who is quoted in the article, asked about once and thus got a national security answer, I’ve asked in the past on the general readiness rate of the RMAF overall for my articles and got an official answer on that so it really depends on how you word the question), which of course the Pakatan MPs don’t want to do if such an option was given. The other thing is that Mindef by and large do give the amount involved in the transactions, after all we’ve seen all the queries about defence transactions bought up by Tian Chua for example, have been based on answers given by the Ministry as to the costs of the procurement deal. It should also be noted that the defence budget allocations is approved by Parliament each year and a handout given to MPs on the proposed budget though the details are generalized, however that doesn’t prevent MPs from asking for details prior to the budget and debating the specifics of the budget during the budget debate, most times as seen in the Hansard, there’s very little of this, in fact most Pakatan MPs during the time given for the debate on the Ministry of Defence allocations just wanted to know about the National Service portion and issues which are part of Mindef’s budget allocation. So in short, some of the problems stem from MPs not doing their jobs properly rather than everything hidden under secrets, besides the bulk of MOD contracts given out have less to do with major procurements but rather things like provision of rations, boots, minor support equipment etc, all of which can be disclosed and most of it already put on the government’s procurement portal and the major defence equipment procured come out anyway in the international defence magazines.



“2. Price-related information is limited in the defence market and involves many technical issues and specifications that complicate the process of evaluation and comparison.”

Same case exists everywhere and not just specific to Malaysia, besides that hasn’t stopped Pakatan MPs and Malaysiakini from looking on the Internet, making comparisons and passing such off as a valid comparison.



“3. Although the Defence Ministry has regulations and an internal mechanism to prevent irregularities, there is no external independent scrutiny.”

Again this goes back to the first article which tries to paint Mindef as autonomous in what it does, the Finance Ministry/Treasury has to give final approval and scrutinizes the process of the tender and evaluation, the EPU also has input and in major purchases, the cabinet headed by the PM gives approval and finally you have the Auditor General’s report though the problem with that is the Auditor-General’s office may overlook some things because of manpower and time constraints but that it hardly the fault of Mindef if such occurs and it may not be easy to expand the office of the Auditor-General to make more thorough assessments. The Auditor-General in the article has given pretty much a good idea of what’s going on at the government end of things

Malaysiakini continues to quote Lam Choong Wah as “A former journalist who specialised in defence issues, Lam is now editor of defence portal KL Security Review. His first book tentatively titled 'Uncovering Malaysia's Defence' is scheduled to be launched next month.” though they conveniently forgot to mention that Lam set up KLS himself so the editor position is self-appointed, personally I’ll be interested in seeing how Lam’s book turns out to be, considering he’s fairly an outsider with the Malaysian Armed Forces as a journalist and not privy to much of the going-ons within, hope the book isn’t just published in Chinese and I do wonder who’s funding the publication of the book.

Then there's this Para:

“ Direct negotiation is the least transparent method of the three, but the number of procurements completed via this process has increased in recent years. Lam explained that direct negotiation is allowed under specific circumstances: when only one company can provide the equipment or service; to standardise the specifications of equipment; emergency needs; and due to strategy and political considerations, such as bilateral relationships between countries. According to a parliamentary written reply by the Defence Ministry in March last year, the number had almost doubled from 52 in 2006 to 100 in 2009,
going up in value from RM2.1 billion to RM4.4 billion over the period.”

Unfortunately little has been asked about what exactly the direct negotiations were about, the problem is the numbers alone are not enough, we actually have to know what the contracts were and the value of each, if we’re to judge whether it’s justified or not. The fact is the MAF has a number of equipment in it’s inventory in which spare parts and support can only come from one source, all these questions could have easily been asked by MPs as a follow up to the Defence Ministry answers (though it should have been asked at the outset) but someone didn’t seem to do any work on their part.

" DAP Bukit Bendera MP Liew Chin Tong, who has been tracking defence issues, pointed out that the Defence Ministry's reluctance to divulge information has prevented MPs on both sides on arriving at a consensus on the defence policy. Such a consensus would have enabled them to debate related matters based on a mutually-acceptable benchmark. "We don't even know what weapons meet the requirements of our defence policy, so how can we monitor the procurements effectively?" he asked. "So we hentam (criticise) everything. When they buy something expensive, we tend to think there is some hanky-panky."


If you asked me, this is a damning assessment as to how useless some of our MPs are when it comes to defence, if Mindef doesn’t provide answers, they can always ask the opinion of journalists, researchers, industry and academics in the defence field whether in this country or outside for opinion and answers. We have one major defence trade exhibition in this country plus several others nearby every year in which an MP can go and talk to people in the industry not to mention various conferences they can attend. I’m not even an MP with all the resources/power available to an MP and I know what’s going on, even online military enthusiast with none of the connections or power, being ordinary people also can know what’s going on or make assessments so in short no excuse and if any MP reading this I can give you short lessons on defence on a per hourly charge basis.
And the final para above confirms everything that MPs make criticism on defence with no basis and no research done in the first place.

Asked if there is an external monitoring mechanism, Lam shot back:
"Absolutely none".

The parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) only investigates a transaction if an element of fraud is suspected.

Lam noted that it is impossible for the media and civil society to monitor all defence transactions because the authorities keep a tight grip on information.

He cited the acquisition of two RM7.2 million Czech-made VERA-E passive surveillance radars in 2007.

