How many big shots has the MACC actually interrogated?

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has opened 36 investigation files on issues raised in the Auditor-General's Report 2010. Unexpectedly, the first report has consternated the public.

The MACC found that the Marine Park Department's official involved in the purchase of two pairs of night vision binoculars which cost 10 times more than the market price was free from corruption and power abuse charges, but only violated the Treasury instructions for the procurement of government tenders, which states that market price research must be conducted before any approval is granted.

Such a conclusion has lead to a number of doubts.

Firstly, how could the commission complete the investigation within a short period of nine days, including the Deepavali holiday, Saturday and Sunday, but failed even to find out the number of officials involved in the purchase?

How many officials have actually been interrogated by the MACC? How could they make such an arbitrary conclusion that no financial irregularities were involved in the purchase?

Secondly, since the MACC has vowed to seriously look into the weaknesses in the procurement system and procedures, why overpayments have kept repeating each year, from the car jack worth only RM50 being purchased at RM5,700 in 2006, to the stud platform worth only RM990 being purchased at RM30,510 and the two Acer Aspire-5052ANWXMI laptops being purchased at RM84,640 by the Kolej Kemahiran Tinggi Mara Balik Pulau in Penang in 2008?

Since disciplinary actions can no longer ensure officials comply with the Treasury instructions for the procurement of government tenders, why does the MACC still suggesting disciplinary actions to be taken against the officers? Is this what they meant by "seriously looking into the weaknesses"?

Thirdly, How could the officials responsible for procurement be so insensitive to numbers?

The officials actually purchased a non-night vision marine binoculars worth RM1,069 at RM56,350. If he thought that RM2,000 was not much different from RM56,000, how could he be qualified as a procurement official? We know roughly even without conducting a market survey that a binoculars could not be more expensive than a national car.

Also, RM141 million was spent from 2008 to 2010 to raise about 8000 cattle, meaning that RM17,625 was spent on each cow. Were they raising cattle as huge as dinosaurs?

Fourthly, who was actually responsible for evaluating and appraising the rationality of procurement contracts?

Although the Marine Park Department has followed the tender procedures, the final transaction was not reviewed by any unit and this might lead to the waste of public money. It is impossible for the Auditor-General to identify all shortcomings and thus, there must be a review unit and whistle blower mechanism in all government agencies and departments.

Fifthly, how could the federal government still tolerate with overpaid purchases amid increasing debt woes?

In addition to the increase of administrative costs, waste, fraud and money misuse have also contributed to Treasury deficits. Without a careful financial management, it would be quite impossible to achieve a balance between revenue and expenditure, even if the Goods and Services Tax (GST) is imposed.

The RM163mil unused baggage handling system linking KL Sentral and KL International Airport (KLIA) is an example of grandiose ambition.

How could a conclusion be drawn before the doubts are cleared?

Sin Chew Daily