SHAH ALAM: Former Boustead Heavy Industries Corporation (BHIC) and Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS) managing director Tan Sri Ahmad Ramli Mohd Nor was charged with three counts of criminal breach of trust in connection with the LCS programme today. The 79-year-old was the 11th RMN chief.
According to Bernama, the charges occurred between October 2010 to May 2011, were in total involved some RM21.08 million. Ahmad Ramli plead not guilty to the charges, and he was given bail amounting to RM500,000. The case at the Kuala Lumpur High Court will be re-mentioned on November 24.
Ahmad Ramli was charged under Section 409 of the Criminal Procedure Code which calls for a prison of no less of two years and not more of 20 years; whipping and a fine if found guilty.
What is interesting is that the charges were the ones that were revealed around 2011 and 2012 and was widely reported then (though I can no longer find it anywhere now and cannot confirmed whether the issue was investigated back then). I did write a story about it here.
Ahmad Ramli was appointed to the board of BHIC on 17 August 2005 and served as the managing Director/Chief Executive Officer since 22 August 2005. He was redesignated as MD of the company on May 1, 2019. He resigned from Boustead later that year.
I guess we would have to see if others involved in the project will also face charges in court.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
View Comments (24)
Malaysia will own a "fantastic" and newly designed 155mm SPH called Yavuz through direct nego. Welcome to Malaysia! Bye bye Caesar! Any thoughts on that?
@Kamal
No official news yet but I also heard that somehwere. Doing some simple and stuoid calculation, the Yavuz cost 30%-40% more per unit than the already proven Ceaser! Welcome back to the good old Malaysia procurement stupidity. I stand to be corrected though.
On the LCS charges, I am still waiting for any political names to be charged in court as this ex-BNS guy receive order from his boss which receive order from some politicians (clearly!)
Kamal - " Bye bye Caesar! Any thoughts on that"
As long as whatever we buy meets requirements; is bought in decent numbers and we acquire the enablers and the needed improvements [ISR assets; FDCs, better organisation; revamped doctrine, etc] in order for our arty to provide timely and accurate direct and indirect fire and for us to be enabled to have mass fire without mass guns whether on the offence or defence in support of maneuver units as part of combined arms formations...
Is the Turkey Army even operating the Yavuz or ordered it? Since their main SPH remains the South Korea's K9 variant. Markup high because agent company does nothing but provide a letterhead for official business. Do people want to get rid of the agent policy and system?
Am inclined to go with Azlan's comment. Yavuz SPH is very new. But so long it fits the criteria for purchase and use, it's all good. Who knows, we'll buy another 18 to the alleged 18 we are said to order. And read somewhere MKE is throwing in the tactical drones too for the Yavuz purchase.
Well yavuz is basically a panter 155m towed howitzers put on man truck..id say its pretty good on paper as i understand panter 155m towed are being used quite widely in turkish army or no?..And got MRSI capability too
@Kamal
Well some had pooh-pooh'ed open tender so this is good news for them to hear, no?
It has been reporyed to day that to sweeten the deal we will be given 9 units of tactical UAVs to help with recon for the artillery. Each unit consists of two uavs. So 18 units in total
Kel "Markup high because agent company does nothing but provide a letterhead for official business"
It receives the contract and awards it; takes delivery, delivers it to the customer and ensure all contractual obligations are met.
Kel " Do people want to get rid of the agent policy and system"
Who are the "people"? If it's the various companies who gain revenue then obviously no; if it's the average taxpayer he/she remains largely clueless; if it's the government who uses contracts to reward patronage then no; if it's the armed services who have long paid price for us not getting the best value for our cash then yes and it's people like me who have long observed and understands the high penalties we incurr in the long run; then obviously yes.
Firdaus -"id say its pretty good on paper"
If it has been exported or bought domestically there is no such thing as a "bad" gun. We can even buy 40 year old FH-70s but ultimately - as explained in my previous post - it boils down to how we employ them. If we don't have the right doctrine, organisation and key enablers; doesn't matter what we buy.
Lee - " to help with recon for the artillery"
To help with target detection and BDA" not "recon" per see.