Malaysiakini : On a serious note, this is the tale of the LCS and how the involvement of bureaucrats (and perhaps politicians) prevented the navy from taking delivery of its much-needed battle-ready ships.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report on the matter, which was published in Malaysiakini last week, is a catalogue of abuses and misuse of power.

More telling indeed that the defence minister and the prime minister, at the time when the project was approved, had ignored pleas from Admiral Abdul Aziz Jaafar, who was the commander of the navy from April 1, 2008, to Nov 17, 2015.

Protests fall on deaf ears

Aziz told the PAC proceedings that he had submitted at least 10 letters of “reprimand” and letters of dissatisfaction to state the navy’s stand, but nothing came of them.

Five letters were sent to the defence minister, one each to the chief secretary of the Treasury, the chief secretary of the government, and two to the then prime minister.

He found that there were unusual happenings in the process of acquisition, where the acquisition was done by the government on behalf of the navy as a consumer (end-user) but full power was given to the manufacturer, in this case, Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd (BNS).

BNS is owned by Boustead Heavy Industries Corporation Bhd (BHIC). Among the largest shareholders of BHIC is the Armed Forces Fund Board (LTAT), a statutory body managing the pension funds for military personnel. All non-officers are required to contribute to the fund.

The PAC report quoted Aziz as saying: “… from the beginning, I have been reprimanding the procurement procedures - right from the very beginning. I’ve reprimanded the procurement procedure.”

Despite all the letters and personal representations to the higher-ups, the navy was fighting a losing battle.

Aziz told the PAC: “Something was seriously wrong. So, I’m not simply making these statements but this is my best opportunity to inform you that I have registered my greatest disappointment to everyone that was supposed to be listening to me.”

Telling words indeed, but who will take responsibility for this fiasco?

Can the civil servants at the Defence Ministry, who do not know the starboard from the port side of a ship, decide what is ideal for the defence of our shores?

Pointing fingers, avoiding responsibility

Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who was defence minister at the time, said it was “unreasonable” to pin the failure of the procurement on him as he claimed he was not the defence minister when the project was awarded.

“I held the defence minister position from April 2009 to May 2013. So, any party who caused the delay in the construction should be responsible for providing an explanation to the PAC,” Malaysiakini quoted Zahid as saying.

Really? But what about those letters sent by the navy chief? Wasn’t he the minister then? Wasn’t he aware of the problem? Why did he not respond to those letters?

The PAC report among others highlighted how the navy’s views were ignored by the Defence Ministry and BNS in the procurement of the LCS.

The report said: “This was among the reasons for the failure of the project, which also saw a huge overrun in cost amounting to RM1.4 billion in the RM9 billion contract which was awarded to BNS in 2011.”

It is as clear as daylight that Zahid was the minister in charge and is now trying to point fingers instead of providing plausible reasons. This is certainly not acceptable.

Crying over spilt milk

Meanwhile, current Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said his ministry and all related stakeholders would take into account recommendations made by the PAC in proceeding with the procurement of the LCS.

“On the weaknesses and misappropriation, I have consistently stressed that anyone who is guilty will remain guilty.

“MACC investigations are still ongoing, and this means the parties involved in any wrongdoing in the project will not get away,” he said.

But this does not explain the colossal jump in costs and why his ministry’s choice of the ships’ design was not in line with the navy’s top brass.

Yes, the MACC “may” (the emphasis is the writer’s) take action but what is going to happen to the humongous amount already paid and spent, plus the cost overrun?

How is the government going to recover or recoup the money? Wouldn’t all these have been avoided if, from the word go, the ministry had acted on the letters from the navy chief?

It has been seven years since the last letter was sent and we are now talking about wrongdoers and following the recommendations by the PAC.

Isn’t this something which could have been avoided? After all, prevention is better than cure.