More On LCS….The Never-Ending Story

PCU Maharaja Lela - LCS1 - picture taken on January 1, 2023. DSU Mohamad Hasan.

SHAH ALAM: More on the LCS. It has become apparent that the LCS project is the actual never-ending story. Thanks to questions in Dewan Negara or Senate we now know more about the project. Deputy Defence Minister Adly Zahari answering the questions on the floor stated that since the government had already paid RM6 billion for the project out of the RM9 billion ceiling price, the remaining RM3 billion will be used for the first ship – PCU Maharaja Lela.

As for the other four ships, Adly said the government will decide whether new funds will be allocated once the first ship is completed – late 2024 to be completed and commissioned in 22 months. Commissioned in 22 months meant that the first ship will only be ready in 2026. This also mean that the deadline for the second ship, originally schedule for 2025, will likely slipped further.

Adly also said Boustead Naval Shipyard has taken delivery 12 MTU engines only for the LCS. As the ship are to be fitted with four engines each, the numbers meant that only three ships could be completed for the moment. Of course, it will depend on the funding as mentioned above.

The transcript for the Dewan Negara April 5:

Datuk Teo Eng Tee @ Teo Kok Chee minta Menteri Pertahanan menyatakan, apa
perkembangan terbaru bagi projek pembinaan Kapal Tempur Pesisir Pantai (LCS) dan
apakah tindakan mahkamah yang telah atau akan diambil dalam projek LCS ini di mana projek
belum siap sepenuhnya tetapi bayaran dibuat tanpa pengetahuan pihak kementerian.
Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan [Tuan Haji Adly bin Zahari]: Bismillahi Rahmani
Rahim. Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh dan salam sejahtera.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua dan juga Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat Senator, terima kasih Yang
Berhormat Senator atas soalan yang dikemukakan. Pendirian Kementerian Pertahanan bagi
meneruskan perolehan kapal tempur pesisir pantai atau LCS ini adalah untuk
memperkasakan keupayaan operasi TLDM dalam memelihara kedaulatan perairan negara,
selari dengan objektif pertahanan negara yang terkandung dalam Kertas Putih Pertahanan
Negara.
Oleh yang demikian, Kementerian Pertahanan memberi tumpuan sepenuhnya dalam
melangkah ke hadapan bagi memastikan projek LCS ini dapat diteruskan semula. Selain itu,
Kementerian Pertahanan bersama dengan Angkatan Tentera Malaysia khususnya Tentera
Laut Diraja Malaysia (TLDM), Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT) khususnya pihak
Boustead telah melihat semula perancangan perolehan LCS ini bersama dengan
Kementerian Kewangan, Kementerian Ekonomi dan juga Jabatan Peguam Negara bagi
mencari penyelesaian terbaik bagi meneruskan pembangunan projek ini.
Mengenai perkembangan terbaru bagi pembinaan Kapal Tempur Pesisir Pantai ini,
kementerian sedang dalam fasa akhir untuk memuktamadkan cadangan penerusan projek
melalui penyediaan memorandum Jemaah Menteri yang dirancang akan dibentangkan dalam
masa terdekat.
Sekiranya Jemaah Menteri memuktamadkan hala tuju bagi perolehan LCS ini, pihak
kementerian akan bersedia untuk memaklumkannya kepada sidang Dewan yang mulia ini.
Berhubung tindakan mahkamah sama ada telah diambil ataupun tidak, kementerian
menyerahkan sepenuhnya kepada pihak berkuasa untuk mengambil tindakan jika terdapat
salah laku dan pihak yang bertanggungjawab menyebabkan kelewatan terhadap penyiapan
kapal tempur pesisir pantai ini dan kementerian tidak akan sesekali mempertahankan serta
berkompromi dengan mana-mana pihak yang melakukan tindakan tidak bertanggungjawab
dalam perihal perolehan dan pembangunan LCS ini.
Berkenaan pembayaran kepada pihak syarikat pembina pula, kementerian ingin
menjelaskan bahawa pembayaran ini adalah berdasarkan kontrak yang telah termaktub
secara ringkas kemajuan pembayaran tidak dirangkaikan dengan peratusan kemajuan kerja
tetapi sebaliknya pembayaran adalah berdasarkan aktiviti dan kontrak untuk kesemua kapal
dapat dilaksanakan.
Justeru, kemajuan setiap kapal perlu dibayar kerana kerja telah bermula dan peralatan
perlu dibeli untuk dipasang di kapal tersebut. Sebagai makluman, inventori dalam ruang
penyimpanan bagi peralatan LCS ini sudah pun bernilai RM1.7 bilion dan ia telah dibuktikan
dan dilaporkan dalam Jawatankuasa Kira-kira Wang Negara. Itu sahaja.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Baik Yang Berhormat Datuk Teo Eng Tee.
Datuk Teo Eng Tee @ Teo Kok Chee: Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Timbalan
Menteri. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, soalan tambahan saya, selepas siap membina kapal LCS,
berapa kos yang akan ditanggung bagi pembayaran penyelarasan dan kos operasi untuk
setiap kapal LCS? Kedua, kakitangan penyelarasan kalangan warganegara atau kakitangan
teknikal asing?
Tuan Haji Adly bin Zahari: Tuan Yang di-Pertua dan juga terima kasih kepada Yang
Berhormat Senator yang bertanya dua persoalan. Pertama tentang kos. Kita tahu bahawa