Although a defence magazine later reported the purchase, the government refused to comment on this until Deputy Defence Minister Abdul Latiff Ahmad confirmed it in the Dewan Negara last week - some three years later.

This all depends as to what constitute an external monitoring mechanism, it’s really the same largely for all countries in that all the monitoring mechanism on defence are part of the government structure which is the same in Malaysia also (Auditor-General’s office, PAC, Finance Ministry all part of govt structure) so unless Lam is talking about NGO watchdogs or something else then you cannot say MOD is not being monitored. As for impossible for media and civil society to monitor all defence transactions, I have to say for example that most people are not interested as who got the contract to provide boot polish for the army anyway, so it’s not necessary for the media and public to able to know all defence transaction and for the major transactions, the media does know (well, at least I know and write about it, ha-ha) and the public finds out via that. Keep in mind government’s aren’t necessarily obliged to admit or disclose and in any event since the news already comes out via other means, the lack of admission or disclosure by the government doesn’t matter. Everybody who follows defence knows about the Vera-E ever since Khoo of China Press and myself in Janes wrote about it in 2007 not to mentioned that everyone reproduced that report, plus Bernama also wrote about it after that when they had an article on air defence radars shortly after that (so much for tight grip seeing Bernama is government organization) and anyhow Mindef actually admitted it last year in the 2008 annual report. So to say that the media is kept out of knowing anything is pretty much wrong, all you have to do is read what comes out by Marhalim in Malay Mail to know that Mindef’s info grip doesn’t prevent people from knowing, it’s only MPs and people like Malaysiakini who don’t bother to find out or do some work who find themselves not knowing anything, I suspect Lam knows better but is playing up to the writer’s slant for his own reasons. Anyhow all I can see so far is that Pt.II just shows again how little the Malaysiakini writer knows on the issue, unfortunately a number of people will still believe much of it anyway.

haku suke ayat ini

even online military enthusiast with none of the connections or power, being ordinary people also can know what’s going on or make assessments

atreyudevil wrote:haku suke ayat ini

even online military enthusiast with none of the connections or power, being ordinary people also can know what’s going on or make assessments

O-M-E regiment!

even online military enthusiast with none of the connections or power, being ordinary people also can know what’s going on or make assessments so in short no excuse and if any MP reading this I can give you short lessons on defence

yoooo... nasib baik dia tak sebut fully armed with mouse and keyboards

Ni aku selitkankan sikit dari Marhalim Abas punya blog berkenaan Malaysiakini

Online news portal, Malaysiakini also jumped into the bandwagon, but alas their take on their issue is really a poor cut and paste job!

–Malaysian Defence

Pt II setelah diconvert ke bahasa melayu melalui Google Translate

Pt.II rencana Malaysiakini berkaitan dengan proses pengadaan, dan aku akan dimasukkan ke dalam koma terbalik dan miring ke mana Aku mengutip teks dari Malaysiakini, saya berkongsi ini menjadi dua bahagian saat aku akan melihat penglibatan pesara perwira tentera di bahagian kedua dan fikiran saya itu.

Para para pertama terus mengulangi berbohong tentang RM180 bilion dihabiskan untuk menangani pertahanan dan kemudian menyatakan faktor menyekat pembelian kawalan pertahanan seperti:


"1. Maklumat ini tidak didedahkan atas dasar 'rahsia pertahanan' dan 'keselamatan negara'. "

Sekarang ini benar-benar bergantung pada maklumat apa yang ditanya tentang benar-benar, masalahnya ialah bahawa ahli parlimen Pakatan lakukan sering mengajukan soalan yang berkaitan dengan spesifikasi kemampuan operasi kami yang di negara lain juga tidak akan dijawab melainkan tanda-tanda MP perjanjian non-disclosure ( seperti keadaan kesiapan khusus armada pesawat pejuang RMAF's Liew Chin Tong yang yang dikutip dalam artikel, bertanya tentang sekali dan dengan demikian mendapat jawapan keselamatan negara, saya sudah minta di masa lalu pada peringkat kesiapan umum dari RMAF keseluruhan untuk rencana saya dan mendapat jawapan rasmi pada yang demikian itu benar-benar bergantung pada bagaimana anda kata tanya), yang tentu saja ahli parlimen Pakatan tidak mahu lakukan jika seperti pilihan diberikan. Hal lain adalah bahawa Mindef oleh dan besar memang memberikan jumlah yang terlibat dalam urus niaga, selepas semua kita telah melihat semua pertanyaan tentang transaksi pertahanan dibeli oleh Tian Chua contohnya, telah diasaskan pada jawapan yang diberikan oleh Menteri mengenai perjanjian kos pengadaan. Juga harus ingat bahawa peruntukan kewangan pertahanan yang diluluskan oleh Parlimen setiap tahun dan handout yang diberikan kepada ahli parlimen pada anggaran yang dicadangkan walaupun butiran umum, namun itu tidak menghalang ahli parlimen daripada meminta butiran kewangan sebelum dan membantah khusus dari anggaran selama debat kewangan, kali paling seperti yang terlihat di Hansard, ada sangat sedikit ini, sebenarnya ahli parlimen yang paling Pakatan selama masa yang diberi untuk debat pada Jabatan peruntukan Pertahanan hanya ingin tahu tentang bahagian Perkhidmatan Nasional dan isu-isu yang merupakan sebahagian dari peruntukan kewangan Mindef's. Jadi singkatnya, beberapa masalah yang berasal dari ahli parlimen tidak melakukan pekerjaan dengan baik daripada segala sesuatu yang tersembunyi di bawah rahsia, selain sebahagian besar kontrak MOD diberikan kurang hubungannya dengan pengadaan utama tetapi hal-hal seperti penyediaan makanan, kasut bot, sokongan kecil peralatan dll, semua yang dapat diungkapkan dan sebahagian besar telah disimpan di portal pengadaan kerajaan dan pengadaan peralatan pertahanan utama keluar tetap di majalah pertahanan antarabangsa.



