It must be a joke suggesting military to purchase civil helicopter

China Press 11 May 2016

Democracy and freedom of speech allow political parties of both divide to criticise various issues including the purchase made by military. Military transaction often involves huge sum, everyone should be entitled to monitor.

Take the purchase of EC-725 by air force in 2008, due to dispute, the Public Accounts Committee stepped in to investigate for the transaction to be more transparent. It has resolved unnecessary dispute. This is a good sign.

This also states that if a military transaction is subjected to effective monitoring, this can resolve unnecessary doubts. However, in the EC-725 dispute, opposition may have contributed in monitoring, but their style is quite aggressive. Many people ended up misunderstand air force as a result.

Without proper understanding, some opposition MPs were questioning the air force for not purchasing a relatively cheaper Mi-172KF helicopter instead of the expensive EC-725. This is a joke. Mi -172 is not of military standard. When it generated controversies then (now it has been confirmed as civil helicopter), how could MPs make a price comparison on two different items in accusing the government?

Some politicians also accuse the air force of not testing EC-725. Based on public information, the air force has carried out trial flight. Media has relevant photographs as evidence. The incident proves that prior to making allegation, many do not check out and has misled the public with inaccurate information.

Take the dispute in the purchase of submarine. Undeniably due to intense argument of political parties of two divide, the matter has been over-politicised. Regardless of its outcome, it has affected people’s trust on the government.

Expand transparency in transaction

In fact when handling military purchase, the government should explain more to the public. First let people know the reason the government requires such equipment to update people with basic information. The section involving military technicalities can remain confidential. This is understandable. Transparency should be expanded in commercial transaction for taxpayers and media to monitor.

Does the purchase of weapon in our country involves illegality? As this involves another country, some people are of the view that the matter can be referred to international tribunal. This will be another topic then and unrelated to the functions of the weapons. The Australian navy also proposed recently to buy a submarine from a manufacturer in France, the same manufacturer where Malaysia has made its purchase before. Is the Australian government also being concealed by the other side?

Navy in Taiwan also uses military fleet made in France. Transaction scandal was also heard. Until now Taiwan does not have any issue with its military fleet. Similarly the submarine of the Malaysian navy does not have any problems on its functions due to political issues.

When raising the issue on military purchase, politicians should understand its background. Once misleading the public, they do not only tarnish the image of the force but also expose their ignorance.