daripada pembangunan LCS ini secara keseluruhan RM9 bilion yang diperuntukkan, kita telah
membelanjakan sekitar RM6 bilion. So, kita ada berbaki sekitar RM3 bilion. So, daripada RM3
bilion itu cabaran kepada kita adalah bagaimana kita ingin menyiapkan jumlah keseluruhan
daripada perancangan kontrak kita.
Oleh sebab itu, kita mempunyai satu tanggungjawab di mana kita harus revise balik
kaedah kita membangunkan LCS, itu yang pertama. Kedua, kita harus melihat kembali
bagaimana kontrak itu dilaksanakan. Oleh sebab itu apabila kita mahu membentangkan
kembali kepada Jemaah Menteri, kita memang ada berbaki RM3 bilion dan sedaya upaya kita
akan cuba menggunakan RM3 bilion bagi menyiapkan kapal yang pertama yang kita jangka
boleh disiapkan pada tahun hadapan.
Begitulah juga dengan kapal kedua dan kapal seterusnya. Adapun jumlah tambahan
kos kepada pembinaan ini banyak bergantung kepada bagaimana kita mahu menyiapkan
kapal pertama, kedua dan seterusnya. Ini antara kos-kos yang terlibat.
Adapun persoalan tentang teknikal kemampuan, keupayaan kita. Memang kita
sebenarnya kalau kita lihat antara tujuan dan matlamat asal bagi kita membangunkan LCS ini
adalah sesuai dengan keperluan kita yang telah kita gariskan dalam Kertas Putih Pertahanan
di mana kita mahu membangunkan teknologi pertahanan negara.
Kita tahu hasrat itu murni kerana kalau kita lihat dengan apa yang kita usahakan
melalui Boustead ini, memang kita tahu bahawa kepakaran tempatan itu kita gunakan kecuali
dalam bidang-bidang yang mempunyai teknologi yang tinggi. Contohnya macam enjin, kita
sudah daripada enam buah kapal itu, setiap kapal itu kita menggunakan empat -enjin, dan
kalau kita tengok dalam gudang kita itu, kita ada 12 -enjin untuk tiga buah kapal, sudah ada
di situ.
Itu mungkin kita perlukan kepakaran luar tetapi bagi saya model yang digunakan itu
memang boleh membangunkan kemampuan, kepakaran ataupun kemampuan teknologi
pertahanan negara itu sendiri. Mungkin ada kelemahannya tetapi untuk ke hadapan, saya fikir
kita mesti memastikan bahawa apa yang telah kita belanjakan itu tidak hilang.
Jadi, matlamat kita di Kementerian Pertahanan, kita mesti menyiapkan kapal ini
sedaya upaya kita, dengan kemampuan, kepakaran kita di samping kerjasama kita dengan
pihak luar. Itu sahaja.
Datuk Lim Pay Hen: Soalan tambahan.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua: Silakan.
Datuk Lim Pay Hen: Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Pada tahun 2023 lalu Yang
Berhormat Menteri ada menyatakan bahawa kementerian komited akan melangsaikan projek
LCS pada tahun 2024. Sejauh mana komitmen kerajaan bagi memastikan tiada peruntukan
tambahan yang akan terlibat sepanjang tempoh berkenaan berikutan laporan PAC ada
menyebut bahawa pemegang kontrak Boustead Naval Shipyard Sendirian Berhad (BNS) tidak
mampu membayar vendor, pembekal dan kontraktor biarpun kerajaan telah membayar RM6
bilion untuk projek tersebut. Sekian, terima kasih.
■1120
Tuan Haji Adly bin Zahari: Tuan Yang di-Pertua dan terima kasih Yang Berhormat
Senator yang bertanya. Memang kita tahu bahawa antara perancangan dan komitmen kita,
kalau kita lihat daripada segi pembangunan yang sedia ada, model kontrak kita ialah kita
berusaha, ini model kontrak lama kita. Di mana kita berusaha untuk memastikan bahawa
enam biji ini kita boleh selesaikan dalam tempoh yang tertentu. Kalau ikut kontrak asal,
sepatutnya kita deliver kapal yang pertama pada tahun 2019 dan 2020 itu kapal-kapal
seterusnya tetapi ia tidak berlaku begitu.
Itu sebab kalau kita lihat kemampuan dengan pembangunan yang sedia ada, kita telah
membangunkan sebahagiannya ada yang 70 peratus, ada yang 50 peratus, 40 peratus dan
seumpamanya sebab model kita begitu. Kita buat by block. Kita hendak kalau boleh
semuanya progress begitu. Kita tidak buat sebiji-sebiji begitu sebab kita melihat kepada kos
itu. Jadi model itu memang kita tahu ada kelemahannya. Itu yang menyebabkan kalau kita
tengok dalam gudang kita penuh dengan barang-barang ini kerana sebahagiannya kita order
untuk enam buah kapal dan sebahagiannya kita order untuk tiga buah kapal.
Jadi ini antara- tetapi kalau kita lihat pembangunan ini dengan baki wang yang kita ada
sekitar RM3 bilion keseluruhan kontrak itu then bila kita revise, contohnya revision yang kita
buat dalam kontrak yang baharu iaitu kita memansuhkan peranan orang tengah ini. Ada
sebahagiannya memang kalau kita lihat bila kita hendak pergi kepada original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) itu, ada orang tengahnya. Jadi dalam kontrak yang baharu ini ada
peranan yang kita buat iaitu kita membatalkan OEM ini supaya kita boleh membayar terus
kepada pengeluar itu sendiri.
Saya rasa proses ini boleh membantu kita bagi memastikan bahawa kita boleh
menjadualkan mengikut jadual kita di mana dalam jadual baharu kita, kita menganggarkan
pada tahun hadapan 2024, kita sudah boleh menyiapkan satu buah kapal. Kita harus faham
bahawa bila kita menyiapkan kapal ini daripada segi pembinaannya, ia harus melalui proses
22 bulan bagi pengujian sama ada di pelabuhan mahupun ujian di laut. Itu sahaja.