"2. Harga yang berkaitan dengan maklumat terhad di pasaran pertahanan dan melibatkan banyak isu-isu teknikal dan spesifikasi yang menyulitkan proses penilaian dan perbandingan. "

Sama kes ada di mana-mana dan tidak hanya khusus untuk Malaysia, selain itu tidak berhenti Pakatan ahli parlimen dan Malaysiakini dari mencari di Internet, membuat perbandingan dan lulus off seperti perbandingan yang sah.



"3. Walaupun Jabatan Pertahanan mempunyai peraturan dan mekanisme dalaman untuk mengelakkan penyelewengan, tidak ada pengawasan independen luaran. "

Sekali lagi ini kembali ke artikel pertama yang cuba untuk melukis Mindef sebagai autonomi dalam apa yang dilakukannya, Jabatan Kewangan / Kewangan telah memberikan kelulusan akhir dan mendalami proses tender dan penilaian, EPU juga mempunyai input dan dalam pembelian besar, kabinet yang dipimpin oleh PM memberikan kelulusan dan akhirnya anda mempunyai laporan Umum Auditor walaupun masalah dengan itu adalah pejabat Auditor-Jeneral boleh mengabaikan beberapa perkara kerana tenaga kerja dan masa kendala tetapi itu tidak kesalahan Mindef jika tersebut berlaku dan mungkin tidak mudah untuk memperluaskan pejabat Auditor-Jeneral untuk membuat penilaian yang lebih menyeluruh. Auditor-Jeneral dalam artikel telah memberi cukup banyak ide yang baik dari apa yang berlaku pada akhir kerajaan hal

Malaysiakini terus Choong kutipan Lam Wah sebagai "Bekas wartawan yang memiliki pakar dalam masalah pertahanan, Lam sekarang editor pertahanan portal KL Security Review. Buku pertamanya tentatif berjudul 'Mengungkap Malaysia Pertahanan' dijadualkan akan dilancarkan bulan depan "walaupun mereka mudah lupa menyebutkan bahawa Lam mendirikan KLS sendiri sehingga kedudukan editor adalah diri yang dilantik oleh kami, secara peribadi saya akan tertarik melihat bagaimana Lam. buku ternyata, mengingat dia cukup orang luar dengan Angkatan Bersenjata Malaysia sebagai wartawan dan tidak disertakan untuk banyak-ons akan dalam, berharap buku ini tidak hanya diterbitkan dalam bahasa Cina dan saya bertanya-tanya siapa yang dana penerbitan buku.

Lalu ada para ini:

"Negosiasi terus adalah kaedah paling telus dari tiga, namun jumlah pengadaan diselesaikan melalui proses ini telah meningkat dalam beberapa tahun terakhir. Lam menjelaskan bahawa perundingan langsung dibenarkan dalam situasi tertentu: ketika hanya satu syarikat dapat menyediakan peralatan atau perkhidmatan; untuk membuat piawaian spesifikasi peralatan, keperluan kecemasan, dan kerana strategi dan pertimbangan politik, seperti hubungan bilateral antara negara. Menurut jawapan bertulis parlimen oleh Menteri Pertahanan pada bulan Mac tahun terakhir, jumlah itu hampir dua kali ganda daripada 52 pada tahun 2006 menjadi 100 pada 2009,
naik nilai dari RM2.1 bilion menjadi RM4.4 bilion selama tempoh itu. "

Sayangnya sedikit yang telah ditanya tentang apa persis perundingan langsung adalah tentang, masalahnya adalah angka saja tidak cukup, kita sebenarnya harus tahu apa yang kontrak dan nilai masing-masing, jika kita untuk menilai apakah itu dibenarkan atau tidak . Faktanya adalah MAF mempunyai sejumlah peralatan di dalamnya persediaan di mana suku cadang dan sokongan hanya boleh datang dari satu sumber, semua soalan ini boleh dengan diminta oleh ahli parlimen sebagai tindak lanjut dari jawapan Jabatan Pertahanan (walaupun seharusnya diminta di awal), tetapi seseorang tampaknya tidak melakukan pekerjaan apapun pada bahagian mereka. Senyum

"DAP Bukit Bendera MP Liew Chin Tong, yang telah pelacakan masalah pertahanan, menunjukkan bahawa keengganan Jabatan Pertahanan untuk membocorkan maklumat telah menghalang para ahli parlimen di kedua-dua belah pihak pada tiba di sebuah konsensus mengenai dasar pertahanan. Semacam konsensus akan membolehkan mereka untuk perdebatan hal-hal yang berkaitan berdasarkan tolok ukur saling diterima. "Kami bahkan tidak tahu apa senjata memenuhi keperluan dasar pertahanan kita, jadi bagaimana kita boleh memantau pengadaan secara berkesan?" tanyanya "Jadi kami. hentam (mengkritik) semuanya. Ketika mereka membeli sesuatu yang mahal, kita cenderung berfikir ada beberapa-saputangan menyikut. "


