By Terence Fernandez, The Sun
STANDARD procedures would usually dictate that when there are questions regarding a particular decision, it would be wise to suspend the decision until all doubts are cleared and any allegations put to rest.
But allegations sometimes remain just that – accusations – until proven to be fact. So by the time checks and probes are completed, the accused parties may have lost out.
In the matter of government agencies, the execution of public policies and jobs to bring revenue to the nation may also be delayed as one tries to verify the accuracy of some of these allegations.
But alas, this is what principles of public policy dictate in matters that concern public funds and the public interest.
Hence when the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) deems that it cannot "compel" another agency to suspend the award of tenders, it certainly raises eyebrows.
This is what the MACC says when queried over its probe into the award of contracts worth RM381 million to five companies, which is mired in allegations of kickbacks and breach of procurement procedures.
MACC Deputy Commissioner Datuk Shukri Abdull's assurance that "we are not finished yet" may be of little consolation to those who are braying for blood.
This is because the question later will be what if investigators discover that there were indeed certain wrongdoings, or at the very least negligence, in the selection process? By then work would have been halfway through and monies would have been paid to parties who should not have received the contracts in the first place. Then what?
Government officials and industry players whose views I sought, say in a situation such as this, what's probably the best option is to allow past recipients of the same jobs to continue the work.
But this is indeed a chicken and egg situation. If the companies in question are later cleared, wouldn't they have unfairly lost out? Would it take mere allegations from tender losers and those with vested interests to scuttle the progress of jobs by genuine parties who won their bids fair and square?
This is the quandary that we are faced with but which should have been nipped in the bud a long time ago.
The country's advertising and promotions jobs abroad were supposed to have started on Jan 1. It's already the first week of May and some of these jobs have only just taken off. Three weeks ago, the 29 other companies which bid for the contracts were officially told that they had not been successful, following which the successful bidders were informed officially that they could start work on the long-overdue advertising and promotions work.
Sen Media executive chairman Ruzi Sekh Ahamad whose company received the South Asia, West Asia and Africa jobs called my colleague Llew Ann Phang from Capetown
on Wednesday to say that the company has already started work for the Arabian Travel Market in Dubai.
One supposes he's right, as long as there is a lethargic approach to probing the allegations. One is not saying that these companies do not deserve the jobs or cannot do the work. But the fact that presentations were not made certainly justifies the perception that the whole process was suspect.
Either way one looks at it, it is the public who will pay for the consequences.
Further delays in publicity and branding exercises would be detrimental to our efforts to draw in tourist dollars. Suspension of bona fide companies which have a contract may also subject the ministry and the government to legal suits, once the authorities discover that there is no case for them to answer.
But awarding contracts involving taxpayers' funds to those who do not deserve it also puts our procurement processes and the issue of transparency and good governance in the spotlight.
If the ambiguities are left unaddressed, it may reflect the overall lackadaisical approach in addressing concerns over government agencies and procurement. This would also continue to discourage bona fide parties and individuals who can certainly contribute to the nation, from offering their services.
It does not augur well for our policymakers who are trying so hard to draw talent and the best people to contribute to nation-building, when there are still questions hanging over our heads and if at the end of the day, it is not what you know but who you know that matters.
STANDARD procedures would usually dictate that when there are questions regarding a particular decision, it would be wise to suspend the decision until all doubts are cleared and any allegations put to rest.
But allegations sometimes remain just that – accusations – until proven to be fact. So by the time checks and probes are completed, the accused parties may have lost out.
In the matter of government agencies, the execution of public policies and jobs to bring revenue to the nation may also be delayed as one tries to verify the accuracy of some of these allegations.
But alas, this is what principles of public policy dictate in matters that concern public funds and the public interest.
Hence when the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) deems that it cannot "compel" another agency to suspend the award of tenders, it certainly raises eyebrows.
This is what the MACC says when queried over its probe into the award of contracts worth RM381 million to five companies, which is mired in allegations of kickbacks and breach of procurement procedures.
MACC Deputy Commissioner Datuk Shukri Abdull's assurance that "we are not finished yet" may be of little consolation to those who are braying for blood.
This is because the question later will be what if investigators discover that there were indeed certain wrongdoings, or at the very least negligence, in the selection process? By then work would have been halfway through and monies would have been paid to parties who should not have received the contracts in the first place. Then what?