For the record, I have no confidence that the first will be ready for harbour trials by the end of next year, nor it will be ready for commissioning in 2026. They have not even resume major works on Maharaja Lela. That said I had said long before that it is better to scrap the project than resuming it.

— Malaysian Defence

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2141 Articles
Shah Alam

35 Comments

  1. “the remaining RM3 billion will be used for the first ship – PCU Maharaja Lela”

    Wow….speechless. I stopped reading at that sentence and barely manage to finish the article.
    Who is the engineer and who is the accountant?

    Meanwhile, ID and SG can…with less….
    Nevermind, this is Malaysia. We have our own way.

  2. Rm9 billion for 1 ship even more worse than what reported before, rm9 billion for 2 ship.

    I am with Marhalim, scrap this project and get Korean frigates instead. The Daegu class each cost usd250 million, around rm1.1 billion. So for rm3 billion you can get almost 3 ships with brand all brand new equipment, instead of just 1 ship. Such idiocy cannot be continued.

    Marhalim, can you help ask the RMN chief or any admiral during LIMA 2023 on why RMN dont go for any korean frigate like the Daegu class (some LCS system can transfer to those frigates) which is overall cheaper and faster to get with the same capabilities plus scraping the LCS at this point of time???? Thank you Marhalim

  3. Why are we getting the narrative in bits and drabs? One minute we hear this then weeks later we hear something else which runs contrary to what was previously said.