Jika anda bertanya kepada saya, ini adalah penilaian memberatkan tentang bagaimana sia-sia beberapa ahli parlimen kita ketika datang ke pertahanan, jika Mindef tidak memberikan jawapan, mereka sentiasa boleh meminta pendapat wartawan, penyelidik, industri dan ahli akademik dalam pertahanan bidang apakah di negeri ini maupun di luar untuk pendapat dan jawapan. Kami mempunyai satu pameran pertahanan perdagangan utama di negara ini, ditambah beberapa orang lain di dekatnya setiap tahun di mana ahli parlimen boleh pergi dan berbicara dengan orang-orang dalam industri belum lagi berbagai persidangan mereka dapat hadir. Aku bahkan tidak ada seorang ahli parlimen dengan semua sumber daya / tenaga yang sedia bagi seorang ahli parlimen dan aku tahu apa yang terjadi, bahkan talian penggemar tentera dengan tidak ada sambungan atau kuasa, sedang orang-orang biasa juga boleh tahu apa yang terjadi pada atau membuat penilaian sehingga dalam pendek tidak ada alasan dan jika ada MP membaca ini aku bisa memberikan pelajaran singkat tentang pertahanan atas setiap kos setiap jam. Senyum
Dan para akhir di atas menegaskan segala sesuatu yang membuat kritikan pada ahli parlimen pertahanan dengan tanpa asas dan tidak ada kajian yang dilakukan di tempat pertama.

Ditanya apakah ada mekanisme kawalan luaran, Lam balas:
"Sama sekali tidak".

Account parlimen Umum Jawatankuasa (PAC) hanya menyiasat suatu transaksi jika unsur penipuan dipercayai.

Lam mencatat bahawa tidak mungkin bagi media dan masyarakat awam untuk memantau semua transaksi pertahanan kerana kuasa menjaga cengkaman ketat atas maklumat.

Ia mencontohkan pengambilalihan dua RM7.2 juta Czech buatan VERA-E radar surveilans pasif pada tahun 2007.

Walaupun majalah pertahanan kemudian melaporkan pembelian, kerajaan menolak untuk mengomentari ini sampai Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan Abdul Latiff Ahmad disahkan dalam Dewan Negara minggu lalu - sekitar tiga tahun kemudian.

Ini semua bergantung seperti apa merupakan mekanisme pemantauan luaran, itu benar-benar sama sebahagian besar untuk semua negara di bahawa semua mekanisme pemantauan atas pertahanan merupakan sebahagian dari struktur kerajaan yang sama di Malaysia juga boleh (Auditor-Jeneral pejabat, PAC, Kewangan perkhidmatan semua bahagian dari struktur govt) jadi kecuali Lam sedang berbicara tentang pengawal NGO atau sesuatu yang lain, maka anda tidak boleh mengatakan MOD tidak sedang dipantau. Sedangkan mustahil bagi media dan masyarakat awam untuk memantau semua transaksi pertahanan, saya perlu mengatakan misalnya bahawa kebanyakan orang tidak tertarik sebagai yang mendapat kontrak untuk menyediakan cat boot untuk tentera, jadi anda tidak perlu untuk media dan awam untuk mampu mengetahui semua urus niaga pertahanan dan untuk transaksi besar, media tidak tahu (well, setidaknya aku tahu dan menulis tentang itu, ha-ha) dan awam tahu melalui itu. Perlu fikiran kerajaan tidak selalu diwajibkan untuk mengakui atau mendedahkan dan dalam hal apapun kerana berita sudah keluar melalui cara lain, kurangnya pengiktirafan atau pendedahan oleh kerajaan tidak masalah. Semua orang yang mengikuti pertahanan tahu tentang Vera-E sejak Khoo China Tekan dan saya sendiri di Janes menulis tentang hal ini dalam tahun 2007 tidak disebutkan bahawa setiap orang direproduksi bahawa laporan, ditambah Bernama juga menulis tentang hal ini selepas itu ketika mereka mempunyai rencana tentang pertahanan udara radar tidak lama selepas itu (begitu banyak untuk pegangan ketat melihat Bernama adalah organisasi kerajaan) dan Mindef bagaimanapun sebenarnya mengakui tahun lalu dalam laporan tahunan 2008. Jadi untuk mengatakan bahawa media yang disimpan di luar tahu apa-apa cukup banyak kesalahan, yang harus anda lakukan adalah membaca apa yang keluar oleh Marhalim dalam Mail Malaysia untuk mengetahui bahawa pegangan info Mindef itu tidak menghalang orang dari tahu, itu hanya ahli parlimen dan orang-orang seperti Malaysiakini yang tidak repot-repot untuk mengetahui atau melakukan kerja yang menemukan diri mereka tidak tahu apa-apa, aku curiga Lam tahu lebih baik tetapi bermain sampai dengan cerun penulis untuk alasannya sendiri. Bagaimanapun semua aku dapat melihat setakat ini adalah bahawa Pt.II lagi hanya menunjukkan betapa sedikit penulis Malaysiakini tahu mengenai masalah ini, sayangnya banyak orang masih akan percaya sebahagian besar pula.

pakatan pembakang nie x sedar ker terlalu byk pendedahan dlm isu pertahanan kita secara x langsung akan melemahkan pertahanan kita..

bila jadi macam ni kita dah nampak la apa peranan diorang..
klu nak jadi counter balance pun jangan la sampai semuanya nak korek dan dedah kat luar..

isu kapal selam boleh jadi contoh, habis dijaja sana sini dalam media diorang...
yang terpalit navy jugak,kesian kat diorang yang xda kena mengena tu..
zaman Tun M gak best..

continue 2/2..


