SHAH ALAM: A tender for the supply of 5,000 anti-riot gas masks and accessories, for a two year period, for the police was published in Eperolehan today. The forty-two-day tender closes on September 9, the same day that the samples of the anti-gas mask and its accessories – a single gas canister and pouch each- be submitted together with the tender documents.
The tender comes under the Procurement Division of the Home Ministry. The indicative cost of the tender – which includes the samples, pre-delivery inspection and training for fifty personnel – is RM15,197,500.00 (RM15.1 million). This means the cost of each gas mask is RM3,020.
The public specifications did not name which units are meant for the anti-riot gas masks, but it is likely for use by the Federal Reserve Unit, Light Strike Force and Provisional Anti-Riot Unit or PORU. Checks on the Eperolehan showed the current gas masks in service with the police are the Avon C50 and the 3M Scott. It is likely that the latter are used by the Special Action Unit and the VAT 69. I stand to be corrected of course.
The last tender for anti-riot gas masks was in 2020 – 500 gas mask, 1000 gas canisters, 1000 CBRN canisters and 500 gas mask pouch and it was meant for the FRU. The contract was awarded to Arena Mission Sdn Bhd, though the amount was not listed.
Public specifications of the anti-riot gas mask:
ANTI RIOT GAS MASK 1.1.1 The Anti-Riot Gas Mask shall
compatible and comfortable with Anti-Riot helmet types and fit for all
facial shape.
1.1.2 The Outer surface avoiding stagnation of chemical agents
including CS, CN and OC. i- O-chlorobe nzylidene Malononitrile (CS) ii
Chloroacet ophenone (CN) iii- Oleoresin Capsicum (OC)
1.1.3 The Gas Mask shall give high protection, good field of vision and
comfort to use in riot situation and training
ANTI-RIOT CANISTER 1.2.1 The Anti-Riot Canister shall be use for
removal of riot control agents and tear gases including CS, CN and OC.
1.2.2 The Canister shall have conformal shape providing a low profile
close fit with the Gas Mask.
The Anti-Riot Gas Mask Pouch shall be a pouch with sling that can be worn on the leg or on the
belt.
1.3.2 Side Pouch : The Anti-Riot Gas Mask Pouch shall have side
pouch for extra filter compartment.
By the way what happened to the tenders for the FRU equipment from vehicles, riot guns and sniper rifles reported previously on Malaysian Defence? I have no idea really as checks on Eperolehan and the government tender result pages showed none of them had been awarded.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Ironic that a Govt that was once shot at with tear gas & water cannons are still maintaining the same apparatus that had brutalised them. I guess the saying was accurate, in time the oppressed becomes the oppressor. And the wheel will turn again.
“…Govt that was once shot at with tear gas & water cannons..”
if security forces have not tear gas & water cannon, then how to manage unruly gathering? a baton-charge?
According to a certain party now in Govt, if the then Govt had allowed freedom to gather and do whatever they want and say whatever they want and not touch them, the gathering would have been ‘peaceful’ wor… so same reasoning applies. If it would have been good for the goose, it certainly would be good for the gander now.
Yes, the current government is not consistent with its messages when it comes to peaceful gatherings. That said the authorities must have the tools for its enforcement role whatever the messaging or the government feels about it (enforcement). It is up to the government to decide whether the authorities (in this case the police) should do in the situation.
It is the same with the Armed Forces, even though the government says we are not going to war with anyone , it still needs the tools and means to go to war. The reasoning that we are not going to war with anyone is the reason that national security sector funding comes in drips and pieces and with other things like national interest becoming the over riding factor.
Unfortunately the biggest security concerns we face currently are either losing 20% of GDP, being finlanization or both. While devastating it maybe, it’s hardly qualify as existential crisis.
From a purse holder point of view, 20% of GDP is high enough to go to war with but not high enough to risk losing the other 80%, something we would definitely lose in a all out or/and protracted conflict.
As for finlanization, let say unlike the sinkie, nihhonjin, we ain’t exactly a winner under the current world order. Thus very little desire to buy expensive high tech stuff to work alongside tier 1 military
In a high intensity environment to defend a system that doesn’t exactly benefits us.
But we aren’t a total loser under current system either. Thus we ain’t gonna go all neutral 3rd party and adopted asymmetric. We would need some level of interoperability and interchangeability To have an option to join in a multilateral force. Just not on the front line of course.
So if we take the point of view of the purse holder. We are pretty consistent. We going around buying some Mid level intensity capabilities with some mid level interoperability and interchangeability.
” Armed Forces, even though the government says we are not going to war with anyone , it still needs the tools and means to go to war ”
Most of the time, when war comes, we will not be given the choice of not taking part in one, as what happened to Ukraine. When some country attacks you, you will have no choice but to fight back or risk being defeated and losing your sovereignty. Being prepared for war does not mean we will start one, but we can fight back if that is the last resort.
When there is a high probability of a war starting around you, you need to prepare for one, not lie to yourself that it is going to affect just your neighbours and not you.
Defence spending need to be done seriously, not as a budget that can be played around and can be diverted for personal, crony or political purposes. Priority should be for things that can be used to fight back any aggressor, secondary missions should not be the priority.
But for PDRM, yes they are the primary agency to maintain peace during normal non-war situation, as is our APMM. They are the primary agency to counter any riots. This should be the same for APMM, as it is the primary maritime enforcement agency, similar to Police the primary internal enforcement agency.
For some countries, for example one who has a history of military dictatorship then a separation of police and military is needed to prevent it happening again.
While in other countries, particularly one where the uniform service respect and accept civilian leadership and voters consensus. Obsession over the separation of civilian law enforcement and military is pointless. Over here such a thing is a non issues as historically we had used the police to help the military do counterinsurgency against the communist and the military had from time to time help the police do law enforcement such as enforcing MCO, protecting the border, surveillance on coast for PATI. Etc etc.
Thus Outside of very few select individual, no one really care for such separation, infact most people think it’s a great model as it’s reduce manpower and assets requirements and thus saves taxpayers tons of money.
Thus in case the navy need a civilian patrol boat that can carry containerized weapons. They can just used the CG cutter rather than wasting taxpayers money buying LMS-X for the navy on top of patrol boat for the CG. This way we only need to buy 1 patrol boat and not 2.
We also know the purse holders love some level of interoperability and interchangeability between the military and law enforcement that they make KDN and MINDEf acquire the same helo,Hilux and FIC.
“It is the same with the Armed Forces”
Not the same buying weapons for armed forces is for defence against external parties. Buying riot weapons is defence against whom but our own citizen? And isnt this Govt all about anti against that since they had suffer such weapons? Again its more cakap tak serupa bikin with these lot.