    Romeo – ”Who is the engineer and who is the accountant?”

    A more pertinent question is who laid the very policy we have in place. A policy in which various fundamental flaws have become institutionalised and which places emphasis not on the end user or taxpayer but national interests

    Luqman – ”Marhalim, can you help ask the RMN chief”

    Why don’t you write to the man and ask him yourself.

    Luqman – ”why RMN dont go for any korean frigate like the Daegu class (some LCS system can transfer to those frigates) which is overall cheaper and faster to get with the same capabilities plus scraping the LCS at this point of time”

    That’s a policy decision; has to be made by the politicians who by virtue of their professions indulge in politics and prioritise national interests.

  4. something lost in translation there…

    12 engines is what is in the warehouse right now. Surely 12 more engines must have been installed in the LCS1, LCS2 & LCS3. The current advanced stage of build of the LCS1, surely impossible not to have the engines+gearbox inside the hull now. From what i know all the hardware for the ships has been paid for except for the anti-air missiles.

    also on the RM3 billion left. He did not say it would be just for the LCS1. He say it is to be used to complete LCS1, and continue with LCS2, LCS3 forward. Yes, he did not say it would be enough to complete all, but he also did not say all RM 3 billion is only enough just to complete LCS1.

  5. I think the deputy menhan is confused about the current material inventory in the warehouses.

    Of course there will be some items that is not 6 units in the warehouse. Because they are already fitted into the ships that is being build!

    I am sure we did not just buy engines for 3 ships only. The only reason there is only 12 engines left in the warehouse is because another 12 already fitted into the ships that is being build.

  6. “Rm9 billion for 1 ship even more worse”
    This would be correct if you discount the existence of hull #2 to #5 on the slipways.
    Truer cost for lead ship will average to RM 4.2Bil.

    Again, RM 6Bil spent but not all the equipment for the 6 ships nor the SAM were bought yet. What does that tell you? A project that was chronically underbudgeted from the get go, all just to appease people that we could build high tech warships on the cheaps. And anything that is angan taik ayam, will certainly fail.

  7. hulubalang ➤ “The only reason there is only 12 engines left in the warehouse is because another 12 already fitted into the ships that is being build.”

    You know this for certain or? Seems too good to be true.

    Not that my guess is important or anything, but I think MYR9 billie is only for 1 ship (4 engines), if we’re lucky. And they’re going to use the remaining ‘already-purchased’ engines as justification to fund and continue building the other 2 ships. Thus making it even more expensive.

    I wholeheartedly agree with the author. Should have scrap the entire project. It’s a dud.

  8. hulubalang ➤ “The only reason there is only 12 engines left in the warehouse is because another 12 already fitted into the ships that is being build.”

    You know this for certain or? Seems too good to be true.

    Not that my guess is important or anything, but I think MYR9 billie is only for 1 ship (4 engines), if we’re lucky. And they’re going to use the remaining ‘already-purchased’ engines as justification to fund and continue building the other 2 ships. Thus making it even more expensive.

    I wholeheartedly agree with the author. Should have scrap the entire project. It’s a dud.

  9. “A more pertinent question is who laid the very policy we have in place”
    The ministers in the Cabinets & Governments

    Who are all these useless ministers?
    The politicians whom we voted for and placed into Government.

    Who voted for these politicians then?
    The rakyat majority, as majority votes win.

    So who was the root fault for our Government failures?
    The rakyat.

  10. Agreed, but what are the cons of us cancelling the ships? And how would the Frenchies respond?

  11. @ Norman,

    Frigate engines are very big and usually mounted before the hull was welded shut.

    Current average completion %
    LCS1 60%
    LCS2 50%
    LCS3 50%
    LCS4 30%
    LCS5 20%
    LCS6 not started yet

  12. It’s our ships nothing to do with the French even if they are the designers. The biggest issue will be the fact that we will spend some RM11 billion but with no ships to show for

  13. @Jason Lo
    The cons are we spent billions of money but get no ships, any sort of alternatives will need to restart all over again wasting years and more money. And there is no guarantees a new program would not face the same issues again, or more likely it will probably hit another shitstorm and few years later we will end talking about it as it was today. Nothing will change.

  14. I give up on this LCS brohaha. Just abandon ship n start all over again

  15. @Azlan
    “Why don’t you write to the man and ask him yourself.”