Pt. 2 of assessing Malaysiakini’s Pt.2 Defence Focus


Before I go into dealing with the issue of agents, retired military/mindef personnel in defence companies, I just recalled I forgot to mention one thing in regard to direct negotiation contracts. Something that most people forget is that a tender exercise, while seemingly more transparent and competitive, does take more effort and time as you have to sort out the competing bids and sometimes there will be time wasting when someone submits something for the competition which has realistically no chance of winning but still is able to submit since the company is allowed to do so under the rules. In short you have more costs and man-hours taken in a tender evaluation in contrast to cutting to the chase and approaching a company directly and saying we want to purchase their equipment as that’s what we think is the one suitable for our needs so let’s negotiate the price. I understand the need for transparency etc but think people who say direct negotiation is prone to corruption and thus leads to waste should bear in mind that open tenders also cost waste and there’s no saying you can’t have corruption in that either. Personally I am in some ways in favor of detailed disclosures in regard to the financial costs (not the technical specs involved) of military equipment where possible.
Also I forgot to mention in regard to the argument on information on Malaysia’s military purchases being tightly guarded that there is also the SIPRI Arms Transfer Database to check on information (though the data cannot be considered as wholly accurate).

Now on the question of local agents, Malaysiakini quotes “However Transparency International-Malaysia president Paul Low begged to differ with the practice.
"Why do we need a middle man? If supplier wants to provide service, it is
for them to set up operations here. It can be 100 percent owned by them, not
a joint-venture company," he argued.”

The problem is that this isn’t simple as what Mr. Low thinks, first off a number of the agents here represent companies which do niche defence business such as optical equipment, engineering equipment, specialized tools etc, for many of these Original Equipment Manufacturers, given their small size, it is not cost effective for them to set up their own offices or operations here to chase a potential contract or sale that they do have a guaranteed chance of obtaining and other than the armed forces no other buyer, for instance if you are selling an artillery barrel cleaning kit, who do you sell to in Malaysia if the MAF is not interested, would it be viable to set up an office or company here in that case? The fact is most companies just appoint a local agent who have their own resources and spend money to chase the sale on their principle’s behalf and these local agents can do this kind of work as they have various other business interests/ventures to keep them in operation should no sale materialized for the product they are agents for.
The same principle in general applies to equipment purchase, one of the problems that Mr. Low fails to take into account is that a foreign arms firm (or any other company for that matter) that sets up office in another country may be obliged by their home countries law to ensure that their overseas office has a proportion of their staff being from the home nation, naturally this gets expensive as you then have to pay the cost of an expatriate stationed in a foreign country which includes housing, travel etc, furthermore in setting up an office overseas, a company has the headache of being compliant with home country and host country’s laws and factor in the fact that for certain countries, by law you may have to pay locals in a host country the same amount as you would pay if you ran a similar office back in your home country so as such it makes smart business sense for most defence companies to divest to local agents or partners. Personally I’m inclined to think that we have to look by a case by case basis though in a big purchase such as submarines or jets, we should go for a Govt to Govt route rather than agent route though I have my doubts whether the national leadership has learnt anything from the submarine/Perimekar business .

Next is this para:

“Also criticised is the practice of hiring retired top ministry officials as
directors or senior managers of companies involved in defence-based
business. Lam claimed that the ministry gives priority to companies owned by former
personnel when making purchases”

Well, I dunno, retired Capt. Zahar of Mentari didn’t get the RMAF CSAR helo contract did he , and some of the major purchases made such as the OPV deal, Astros, submarines, Sukhoi etc all did not involve companies owned by former personnel and in the case of the submarines and initial PSC OPV deal, it clearly shows that you don’t need retired military personnel to be involved in a defence deal for problems to explode so to speak . Presumably though the situation being referred to lies with the smaller contracts being given out though Lam did say that it might be because veterans are familiar with the situation they obtain the contracts. Personally I’m of the inclination that if there is any wrongdoing, anyone who knows should report it, instead we always get this kind of allegations without specific cases. Still there is probably a need to tighten and check on this end but I would extend the scope to including companies and deals in which the owners or partners are linked or related to political figures or someone senior in the military but I would also go on the basis of finding evidence that such a relationship influenced the deal and not just on the basis of a relationship existing especially given in Malaysia it’s possible for people, however distant, to be related to one another, if you’re from clannish Johorean families like mine, you find yourself being introduced to sixth cousin three times removed by marriage at the family gatherings.

Next is this para:

“ Low said the existence of the "revolving door", which enables senior
officers to move from government agencies to the business sector, could
build an unhealthy relationship even before they retire.

"These persons are responsible for evaluating tender (documents). The
company could hold out an offer of a job (at such a time that) they retire,
in order to win the tender," he cautioned.

"We can't stop (the officials). They have the right to look for a job (on)
retirement. It is hard to stop this practice."”