Government officials and industry players whose views I sought, say in a situation such as this, what's probably the best option is to allow past recipients of the same jobs to continue the work.
But this is indeed a chicken and egg situation. If the companies in question are later cleared, wouldn't they have unfairly lost out? Would it take mere allegations from tender losers and those with vested interests to scuttle the progress of jobs by genuine parties who won their bids fair and square?
This is the quandary that we are faced with but which should have been nipped in the bud a long time ago.
The country's advertising and promotions jobs abroad were supposed to have started on Jan 1. It's already the first week of May and some of these jobs have only just taken off. Three weeks ago, the 29 other companies which bid for the contracts were officially told that they had not been successful, following which the successful bidders were informed officially that they could start work on the long-overdue advertising and promotions work.
Sen Media executive chairman Ruzi Sekh Ahamad whose company received the South Asia, West Asia and Africa jobs called my colleague Llew Ann Phang from Capetown on Wednesday to say that the company has already started work for the Arabian Travel Market in Dubai.
One supposes he's right, as long as there is a lethargic approach to probing the allegations. One is not saying that these companies do not deserve the jobs or cannot do the work. But the fact that presentations were not made certainly justifies the perception that the whole process was suspect.
Either way one looks at it, it is the public who will pay for the consequences.
Further delays in publicity and branding exercises would be detrimental to our efforts to draw in tourist dollars. Suspension of bona fide companies which have a contract may also subject the ministry and the government to legal suits, once the authorities discover that there is no case for them to answer.
But awarding contracts involving taxpayers' funds to those who do not deserve it also puts our procurement processes and the issue of transparency and good governance in the spotlight.
If the ambiguities are left unaddressed, it may reflect the overall lackadaisical approach in addressing concerns over government agencies and procurement. This would also continue to discourage bona fide parties and individuals who can certainly contribute to the nation, from offering their services.
It does not augur well for our policymakers who are trying so hard to draw talent and the best people to contribute to nation-building, when there are still questions hanging over our heads and if at the end of the day, it is not what you know but who you know that matters.
STANDARD procedures would usually dictate that when there are questions regarding a particular decision, it would be wise to suspend the decision until all doubts are cleared and any allegations put to rest.
But allegations sometimes remain just that – accusations – until proven to be fact. So by the time checks and probes are completed, the accused parties may have lost out.
In the matter of government agencies, the execution of public policies and jobs to bring revenue to the nation may also be delayed as one tries to verify the accuracy of some of these allegations.
But alas, this is what principles of public policy dictate in matters that concern public funds and the public interest.
Hence when the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) deems that it cannot "compel" another agency to suspend the award of tenders, it certainly raises eyebrows.
This is what the MACC says when queried over its probe into the award of contracts worth RM381 million to five companies, which is mired in allegations of kickbacks and breach of procurement procedures.
MACC Deputy Commissioner Datuk Shukri Abdull's assurance that "we are not finished yet" may be of little consolation to those who are braying for blood.
This is because the question later will be what if investigators discover that there were indeed certain wrongdoings, or at the very least negligence, in the selection process? By then work would have been halfway through and monies would have been paid to parties who should not have received the contracts in the first place. Then what?
Government officials and industry players whose views I sought, say in a situation such as this, what's probably the best option is to allow past recipients of the same jobs to continue the work.
But this is indeed a chicken and egg situation. If the companies in question are later cleared, wouldn't they have unfairly lost out? Would it take mere allegations from tender losers and those with vested interests to scuttle the progress of jobs by genuine parties who won their bids fair and square?
This is the quandary that we are faced with but which should have been nipped in the bud a long time ago.
The country's advertising and promotions jobs abroad were supposed to have started on Jan 1. It's already the first week of May and some of these jobs have only just taken off. Three weeks ago, the 29 other companies which bid for the contracts were officially told that they had not been successful, following which the successful bidders were informed officially that they could start work on the long-overdue advertising and promotions work.
Sen Media executive chairman Ruzi Sekh Ahamad whose company received the South Asia, West Asia and Africa jobs called my colleague Llew Ann Phang from Capetown
on Wednesday to say that the company has already started work for the Arabian Travel Market in Dubai.