    Well an unknown humble civilian like me may not be able to entertain RMN chief, but Marhalim as a well established journalist with his connections is able to do so with a higher chance of success.

    That being the case, I still could write something to the RMN chief 😬

    “That’s a policy decision”
    Yup and i think most if not all would think the same way, whatever the RMN want it must satisfy those politicians 1st. Hopefully RMN knows what it actually need at the moment regardless what those politicians will give them or not ie if RMN want to cancel LCS and get the Korean frigates, they would already have propose that option to the politicians already

  16. @KC Wong, @joe @hulubalang

    Sorry for my mistake and misunderstanding, you guys might be right, there is still chance that rm3 billion would be completed for LCS2 and even LCS5 as what previously stated by menhan (well he also not that clear on this).

    As for the engines, it is likely that 12 engines in storage is for LCS4-6 but who knows it might even be for LCS3-5 or LCS2-4 also.

    Lets hope and pray that LMS batch2 will be a smooth success and RMN gets what it wanted

  17. We need more ships now

    Rather than just keep concentrating on the LCS, we need another plan to get more big ships quickly.

    Time to seriously consider investing more into our coast guard instead of the navy.

    We know that the LMS Batch 2 budget for 3 ships is about RM2.5 billion, which is about USD 555 million in today’s exchange rate.

    That amount could get us 9 more units of the Damen OPV that MMEA is getting this year.

    For the same budget, if we go to japan, we can get 10 large OPVs of the same type that the Philippines Coast Guard is getting
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRP_Teresa_Magbanua_(MRRV-9701)

    Our current and near future security challenges involves the Chinese Coast Guard. Our responses and equipments must be tuned corresponding to that.

  18. Yes i also seconded that suggestion..But ofcourse to scrap the project altogether are easier said than done.Not when 6 billion already paid,when thousand of workers already drafted/hired for this project.Like ive already said several times,this ‘national shipbuilding ecosystem’ bs are destined to fail from the start.RMN cant really moving forward as long as this project keep sucking their DE funds.6 bill are not by any mean a small amount.

  19. We need to be more proactive in our maritime security missions, rather than being reactive.

    We need to always be there at the location, before CCG comes to that location, rather than vise versa.

    “LMS ini lebih laju dan boleh rapid deployment untuk kita buat manoeuvre supaya dia sebagai interceptor”
    The LMS Batch 2 is still designed to be reactive. As a fast ship that is designed to intercept other ships.

    We need long endurance ships that will loiter around the defended area, protecting all ecomomic activities at the area and showing possession and control of the area. Not a reactive ship that only be at the location when a foreign ship is seen at the area.

    “Kalau orang letak kapal, takkan kita nak letak perahu. Bukan nak perang, tetapi kita jangan diperlekeh (dipandang rendah) oleh orang (pihak luar),”

    Bukan nak perang… That is a deep statement. Also exactly why spending RM2.5 billion on just 3 corvettes for “bukan nak perang” missions is the wrong way to tackle our current maritime security issue.

  20. Luqman – “That being the case, I still could write something to the RMN chief”

    As a citizen it’s your right.

    Luqman – ” Hopefully RMN knows what it actually need at the moment regardless what those politicians will give them”

    Rest assured they do know what they need [and don’t] and like always will continue doing their jobs with what they have but they also have to play the game and have long harboured frustration and annoyance at the state of things. If I ask personal contacts what I asked them years ago; the complains would be the same. Behind the scenes the RMN has made it clear as to the state of things and they warned it would happen years ago.

    A good example is the rehulling of the Laksamanas. A bemused and incredulous RMM friend told me as far back as 2013/14 that feasibility studies had been done but the expectation was it would never reach that stage; thanks to the politicians it did.

    Luqman – “they would already have propose that option to the politicians already”

    They have long made feasibility studies and presented various worse case alternatives. That’s what they do; plan ahead and for contingencies.

    Wong … – “Rather than just keep concentrating on the LCS, we need another plan to get more big ships quickly”

    Obviously but what we should so and what we actually can and will do are profouugly different things. As you’ve notice priority one are the follow on batch of LMSs.

    Wong … – “We need to be more proactive in our maritime security missions, rather than being reactive”

    No doubt you’re bursting with ideas as to how we have to be “proactive” but as it stands we have been: with the resources we have. A good example of us being “proactive” was during the West Capella episode some years ago.

    Wong … – “We need long endurance ships that will loiter around the defended area”

    We need endurance but not necessarily “long”-in this context as all our ships from the Kedahs onwards have sufficient endurance for the roles we perform and are expected to perform. We have lots of issues but endurance isn’t one of them.

    Wong … – “Also exactly why spending RM2.5 billion on just 3 corvettes for “bukan nak perang” missions is the wrong way to tackle our current maritime security issue.”

    So you say but doing so on the basis they we will “perang” and openly saying so is also the “wrong way to tackle our current maritime security issue” [to quote yourself. Note that what the Minister said was made with political imperatives in mind; that we are in a peacetime situation; are not in a state of tensions with anyone and have a longstanding policy of not designating anyone a threat. Sure the main role of the MAF is to defeat external threats but way before that they also have a host of peacetime roles [like all militaries] to perform.

  21. Right now the approach is somewhat correct if the project is deemed uncancellable. Spend the RM3b and see how the LCS1 turns out. If quality is unacceptable then stop at LCS1 (remember this is still 100% built by the same shipyard that messed up the project). If quality is acceptable, then can think of LCS 2 then 3 and so on. As-is there is no gurantee the RM3b can complete LCS1 since a substantial portion of the RM3b will be used to pay for work already done, not new work. Not to mention the MICA missiles have not been purchased. One can take the word on Mindef, but for those that lived through NGPV, this looks awfully similar to getting ships FFBNW to keep cost down and construction on schedule. Still get the ships, just very far from original requirement.

  22. Why not pass the ownership of BNS to those who has more experience and deeper capitals so that it could settle the LCS issue and execute projects properly in the future?

    I think someone has put this idea before, pass the ownership of BNS to MMHE.

    It is not the first time Petronas has managed and paid for big projects in malaysia.

    KLCC and Perbadanan Putrajaya are both fully owned by Petronas.

    As of our maritime security plan B, yes we should look to spend more money to expand MMEA instead of wasting more money for RMN.

  23. @KC Wong
    “Time to seriously consider investing more into our coast guard instead of the navy.”
    MMEA themselves has their own issues, manpower, basing, Polis Marin are moving into their turf with a larger monthership class, ships that has to be revert back to TLDM use, NGPC that has to ditch UAV capability, OPV that has similar shipyard problems leading to delays & cost overrun, less attention given now that its under Home instead of PM Office, and an ever changing Govt that each has different priorities now with a PM that is appeasing other nations. There are just to much on MMEA’s plate for them to take up the job solo.

  24. Kel – “Spend the RM3b and see how the LCS1 turns out”

    Great if seen from a bean counter’s perspective but from a practical and realistic perspective it lead to more uncertainty and that uncertainty can and will cock up long term planning.

    Kel – ” If quality is unacceptable then stop at LCS1 (remember this is still 100% built by the same shipyard that messed up the project)”

    “Quality” was never the issue but a host of other issues. With the Kedahs any dissatisfaction was due to inherrnt design issues [i.e. The lack of a funnel and other things] but not inherent “quality” issues that were never resolved per see. This I know from having asked 2 former COs and also someone I know who was a NO on one of them.

    Kel – “but for those that lived through NGPV, this looks awfully to getting ships FFBNW”

    Except that with the LCS practically everything has been ordered and paid for bar Mica.

    … – “yes we should look to spend more money to expand MMEA instead of wasting more money for RMN”

    You are simplisticly conflicting things again. One is a military entity; one isn’t. Both do slightly different things and are funded from different avenues.

  25. @ joe,

    “MMEA themselves has their own issues, manpower, basing”

    That is nowhere as big as the Gowind issue, now RM6 billion spent with zero results.

    Plough that same amount of money into MMEA, all the MMEA issues could easily be dealt with.

    I concur with you that Home Affairs Ministry is not the ideal ministry for MMEA, as that ministry has little or no interest to look into what is basically an international issue with China which MMEA needs to tackle on daily basis.

    @ azlan,

    “You are simplisticly conflicting things again”

    In the end both are tasked with our maritime security and both are funded by in theend by the Treasury.