My view is that we have to bear in mind that the final decision is made by the government, military officers and Mindef officials make recommendations and forward for final approval by Finance Ministry/Treasury and occasionally the Cabinet too for major purchases so there is the fact that is that due diligence has to be exercised by the authorities outside Mindef who approve the procurement and both the Prime Minister and Defence Minister can scrutinized on their own assisted by their private advisors though I know some people will say Razak Baginda and which defence minister he advised but still it does show that there are ways not to just depend on Mindef personnel and military officals as sole source. Of course if you are like Tun M, who I have mixed feelings, as he did good things but also created some of the problems that beset the country, you could be smart enough to assess things yourself, one favorite story of mine is the one told by representative of a major fighter aircraft manufacturer, who made their presentation and briefing to Tun Mahathir when he was PM, and they said judging by Tun Mahathir’s questions, he knew more about their aircraft capabilities than they did.

The other thing to note, is that in some cases, the military officers moved from the military to a government linked defence company and are appointed by the government themselves so it would seem odd to claim that a government linked company gave a job inducement to a military officer given that since it is a GLC, the govt would give the contract to them anyway. The other thing is it’s not uncommon practice globally for former defence ministry officials or military officers to be involved in the defence business after retirement. This happens because of various reasons, namely their technical and personal expertise allows them to pitch a sale more effectively and credibly and in regard to foreign sales, the assurance of a retired military officer, particularly one personally known to that foreign country’s military is more effective in persuasions not to mention that some a retired military officers professional links and contacts are of use to a company. I’ve lost count of the American, British, French, German and South Korean companies representatives who I’ve met who all were retired generals or admirals so it isn’t an unusual phenomena, particularly in Malaysia given that the private sector isn’t exactly welcoming or wanting retired military officers in their ranks which is why most of them end up in the defence industry here as it is largely the only option available post-retirement.

The next thing I take issue is with is the naming of a number retired Mindef officials and military officers involved in defence companies, although Malaysiakini then adds a caveat stating none of them are suspected of wrongdoing but in the same sentence adds facts which seem to indicate if you read between the lines, something is wrong which is probably Malaysiakini’s intent, personally I think this is a despicable effort as it seems to single out a small portion of individuals when you could just mention names without adding factoids which seem to hint at something wrong. I’m going to give my thoughts on three of the names listed given I know enough to comment personally on what Malaysiakini wrote.

“ Zahidi Zainuddin, former chief of defence forces
He was was appointed a director of DRB-Hicom Bhd on June 1, 2005, one month
after he retired. A subsidiary of the company - Deftech Sdh Bhd - received a
government Letter of Intent to acquire 257 armoured personnel carriers for
RM8 billion. An opposition MP later claimed that this was far above the
market price.”

Problem is Zahidi was well out of office when the AV8 program mentioned above was initiated, which by my guess was only in 2009 as all the talk up to 2008 was about buying a foreign AFV rather than having it made locally. In fact if anything Zahidi’s appointment didn’t even change anything for Deftech with its 2006 debut of the AV4 4x4 AFV which the government has shown no interest of buying. Also there is the interesting omission of the RM8 Billion deal being the AV8 deal signed in 2010 so one gets the impression that the deal was done immediately after Zahidi retired and hence something wrong was going on.


“Ramlan Mohamed Ali, former navy chief
He is the director of Boustead Yachts Sdn Bhd, a company under Boustead
Holdings Bhd which is one of the largest defence companies in Malaysia.
It is a government-linked company with the Armed Forces Fund Board, a
statutory body, as its major shareholder.”

Well, yup Boustead Yachts which builds yachts is a defence business, at least according to Malaysiakini, though it does have a sideline in coast guard patrol crafts/speedboats not to mention Malaysiakini got it wrong in saying Boustead Holdings is one of the largest defence companies, if you go to the website at http://www.boustead.com.my/home.html , it clearly shows that Boustead Holdings is not a defence company, it’s subsidiary Boustead Heavy Industries is the defence portion of it and only came into existence because of the need to take over PSC and sort out the OPV mess and PSC’s holding of the RMN maintenance contract which would create problems if PSC went bankrupt. BHIC as it is known is mostly the PSC assets and facilities and if PSC did it’s business properly, BHIC would have never existed. Adm. Ramlan was Navy Chief from 2006-2008 and since Boustead’s navy business was all inherited from PSC which was all done way before Adm. Ramlan became Navy Chief, there isn’t anything to indicate Adm. Ramlan got the job because BHIC got a contract from the navy. In any event, knowing Adm. Ramlan personally and knowing of his reputation when he was Chief of the Navy, Boustead probably appointed him because of the need to energize the Yacht division and Adm. Ramlan is pretty good at getting people to get to work along with holding them accountable for any shortcomings as was evidenced when he was Navy Chief.

“ Ramli Mohd Nor, former navy chief
He is the managing director of Boustead Naval Shipyard and executive deputy
chairperson/group managing director of Boustead Heavy Industries Corporation
Bhd. Both companies are under Boustead Holdings Bhd.”

Again this fails to mentioned that Vice. Adm Ahmad Ramli (he was navy chief when the post was still a 3 star rank) was navy chief from 1995-1998 and was only appointed to Boustead Naval shipyards after the government took it over in 2005 and the main reason Vice.Adm Ahmad Ramli was appointed was to get the OPV program back on course after the mess at PSC since the government had decided someone with a navy background was needed for the job, if PSC had done it’s job properly Ahmad Ramli would not be where he is at BHIC and he was appointed seven years after he retired. So presumably the Malaysiakini writer was ignorant of all this or chose not to mention the facts since this would detract from the slant of the story.

So again very much good rabble rousing stuff from Malaysiakini but in my opinion a much better and fairer article could have been written.

hehehe venez..cannot do revolving door aa or malaysiakini will name you...

mumuchi wrote:hehehe venez..cannot do revolving door aa or malaysiakini will name you...

he3.... always prepare for the worst...

