‘Arms deals not transparent’

Weapons purchases and their contracts must be open to scrutiny and made public, says Transparency International.

PETALING JAYA: Malaysian arms deals, like much of the world’s, suffer from a lack of transparency, a corruption watchdog said.

Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) president Paul Low said that the public had a right to know how much the government was paying for weapons purchases.

“Throughout the world, the procurement of defence equipment is not transparent… defence is necessary, but the needs of the nation should be evaluated.

“Analysis (on defence spending) needs to be carefully evaluated (or governments) can go on a spending spree of arms,” he told FMT.

According to a press statement by the watchdog group, arms deals conducted in secret result in some weapons ending in the hands of “criminals and violent dictators”.

An emphasis on transparency where weapons were concerned, the statement added, would stop these events from taking place.

Speaking on released details, Low said that the public, as well as their representative MPs, would be more interested in the actual spending.

“No one wants to know, specifications… to be fair, specifications of weapons, you can keep (it) to yourself, (that’s) no problem.

“We want the prices of arms purchased (to be revealed). There’s no harm in making the contract and the amount public,” Low said.

Independent monitor

Low added that a lot of bribery and corruption during arms deals usually involved the middlemen, or weapons commission agents.

However, when asked on specific Malaysian arms deals that lacked transparency, he appeared unsure.

“Some of the vehicles being bought – armoured, military vehicles. No one is very sure what it is,” Low said.

He said that weapons purchases needed to have “monitors” to keep track of the amount being spent on different types of arms.

“Preferably there should be an independent monitor that is not part of the defence ministry,” he said.

He added that civil society could play a part in checking arms deals, although he admitted that their participation may not be practical.

He suggested that a ministry’s internal audit department, or the Attorney-General’s office be involved as a weapons purchases watchdog.