    So is malaysia also conflicting things too as most of the incursions to Malaysian EEZ is by the Chinese Coast Guard and we responded mostly with our Navy??

  26. Petronas is supposed to begin extraction in the coming months from the Kawasari gas field. I have no idea how China will react but it’s the proverbial elephant in the room; our largest trading partner and the 3rd largest source of direct investment; not to mention a dominant military power; one we can’t ignore.

    In the past China has offered joint development and extraction but of course nobody took it up as doing so legitimises its claims. Anwar is merely continuing with long standing policy; rejecting China’s claims; bringing things to the UN when needed [i.e. the joint submission with Vietnam some years ago and others] and continuing with gas exploration [we were one of the early ones]. What he meant by “negotiations” remains unknown thus I will not speculate but as mentioned to Zaft it doesn’t necessarily equate to appeasement and nor do we have a history of it.

    On top of that if Anwar gave anything away he would not survive the political fallout. There are forces out there trying to evict him from Putra Jaya. No doubt a lot of things will be occuring behind the scenes; back door diplomacy; away from the media with regards to the Kawasari gas field; something long done and something Khairy alluded to a few days ago.

  27. Full quotation: “Right now the approach is somewhat correct if the project is deemed uncancellable. Spend the RM3b and see how the LCS1 turns out.”
    Installation is not free. Equipment bought still needs to be installed, just as RM3b can only get 1 ship if lucky, despite most equipment already bought, delivered. Incidentally, while there was a small group that advocated cancelling the LCS even before the PAC report came out, recognising the financial implication on shipbuilding funds, many continued to say the LCS must continue at all cost – ignoring the bean counter perspective. Yet now bean counter perspective is relevant?

  28. … – ”both are funded by in theend by the Treasury.”

    You want to go into nuances; both are different agencies tasked for slightly different things; both answer to different command authorities and both are funded differently. If you want to conflate things; why not conflate the army and the immigration department. By your logic we would because the army also guards the border.

    … – ”So is malaysia also conflicting things too as most of the incursions to Malaysian EEZ is by the Chinese Coast Guard and we responded mostly with our Navy??”’

    We’ve had this discussion before. Again I will remind you that until the MMEA has the assets the only entity that can fill the gap is the RMN – unless the country has another entity which you and only you are aware of. The reality [as has been explained multiple times] is that the MMEA has neither the ships it needs in the needed numbers or the ships with the needed endurance or seakeeping to remain on station for protracted periods in the Spratlys.

    So how in heaven’s white roses is Malaysia ”conflicting” things? Malaysia is making do with what it has [as countries normally do] and it’s not as if the RMN is so desperate or intent on hogging the role…

    kel – ” many continued to say the LCS must continue at all cost”

    You seriously expect the government to scrap the programme? Do you understand the political implications for politicians who indulge in politics and prioritise national interests? For the RMN; it’s worried [with justification] that scrapping the programme will lead to another extremely long bureaucratic ponderous and cumbersome politically impeded delay and that funds will be diverted from other things which are in need of long overdue funding.

    kel – ”– ignoring the bean counter perspective. Yet now bean counter perspective is relevant?”

    It’s always ”relevant” but the issue is bean counters tend to have horizons the width of toilet bowls and have issues with anything beyond a PowerPoint brief of a P/L spreadsheet.

    Ceasing the programme after one ship would mean the RMN has a singleton and the issues which led to this cockup have already done to death with and one of the issues was not quality per see.

  29. @ azlan

    “the MMEA has neither the ships it needs in the needed numbers or the ships with the needed endurance or seakeeping to remain on station for protracted periods in the Spratlys”

    That excuse you endlessly repeat is sooo lame

    So because Mmea is not ready we should buy expensive LMS batch 2 for as KC Wong quoted the menhan for “bukan nak perang” ??

    If mmea not ready we should spend what little money we have to make mmea ready to counter Chinese Coast Guard.

  30. Hulubalang “I think someone has put this idea before, pass the ownership of BNS to MMHE. KLCC and Perbadanan Putrajaya are both fully owned by Petronas.

    Petronas owned half of Putrajaya holding stock, The master developer & land owners of Putrajaya. Putrajaya corporation is the local council for Putrajaya.

    KLCC holding & Putrajaya holding is high risk, long periods to realise profit which make it unattractive to small developer’s. But both are extremely profitable projects. So it’s not like Petronas are doing national service at the cost of profitability.