LATIHAN KEMAHIRAN LAUT: INTEGRASI KDTUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN BERSAMA KAPAL PERANG DAN PESAWAT UDARA TLDM

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

1. Kota Kinabalu, 29 Jul – Buat julung kali,TLDM mengintegrasikan aset strategik Kapal Selam TLDM KD TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN bersama Armada TLDM dalam Latihan Kemahiran Laut dan Latihan Integrasi Kapal Selam yang terbesar di Perairan Laut China Selatan mulai 29 Jul hingga 6 Ogos 10 .

2. Latihankali ini yang dikenali sebagai OperationSea Training Excercise / FleetIntegration Training With Submarine 2010 (OSTEX/SUB FIT 2010) telah dirasmikan Panglima Wilayah Laut 2, Yang Berbahagia Laksamana Pertama Dato'Anuwi bin Hassan pada 29 Jul 10 di Auditorium Markas Angkatan Kapal Selam,Pangkalan TLDM Kota Kinabalu. Latihan ini adalah kali pertama melibatkan kapal selamTLDM KD TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN bersama 10buah lagi kapal perang dalam Armada TLDM iaitu KD SRI INDERA SAKTI, KDLEKIU, KD LEKIR, KD MAHAMIRU, KD LEDANG, KD SRI GAYA, KD PERAK, KD TERENGGANU,KD PAHANG dan KD KEDAH. Selain itu, sebuah pesawat Super Lynx dan Fennec,Tim Pasukan Khas Laut (PASKAL), Tim Penyelam dan Tim Pasukan Pertahanan Udara, dua buah pesawat pejuang HAWK dan pesawat maritim BEECHCRAFT serta Helikopter NURI dari Tentera Udara Diraja Malaysia (TUDM) juga turut serta. Latihan ini telah melibatkan lebih 1000 anggota TLDM/TUDM yang diketuai oleh Ketua Staf Markas Armada,Laksamana Pertama Mior Rosdi bin Dato' Mior Mohd Jaafar selaku Pegawai PengendaliEksesais.

3. Tujuan utama eksesais ini adalah untukmelatih, menguji dan mengintegrasikan keupayaan tempur Armada TLDM dan pesawatTLDM/TUDM bersama kapal selam KD TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN sesuai objektif berikut:

a. Menguji kesiagaan dan kepakaran Armada.

b. Membangunkan keupayaan Armada dan pesawat TLDM/TUDM

beroperasi bersama Kapal Selam TLDM.

c. Menguji Sistem Pemerintahan dan Kawalan Markas-markas Operasi

yang terlibat.

d. Menguji keupayaan merancang dan mengatur gerak Armada.

e. Menguji Rancangan Sokongan (RANSOK) Pertahanan Gugusan

Semarang Peninjau (GSP).

f. Memperagakan kehadiran di Laut China Selatan.

g. Menguji pertahanan Pangkalan TLDM Kota Kinabalu (PTKK).

4. Dengan adanya kapal selam sendiri, TLDMtidak lagi perlu bergantung kepada penglibatan Kapal Selam Tentera Laut Asing untuk melatih kapal-kapal penangkis kapal selam TLDM dalam taktik dan prosedur peperangan menangkis kapal selam. Peluang ini juga akan diguna oleh KD TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN untuk memantapkan prosedur dan taktik kapal selam dalam menangkis serangan kapal permukaan.

5. Latihan kemahiran laut ini yang lazimnya dilakukan tiga kali dalam setahun oleh setiap Markas Wilayah iaitu Markas Armada di Lumut Perak, Markas Wilayah Laut 1 di Tanjung Gelang Pahang,Markas Wilayah Laut 2 di Kota Kinabalu Sabah dan Markas Wilayah Laut 3 diLangkawi. Namun ia telah dikurangkan kepada hanya sekali setahun bagi menjimatkan perbelanjaan. Kesemua latihan di peringkat wilayah telah digabungkan untuk latihan kali ini.

6. Peluang ini juga digunakan untukmenilai semula Rancangan Sokongan (RANSOK) pertahanan Gugusan Semarang Peninjau(GSP) dan Pangkalan TLDM. Untuk tujuan ini Pasukan Khas Laut (PASKAL), PasukanPenyelam (PLM) dan Pasukan Pertahanan Udara (PPU) diuji. Melalui latihan inijuga, secara tidak langsung Sistem Kawalan dan Pemerintahan Armada serta PangkalanTLDM turut diuji.

7. Latihan OSTEX/SUB FIT 2010 juga berjayamenguji keupayaan pesawat Fennec dan Super Lynx TLDM apabila melaksanakan winching di mana pesawat akan terbangrendah mendekati kapal selam KD TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN yang sedang belayar untuk mengambil dan menurunkan anggota atau barang tanpa melakukan pendaratan.Kedua-dua pesawat ini juga diuji dalam pelaksanaan Operasi Mencari dan Menyelamatatau Search And Rescue (SAR) di waktumalam. Helikopter Fennec dan Super Lynx TLDM yang dilengkapi Night Vision Goggle (NVG) merupakan pasukan udara pertama Malaysia yang berkemampuan untuk menjalankan Operasi Mencari danMenyelamat pada waktu malam.

