A-G’s Report: Manual for bloating procurement costs? — Ravinder Singh

OCT 6 — It may be more apt to rename the Auditor-General’s (A-G) Report “Manual for bloating government procurement costs”. By this no offence is meant to the current and previous Auditor Generals and their teams of officers. They have all done their duty conscientiously, reporting all the misdeeds they discover.

If it were taken as a report, then it is logical that action must follow to bring to book all those who had not done their procurement work diligently or honestly. When exorbitant prices are paid for exactly the same goods and services that members of the public can purchase at a fraction of the cost paid by government ministries, departments and agencies, then is it wrong for the public to infer that corruption is involved; that someone is getting kickbacks.

Since no action is taken to bring to book the inefficient and the corrupted, the AG’s report has become a manual that teaches others that no accountability is required of anyone who jacks-up prices. Hence, year after year, the same old story is repeated. So it teaches the corrupt minded to make hay while the sun shines and that is why the report might as well be called a manual for misappropriation.

What the A-G’s report does not do is that it does not give comparative figures showing the percentage of money that has been overpaid for purchases as compared to the total expenditure audited in a given year. It should provide a graph for each ministry, department and agency audited showing its budget for the year of audit, percentage of the budget actually spent and percentage of the expenditure that went to pay the excess in sky-high priced acquisitions. This way it will be known how many per cent of the money was “wasted” or went down the drain, or into other places.

The graphs would show whether misappropriation increased or declined over the years. This would indicate whether the government is doing anything to check misappropriation in its procurement process through its officers at various levels of government.

Above all, could the Auditor-General confirm or deny that government departments and agencies are required to purchase from Bumiputera suppliers even if their prices are higher than those quoted by non-Bumiputera suppliers?

If this is true, then is there a limit as to how many per cent higher is still considered a “fair price”. If there is no limit, then of course the sky is the limit. So is this the reason why “the board of procurement awarded contractors which provided the best value for money”?  This is the answer that the Ministry of  Information, Communications and Culture is reported to have given to The Star’s query on the purchase of 20 wall clocks at RM3,810.00 each when the actual price is only RM100.00 a piece. (Star, 6^th October).  The ministry told the AG that “the ministry obtained the best technical evaluation grades board to compare prices of items offered by companies online before making its decision”.  Fantastic, bombastic language to cover up misdeeds and corruption!

There is a Malay saying: hendak seribu daya, tak hendak seribu dalih which translated means if you want to do something, you’ll make a thousand efforts, but if you don’t want to do anything you’ll find a thousand excuses.

So when we see no action to bring to book those who misappropriate through purchasing at sky high prices that are justified by ridiculous explanations as above, it only shows the government’s tak hendak policy.

I wonder whether Dr M would classify this as shamelessness that calls for the performance of hara-kiri or a job so well done (covering up with ridiculous explanations) leaving no room for failure (of the explanations), and no need for hara-kiri?

The AG should enlighten the public on the number of purchases made at sky high prices from Bumiputera and non-Bumiputera suppliers.

The Attorney General is very creative when it comes to prosecuting certain people. He should use that creativity in bringing to book both the providers of the sky-high quotations and the acceptors of those quotations no matter what beautiful language is used to camouflage the inappropriateness of the deals. Where did the extra money go?

Why would anyone pay way beyond the open market price if there is no “understanding” between the parties involved? Nothing justifies the payment of exorbitant prices unless it is government policy that any price paid to preferred suppliers is a ‘fair’ price. Who then are the preferred suppliers and why are they exempt from the rules of doing clean, honest business?

It is public money that is being spent and the public has a right to know who are the preferred suppliers who can quote sky-high prices and yet have their quotations accepted.  The public also has a right to know why those who so willingly and happily pay the sky-high prices are not held accountable.

The purpose of government auditing is not to balance the books but to ensure that financial procedures are followed; that purchases are made at market prices, i.e. at prices members of the public could purchase the same goods and services. It is to plug leakages and in a way point fingers at those who have not been diligent or honest in handling public money. The AG’s report does this, but the government seems to treat it with contempt as no action is taken on its findings.

When will action begin to be taken against the persons who allowed, knowingly or unknowingly, or perhaps even with collusion with the suppliers, sky-high prices to be paid? The suppliers must also be made accountable. Well, in corruption cases, both the giver and the taker are supposed to be guilty. Since there can be no reason on earth why a clock that a man in the street can buy for RM100.00 must be bought for RM3810.00 by a government department, the presumption must be that the extra money found its way into somebody’s pocket. Those creating justifications must all be hauled up also for collusion.  

So dear Attorney General, could we please see you acting with “seribu daya”? The Accountant-General’s report is full of evidence, or is it not?

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.