    MMHE is controlled by Petronas but not owned by Petronas. MmHE is a public listed company which has responsibility to secure it stockholders investment. They likely won’t take BNS under it wing until it is ‘detoxified’ and for that to happen MOF INC need to acquire it and detoxified it first.

    Azlan ” We have lots of issues but endurance isn’t one of them.”

    Not according to our CG. They justified their request for bigger ship because longer endurance allowed for higher availability of asset for operations. Going in & out of the bases according to CG is a waste of money & times. Money & time that can be utilised for operations instead.

    Azlan “the MMEA has neither the ships it needs in the needed numbers or the ships with the needed endurance or seakeeping”

    If you are MOF would you pay CG to get more gun only ships, bases and personal when RMN has the ship, bases & personal?

    A lot of those bases are small in size that can catered small ship mostly to counter non state actors. Ideally for MOF, RMN should transfer those ship,bases & personal to CG & concentrate more on their countering state actors duties.

    Azlan “It’s always ”relevant” but the issue is bean counters tend to have horizons the width of toilet bowls”

    Most agencies under a Westminster system suffer from such tunnel vision and that includes RMN as well.

    KC Wong “Our current and near future security challenges involves the Chinese Coast Guard. Our responses and equipments must be tuned corresponding to that”

    you are going to be very sorry for ignoring RMN and throwing most money into the CG when the shooting start happening.

    CG ship are cheap but it’s not going to provide any A2/AD complex. If anything the priority is to get enough ship for RMN to create a A2/AD and supplement the numbers with cheaper CG ship. Not to cancel almost all Naval ship and buy gun only CG ship only.

  31. Some here thinks resource & ship allocation should a zero sum; either TLDM or MMEA. No it is not both services does different duties has different impact and should be used based on certain situations, one does not replace the other, so in reality both services are under resourced and needs more of everything to do their jobs.

  32. … – “That excuse you endlessly repeat is sooo lame”

    That’s all you could come up with? It’s not “soo lame” but the harsh reality. What’s “soo lame” or laughable is your “endless” inability to understand the reality as they stand and to perienally conflate things to suit your pedantic incorrect narrative. Why don’t you start conflating the Immigration Department with the army next?

    Is it an “excuse” that the MMEA lacks ships with the needed range, endurance and seakeeping to remain on station for protracted periods in the Spratlys? Will you continue to give the false impression that the RMN wants to continue hogging the role and that even if the MMEA has 300 OPVs; that the RMN [like all navies] would still not have certain peacetime roles?

    … – “So because Mmea is not ready we should buy expensive LMS batch 2 for as KC Wong quoted the menhan for “bukan nak perang” ?”

    You know damn well what I was alluding to because it was in unequivocal
    easy to understand English: no need to obfuscate and backtrack. No need also to give the false self serving impression that only you see the need for an adequately funded MMEA.

    Like I said; is there another agency which you and only you are aware of which can help fill the gap? Why don’t you write to the Home Minster or your MP? Not the Defence Minister because as Defence Minister he deals with issues related to the military.

  33. Zaft – “Not according to our CG”

    Was clearly referring to the RMN not the MMEA…

    Zaft – “Most agencies under a Westminster system suffer from such tunnel vision and that includes RMN as well”

    RMN officers as part of their career progression are moved to various positions and exposed to diffrent things ; thus your “tunnel vision” claim this not arise.
    Also the part about the Westminster system is nonsense. One can have a Maxist Leninist or National Socislist government but still have a system which comprises bureaucrats who have “tunnel vision”.

    Zaft – “Ideally for MOF, RMN should transfer those ship,bases & personal to CG & concentrate more on their countering state actors duties”

    So you have said before and so I’ll point out to you yet again. The RMN
    does not have access “ship,bases & personal”to transfer. Understand that the RMN itself is resourced constrained. Understand also that one can’t just transfer personnel; there are a host of administrative issues; i.e. seniority, salaries, etc. What do you do with people who have reached the end of their careers; what happens if the MMEA doesn’t have a need for X number of Ratings or Lt.Commanders. Think…

    This was a problem when the MMEA was created and was one of the problems looked at when it was proposed to have the Marine Police absorbed into the MMEA years ago…
    Ask around.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*