6. Majlis penutup telah disempurnakan Panglima Angkatan Kapal Selam, Yang BerbahagiaLaksamana Pertama Dato' Pahlawan Mohammad Rosland bin Omar pada 6 Ogos 2010 di Auditorium Markas Angkatan Kapal Selam. Sesungguhnya, OSTEX/SUB FIT 2010merupakan latihan yang amat padat untuk menguji kemahiran operasi dan kesiagaan Armada TLDM dalam menangani ancaman 3 dimensi iaitu permukaan, bawah permukaandan udara ke atas kedaulatan negara. Pertambahan aset baru seperti Kapal Ronda Generasi Baru iaitu KD KEDAH, KD PAHANG, KD PERAK dan KD TERENGGANU serta kapal selam KD TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN dan KD TUN RAZAK jelasnya telah meningkatkan keupayaan tempur Armada TLDM dan sekali gus menjadikan TLDM antara Tentera Laut bertaraf dunia yang disegani di rantau ini.

by Dzirhan Mahadzir - Defence Journalist

Bagus, media kena besarkan berita ni... nampak mcm latihan biasa tapi ni adalah rentetan dari pergeseran di terumbu layang antara tentera kita dan kapal ronda perikanan china tempohari.

dikala perkembangan ekonomi negara skang tgh bertambah baik..elok kalo latihan2 berskala besar ni jalankan dgn lebih giat..utk memantapkn lg koordinasi antara cabang2 ATM..

BHIC'S JV AWARDED EURO 193MILLION AND RM 532 MILLION

IN SERVICE SUPPORT CONTRACT FOR MALAYSIAN SUBMARINES

KUALA LUMPUR, 13 August 2010 – BousteadDCNS Naval Corporation Sdn Bhd (BDNC), a Joint Venture Company between BHIC Defence Technologies Sdn Bhd and French world leader in naval defence, DCNSS.A., recently received a Letter of Award from the Malaysian Ministry of Defence(MINDEF) for the contract to undertake In Service Support (ISS) for the two Royal Malaysian Navy's Prime Minister Class Scorpene Submarines. The value ofthe contract totals EURO 193 million and RM 532 million and is effective for a period ending 30 November 2015.

In June 2009, Boustead Heavy Industries CorporationBerhad (BHIC) announced that BDNC had received a Letter of Intent from MINDEF for the said ISS for an estimated six-year contract valued at RM 600 million.

The difference in contract value being awarded from the initial Letter of Intent was due to the inclusion of a full Submarine Integrated Logistics Support package. This consists of a comprehensive spareparts package as well as the outfitting of workshop equipment, respective yard facilities and equipment, submarine safety conditioning facilities and their corresponding upkeep and maintenance. The contract also covers tug boat services and the operation and maintenance of the shiplift, transfer system and submarine "umbilical services".

YBhg. Laksamana Madya (B) Tan Sri Dato' Seri AhmadRamli Haji Mohd Nor, Managing Director of BHIC, said, "The contract negotiations between BDNC and the Malaysian Government emphasised on the effective delivery of the ISS and the targeted technical availability of thesubmarines. It also includes the transfer of technology and know-how from our partner, DCNS."

"The transfer of technology, know-how and skills-set fromthe French to the Malaysian personnel is crucial to ensure local participation,self reliance and local content in accordance to the National Defence Industry Policy."

In carrying out the ISS, BHIC and DCNS operational staff will be working together in pairs. This will enable BHIC personnel to acquire the necessary technical know-how on thejob from their DCNS counterparts. The transfer of technology and know-how timelinesare set to last between two to three years according to the respective specialist skill levels to be acquired. In the crucial initial period, DCNS operational personnel seconded to BDNC will also be taking on the key role oftrainers. Once the transfer of technology is completed, BHIC operational personnel seconded to BDNC will take on the responsibility to perform the ISS, whilecontinuing to transfer the skills-set to other Malaysian personnel and local industries. DCNS personnel will then be gradually phased out.

"The transfer of technology and know-how will beprogressively monitored via the maintenance of individual task books, periodic reviews and interviews with personnel. A final certification process is also in place to ensure that the Malaysian personnel will be fully competent to undertake the ISS tasks on completion of the transfer period," Tan Sri AhmadRamli explained.

In addition, during the first two years, BDNC and its sub-contractors will also be working together in a collaborative manner to achieve the extremely tight deadlines in delivering the critical spare partsand to set-up the submarine facilities. Upon completion of these milestones,BDNC will have access to the full submarine infrastructure, facilities and equipment,thus enabling it to meet the technical availability demand of the Malaysian SubmarineForce.

"We would like to acknowledge the positive cooperation and responsiveness of our French partners throughout this entire process.We believe that the long contract negotiations have strengthened the partnership between BHIC and DCNS. We are committed to the effective delivery of the ISS and the transfer of technology initiative."

Both DCNS and BHIC seconded personnel have been fullymobilized to Kota Kinabalu, Sabah since September 2009 and are already performing the maintenance tasks on the submarines. BHIC personnel have also undergone theoretical, practical and hands-on submarine maintenance training since 2008in France and Lumut. To date there are a total of 33 BHIC engineers and technicians trained, and more are being planned to acquire these new skills.

"BDNC is extremely confident that with the support ofits shareholders and the spirit of smart partnership with the key sub-contractors,it can deliver an effective and efficient ISS to the Royal Malaysian Navy, and hence meet the demanding targeted technical availability of our Malaysian Submarine Force," Tan Sri Ahmad Ramli concluded.

END

Dzirhan Mahadzir - Defence Journalist