One supposes he's right, as long as there is a lethargic approach to probing the allegations. One is not saying that these companies do not deserve the jobs or cannot do the work. But the fact that presentations were not made certainly justifies the perception that the whole process was suspect.
Either way one looks at it, it is the public who will pay for the consequences.
Further delays in publicity and branding exercises would be detrimental to our efforts to draw in tourist dollars. Suspension of bona fide companies which have a contract may also subject the ministry and the government to legal suits, once the authorities discover that there is no case for them to answer.
But awarding contracts involving taxpayers' funds to those who do not deserve it also puts our procurement processes and the issue of transparency and good governance in the spotlight.
If the ambiguities are left unaddressed, it may reflect the overall lackadaisical approach in addressing concerns over government agencies and procurement. This would also continue to discourage bona fide parties and individuals who can certainly contribute to the nation, from offering their services.
It does not augur well for our policymakers who are trying so hard to draw talent and the best people to contribute to nation-building, when there are still questions hanging over our heads and if at the end of the day, it is not what you know but who you know that matters.
STANDARD procedures would usually dictate that when there are questions regarding a particular decision, it would be wise to suspend the decision until all doubts are cleared and any allegations put to rest.
But allegations sometimes remain just that – accusations – until proven to be fact. So by the time checks and probes are completed, the accused parties may have lost out.
In the matter of government agencies, the execution of public policies and jobs to bring revenue to the nation may also be delayed as one tries to verify the accuracy of some of these allegations.
But alas, this is what principles of public policy dictate in matters that concern public funds and the public interest.
Hence when the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) deems that it cannot "compel" another agency to suspend the award of tenders, it certainly raises eyebrows.
This is what the MACC says when queried over its probe into the award of contracts worth RM381 million to five companies, which is mired in allegations of kickbacks and breach of procurement procedures.
MACC Deputy Commissioner Datuk Shukri Abdull's assurance that "we are not finished yet" may be of little consolation to those who are braying for blood.
This is because the question later will be what if investigators discover that there were indeed certain wrongdoings, or at the very least negligence, in the selection process? By then work would have been halfway through and monies would have been paid to parties who should not have received the contracts in the first place. Then what?
Government officials and industry players whose views I sought, say in a situation such as this, what's probably the best option is to allow past recipients of the same jobs to continue the work.
But this is indeed a chicken and egg situation. If the companies in question are later cleared, wouldn't they have unfairly lost out? Would it take mere allegations from tender losers and those with vested interests to scuttle the progress of jobs by genuine parties who won their bids fair and square?
This is the quandary that we are faced with but which should have been nipped in the bud a long time ago.
The country's advertising and promotions jobs abroad were supposed to have started on Jan 1. It's already the first week of May and some of these jobs have only just taken off. Three weeks ago, the 29 other companies which bid for the contracts were officially told that they had not been successful, following which the successful bidders were informed officially that they could start work on the long-overdue advertising and promotions work.
Sen Media executive chairman Ruzi Sekh Ahamad whose company received the South Asia, West Asia and Africa jobs called my colleague Llew Ann Phang from Capetown on Wednesday to say that the company has already started work for the Arabian Travel Market in Dubai.
One supposes he's right, as long as there is a lethargic approach to probing the allegations. One is not saying that these companies do not deserve the jobs or cannot do the work. But the fact that presentations were not made certainly justifies the perception that the whole process was suspect.
Either way one looks at it, it is the public who will pay for the consequences.
Further delays in publicity and branding exercises would be detrimental to our efforts to draw in tourist dollars. Suspension of bona fide companies which have a contract may also subject the ministry and the government to legal suits, once the authorities discover that there is no case for them to answer.
But awarding contracts involving taxpayers' funds to those who do not deserve it also puts our procurement processes and the issue of transparency and good governance in the spotlight.
If the ambiguities are left unaddressed, it may reflect the overall lackadaisical approach in addressing concerns over government agencies and procurement. This would also continue to discourage bona fide parties and individuals who can certainly contribute to the nation, from offering their services.
It does not augur well for our policymakers who are trying so hard to draw talent and the best people to contribute to nation-building, when there are still questions hanging over our heads and if at the end of the day, it is not what you know but who you know that matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment