美国士兵守则

美国士兵守则（网络转载）

by：不语随光

美国士兵守则 1、 You are not a superman. 你不是超人。（不要无谓的冒险、不要做傻事）

2. If it's stupid but works，it isn't stupid. 如果一个蠢方法有效，那它就不是一个蠢方法。

3.Don't look conspicuous - it draws fire. (This is why aircraft carriers are called "Bomb Magnets".) 不要太显眼，因为那会引来对方火力攻击。（这就是航母被称为"炸弹磁铁"的原因。）

4. Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than you are. 别和比你勇敢的战友躲在同一个散兵坑里。

5. Never forget that the lowest bidder made your weapon. 别忘了你手上的武器是由最低价的承包商得标制造的。

6. If your attack is going really well，it's an ambush. 如果你的攻击进行得很顺利，那一定是你中了圈套。

7. All five-second grenade fuses will burn down in three seconds. 所有五秒的手榴弹引线都会在三秒内烧完。

8. Try to look unimportant because bad guys may be low on ammo. 尽量显得是一个无关紧要的人，因为敌人可能弹药不够了。（他会先打最重要的人）

9. If you are forward of your position，the artillary will fall short. 每当你要攻击前进时，炮兵往往也快要用完了炮弹。

10. The enemy diversion you are ignoring is the main attack. 那支你以为是敌军疑兵而不加注意的部队恰恰就是敌人的攻击主力。

11. The important things are always simple. 重要的事总是简单的。

12. The simple things are always hard. 简单的事总是难作到。

13. The easy way is always mined. 好走的路总是已被敌军布上了地雷。

14. If you are short of everything except enemy. You are in combat. 如果你除了敌人不缺，其它什么都缺，那你往往就要面临作战了。

15. Incoming fire has the right of way. 飞来的子弹有优先通行权。

16. If the enemy is in range， SO ARE YOU!!! 如果敌人正在你的射程内，别忘了你也在他的射程内。

17. No combat ready unit has ever passed inspections. 从没有一支完成战备的单位能通过校阅。

18. Things that must be together to work usually can't be shipped together. 必须要装配在一起才能发挥效力的武器装备通常不会一起运来。

19. Radio's will fail as soon as you need fire support desperately. 无线电通讯会有可能在你急需火力支援时失灵。

20. Anything you do can get you shot - including doing nothing. 你作的任何事都可能挨枪子儿 -- 包括你什么都不做。

21. Tracers work both ways. 曳光弹可以帮你找到敌踪；但也会让敌人找到你。

22. The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire. 唯一比敌人火力还精确的是友军打过来的炮火。（误射）

23. Make it tough for the enemy to get in and you can't get out. 当你防守严密到敌人攻不进来时，那往往你自己也打出不去。

24. If you take more than your fair share of objectives， you will have more than your fair share of objectives to take. 如果你多报战功，那下次你会被给予超过你能力的目标让你去打。（自讨苦吃）

25. When both sides are convinced that they are about to lose， they are both  right. 当两军都觉得自己快输时，那他们可能都是对的。

26. Professional soldiers are predictable but the world is full of amateurs. 专业士兵的行为是你能预测的，可惜战场上业余的士兵占多数，因此敌人的行为大部分是你所无法预测的。

Analysis of Naval Strength of South East Asia

Question 1: What will be the immediate action required to achieve balance of  power?

Answer: We are short of mid-sized ships, i.e. frigates and corvettes to cover our seas. Singapore has a total of 12 vessels, Philippine has 13 vessels, Indonesia has 28 vessels while Thailand has 17 vessels with 1 aircraft carrier. Ideally we need at least 4 more frigates and corvettes.


Question 2: Is Malaysia in need of submarines?

Answer: Perhaps the immediate threat will be from our nearest neighbours - Singapore with 6 submarines and Indonesia with 2 submarines. Vietnam will take delivery of 2 submarines from DPR in 2012 and 6 more submarines from Russia from 2014-2019. There are two options for anti submarine warfare - (1) deploy attack submarines or (2) strengthen anti submarine warfare (ASW) with helicopter, anti submarine destroyer or sub chasers.

Question 3: What other things are we short of, compared to our neighbours?

Answer: In terms of amphibious vehicle and rapid troops deployment, we are short of LCM, LST and the like.
Indonesia seems to be a fan of old doctrine of engagement via shore landings with 35 ships. Vietnam has 20, Thailand has 14 ships, while Singapore has 4. We have lost the only LST due to fire*.



Note*: Our last LST was KD Sri Inderapura that was destroyed by fire on 8 Oct 2009 while anchored in the Lumut Naval Base. KD Sri Inderapura was officially decommissioned from Royal Malaysian Navy on 21 Jan 2010.

我们准备迎接两党制了吗？

A two-party political system is a system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all levels of elections for government.两党制是一个由两大政党主导的政治系统，在所有各级的选举中都参选。再在两党制下拥有多数议席的政党将组成政府，而少数票政党将成为反对党。

我国我国最近也出现了一股力量在推动着两党制。Some proponents have gone to the extent of proposing the abolishment of race-based party to encourage the growth of two party system.这些支持者谴责种族性政党是妨碍两党制蓬勃发展的罪魁祸首。他们认为以种族为基础的政党已经不能迎合现代社会的需求，更认为如要两党制健全发展，那废除种族性政党是势在必行的。

两党制到底是不是Is two party system the only choice that we have?唯一的选择呢？ To answer this, we have to honestly answer the following questions:要回答这个问题，我们必须真诚的回答以下的问题：

(1) Is two party system the only solution ? （1）两党制是不是唯一的选择呢？

There are many countries in the world that practices multiple party system , including developed nations, eg France, Germany, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Ireland, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, Israel, Mexico and Brazil.世界上有许多国家（包括发达国家）奉行多党制，典型例子有法国、德国、意大利、加拿大、荷兰、丹麦、瑞典、挪威、芬兰、纽西兰、爱尔兰、台湾、印度、印尼、以色列、墨西哥和巴西等。 除此以外，一一些国家是奉行单一或主导性政党的，例如：中华人民共和国和新加坡。上述的例子皆显示两党制不是唯一的选择。

(2) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of two party system that we are unaware of? （2）两党制是否有任何我们不知道的的优势或缺点？

The advantages of two-party systems are:两党制的优点是：

i) Two-party systems promote centrism and encourages political parties to find common positions which appeal to wide swaths of the electorate .一）两党制能促进中央合并，并鼓励各政党达致共识，以便能够获得广大选民的支持。它能让政治稳定，促进经济增长。

ii) two-party systems are simpler to govern , with less fractiousness and harmony, while multi-party systems can sometimes lead to hung parliaments.二）两党制是简单的治理系统，它能减少分裂、促进和谐，而多党系统有时会导致悬恃会。

The disadvantages are:两党制的缺点是：

i) Two-party systems fail to provide enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot ( The Tyranny of the Two–party system , Lisa Jane Disch 2002).一）两党制无法提供足够的选择 ，因为在选票上它只允许两个选择。
（来源：“两党制的暴政”，Lisa Jane Disch 2002年）。
ii) The winner-take-all mechanism discourages independent or third-party candidates from running for office or promulgating their views (" The Electoral College Explained" in Time Magazine , Kristina Dell, Nov 2001).
二）两党制内的“赢家通吃”的机制，阻碍独立人士或第三方候选人竞选或公布他们的意见。（来源：“选举团解释", 时代周刊，Kristina Dell, Nov 2001）
iii) The American two-party system is not as representative as the parliamentary system as the latter is inherently much more open to minority parties getting much better representation than third parties.
三）美国的两党制不比英国的多党国会模式具代表性，因为后者是本质上更能让第三方代表或少数党有机会成为代表。It is also interesting to note that majority of democracies around the world have chosen the British multi-party model ( "Exceptional Democracy" in Huffington Post , Chris Weigant, April 7, 2010).值得注意的是世界各地的民主模式多数选择了英国的多党模式。（来源：“特殊民主”赫芬顿邮报，Chris Weigant, April 7, 2010）

(3) Can two party system be implemented in our local political landscape? （3）两党制的能否在我国政治局势中落实？

To address this question, we must look at a) historical foundation and b) current development:要回答这个问题，我们必须看：（A）历史基础 和 （B）目前的发展：

a) Historical foundation A）历史基础

Historically our parliamentary system is based on the British multi-party model .从历史层面看，我们的议会制度是建立于英国的多党模式。 Despite the difference, the "winner-takes-all" system in our country is very similar to the United States and is seen as a catalyst to two-party system.尽管与美国是两党制不同，它的“赢家通吃”机制却令两者看起来非常相似。这间接的成为我国两党制的一个催化剂。 在这在这“赢家通吃”机制下，较弱的政党被逼结盟或融合来够挑战强大的一方霸主，以便在立法议会获得的它的政治影响力。

b) Current development b）目前的发展

In the context of Malaysia, a fusion is nearly impossible judging from the fact that both BN and PR components are formed from the various political parties with different background, ideologies, objectives and "religion" (probably the only odd one in this world).在马来西亚的政治背景下，融合 (fusion) 几乎是不可能的，因为国阵（BN）及民联（PR）是由不同的背景，意识形态，目标和“宗教”（大概是世上唯一的怪象）的成员党所组成。It is very difficult to find an absolute consensus and hence the alliance is formed on a weakly agreed terms .绝对的共识是非常难找到的，而这些联盟大都由非常脆弱的条件所契合。一旦爆发灰色地带争议而陷入僵局后，其Not surprisingly many parties and people broke off from the alliance once a deadlock in the grey area was met.成员党及人士就会相继脱离，这是一点都不奇怪的。To facilitate fusion, the parties must go through many rounds of evolution and assimilation, including compromise on their core beliefs in order to reach a formidable consensus.为了促进融合（fusion），各成员党都必须经过多次的演变(evolution)和同化(assimilation)，包括妥协自己的核心价值观，才能促成一项无坚不摧的共识。除非每个人都愿意妥协，否则It is not likely going to happen in the near future unless everyone is willing to compromise!这不太可能会在近期发生！这就是为何The current two coalition systems between BN and PR has seen many alliance and parting from its members.国阵及民联的联盟不断有成员加入和成员脱离的原因。Despite the problems, it is probably the best form of alliance system as they are formed with a breath of representations from all walks of life.尽管有存在的问题，联盟体制还是最佳的形式，因为它能够容纳各造，籍此达到更广泛的代表性。

(4) What does it take to have two-party system? （4）怎样才能有两党制？

Firstly, it is in dire need of the spirit of "non-partisan" and "bi-partisan" which is not aligned to any party. A "non-partisan" spirit is best option for healthy political development.首先，两党制的精神必须建立在“非党派（non-partisan）”和“双党派（bi-partisan）”的基础上，简单的说就是不随便以党派的意愿为依归。“非党派”精神是健康的政治发展的主轴。Elected representatives are free to support any motion and legislation that they think best serves the interest of their community.代议士可以自由的支持他们认为最符合社会利益的任何议案和立法。“A bi-partisan spirit is where consensus and compromise are made in order to accomodate the demands of both parties, again in the interest of the people.双党派”是一项以人民利益为大前提，但通过共识和妥协来迎合双党的要求的精神。 There is however a tendency to put the party's interest on top of the interest of the people and hence care must be taken to avoid this from happening.然而，但它却可能会有把党的利益放在人民之前的倾向，因此必须小心避免这种情况发生。

Our political system in Malaysia has always been in a "partisan" or polarized/bias style where the opposition will always object to the ruling party, and the ruling party will always object to the proposal of the opposition.马来西亚的政治制度一直都处于“党派”或“极化/偏置”的形式，反对党始终都反对执政党的政策，而执政党始终都否决反对党的提议。This is unhealthy as humans can sometimes err in their decisions.这是不健康的，因为人非圣、贤孰能无过。 就因为就因为这两极化的观点，错误的一方总是不愿意作出妥协，导致错误持续存在。与其看到两党派党派耗尽所有时间搞对立，我衷心希望看到一个无党派和两党派的精神在我国政坛出现。 We all should support the right thing instead of merely echoing the party's agenda.我们都应该支持正确的事情，而不是仅仅附和党的议程。The recent tabling of President Obama's budget also saw the spirit of "bi-partisan" being put into effect when a consensus is reached between the Democrats and Republican.最近美国总统奥巴马提交的财政预算也见证了“双党派”精神付诸实施，民主党和共和党之间最终达成共识。If the Americans can do it, why can't we?如果美国人能做到这一点，我们为什么不能呢？

Contrary to popular belief that race-based politics are hindrances to the development of two party system, it is the "object for the sake of objecting" mentality that must stop in order to encourage two party system to flourish.民间一般认为以种族为基础的政治是两党制发展的障碍，其实不然。反而是“为了反对而反对”的心态必须停止，才能鼓励两党制的发展。 A two party system allows the opposition party to have strong check and balance power but at the same time require them to exercise this power with care.两党制能让反对党有强而有力的检查和制衡能力，但它同时也需要反对党谨慎行使这项权力。

In United States, race-based politics has been a staple of Democrats and their liberal media cohorts under president Obama.在美国，族群政治一直是奥巴马总统所领导的民主党同僚以及自由派媒伙伴的主题。But why there seems to be no objection in an advanced state with the most liberal political landscape when the race card is played?但为何在这一个拥有高度自由政治气象的先进国，当种族牌被推出时，却没有任何反对声浪？ The answer is simple.答案很简单。 它它已被融合在各族群平等和公平的条款内。当然您您不能阻止人们选出第一位黑人总统，否则将构成一种偏见或种族歧视罪。 In essence, every race in this world have their right to be treated fairly and equally and as long as the races did not achieve equal status, race-based politics will still be relevant .从本质上来讲，世界上每一个族群都应拥有公平和平等对待的权利，只要有某些族群没有达到同等的地位，那么族群政治还是有它存在的必要。

之前之前英语教数理（PPSMI）的问题，恰好是某些政党“为了反对而反对”最好的写照。最初他们反对的PPSMI的推行，一旦PPSMI被取消时，他们却反对废除PPSMI。政党Aren't political parties supposed to have a stand?不是应该有一致的立场的吗？ How can the benefits of the people be represented when the parties suddenly switch camp?当政党突然切换立场时，人民的利益该何去何从？This is a classic example of " partisan" , non-constructive style that we all should avoid at all costs.这就是典型的“党派”、毫无建设性的政治意识的最佳例子，也是我们应该竭尽所能去避免的。

Conclusion 结论

Judging from the current scenario in Malaysia, I would say we are still far away from reaching two-party system.从目前马来西亚情况来看，我认为我们离开两党制的实现还有一段距离。实际上实际上，当各族还未有平等的权利之时，我们其实也还没有逼切需要两党制。我国现有的民主模式虽有瑕疵但还是正常运作，所以我们没有必要把它推倒重来。 Why would we want to reinvent the wheels when we already have it

Are we ready for two-party system?

A two-party political system is a system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all levels of elections for government. Under a two-party system, the dominant party who holds a majority in the legislature will form the government while the minority will form the opposition party.

Recently there has been a growing pressure to push for two party system in Malaysia. Some proponents have gone to the extent of proposing the abolishment of race-based party to encourage the growth of two party system. They condemn race-based party as the culprit that prevents two party systems from flourishing, and said that the race-based parties are irrelevant in modern world.

Is two party system the only choice that we have? To answer this, we have to honestly answer the following questions:

  (1) Is two party system the only solution?
   There are many countries in the world that practices multiple party system, including developed nations, e.g. France, Germany, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Ireland, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, Israel, Mexico and Brazil. There are also countries that practices single/dominant party system such as People's Republic of China and Singapore. Two-party system is not the only working choice as shown in the examples above.

   (2) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of two party system that we are unaware of?

The advantages of two-party systems are:
i) Two-party systems promote centrism and encourages political parties to find common positions which appeal to wide swaths of the electorate. It can lead to political stability which leads, in turn, to economic growth.
ii) two-party systems are simpler to govern, with less factiousness and harmony, while multi-party systems can sometimes lead to hung parliaments.

The disadvantages are:
i) Two-party systems fail to provide enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot (The Tyranny of the Two–party system, Lisa Jane Disch 2002).
ii) The winner-take-all mechanism discourages independent or third-party candidates from running for office or promulgating their views ("The Electoral College Explained" in Time Magazine, Kristina Dell, Nov 2001).
iii) The American two-party system is not as representative as the parliamentary system as the latter is inherently much more open to minority parties getting much better representation than third parties. It is also interesting to note that majority of democracies around the world have chosen the British multi-party model ("Exceptional Democracy" in Huffington Post, Chris Weigant, April 7, 2010).

     (3) Can two party system be implemented in our local political landscape?

     To address this question, we must look at a) historical foundation and b) current development:

a) Historical foundation

Historically our parliamentary system is based on the British multi-party model. Despite the difference, the "winner-takes-all" system in our country is very similar to the United States and is seen as a catalyst to two-party system. Consequently, as in all "winner-takes-all" system, the weaker parties are pressured to form an alliance or fusion to challenge a large dominant party and gain political clout in the legislature.

b) Current development

In the context of Malaysia, a fusion is nearly impossible judging from the fact that both BN and PR components are formed from the various political parties with different background, ideologies, objectives and "religion" (probably the only odd one in this world). It is very difficult to find an absolute consensus and hence the alliance is formed on a weakly agreed terms. Not surprisingly many parties and people broke off from the alliance once a deadlock in the grey area was met. To facilitate fusion, the parties must go through many rounds of evolution and assimilation, including compromise on their core beliefs in order to reach a formidable consensus. It is not likely going to happen in the near future unless everyone is willing to compromise! The current two coalition systems between BN and PR has seen many alliance and parting from its members. Despite the problems, it is probably the best form of alliance system as they are formed with a breath of representations from all walks of life.

      (4) What does it take to have two-party system?

    Firstly, it is in dire need of the spirit of "non-partisan" and "bi-partisan" which is not aligned to any party. A "non-partisan" spirit is best option for healthy political development. Elected representatives are free to support any motion and legislation that they think best serves the interest of their community. A bi-partisan spirit is where consensus and compromise are made in order to accommodate the demands of both parties, again in the interest of the people. There is however a tendency to put the party's interest on top of the interest of the people and hence care must be taken to avoid this from happening.

Our political system in Malaysia has always been in a "partisan" or polarized/bias style where the opposition will always object to the ruling party, and the ruling party will always object to the proposal of the opposition. This is unhealthy as humans can sometimes err in their decisions. Because of the polarized view, the erred party is not willing to compromise and the error persists. Instead of being partisan all the time, I would sincerely hoped to see a non-partisan and bi-partisan approach in local political scenario. We all should support the right thing instead of merely echoing the party's agenda. The recent tabling of President Obama's budget also saw the spirit of "bi-partisan" being put into effect when a consensus is reached between the Democrats and Republican. If the Americans can do it, why can't we?

Contrary to popular belief that race-based politics are hindrances to the development of two party system, it is the "object for the sake of objecting" mentality that must stop in order to encourage two party system to flourish. A two party system allows the opposition party to have strong check and balance power but at the same time require them to exercise this power with care.

In United States, race-based politics has been a staple of Democrats and their liberal media cohorts under president Obama. But why there seems to be no objection in an advanced state with the most liberal political landscape when the race card is played? The answer is simple. It is well incorporated into their agenda with due respect to every race in terms of equality and fairness. Ultimately you cannot stop people from having the first black president as that will constitute a bias or racial discrimination. In essence, every race in this world have their right to be treated fairly and equally and as long as the races did not achieve equal status, race-based politics will still be relevant.

In Malaysia, the recent issue of PPSMI is a good example of how political parties with "object for the sake of objecting" approach the issue. They objected to the introduction of PPSMI but when PPSMI is abolished, they now object to the abolishment. Aren't political parties supposed to have a stand? How can the benefits of the people be represented when the parties suddenly switch camp? This is a classic example of "partisan", non-constructive style that we all should avoid at all costs.

Conclusion

 Judging from the current scenario in Malaysia, I would say we are still far away from reaching two-party system. In fact, there is no actual need for two-party system as the current democracy model is working fine in Malaysia. Why would we want to reinvent the wheels when we already have it?

By Steve Teoh Chee Hooi

High time to revamp the government and some GLC's procurement and tendering process

The recent report by the auditor general showed that the country's procurement processes contained some severe flaws. The fact that many of the irregularities and over budget appeared on government's capital expenditure warrants a complete and serious review of the overall service delivery process. Having worked in procurement department before, I would like to share some thoughts on the drawbacks of the tender process and ways to improve the delivery process.

Overall in Malaysia, the tender process can be divided into at least 3 types - direct negotiation, closed tender and open tender. Each type of tender is initiated based on the job scope, cost and complexity of the project.

A. Direct negotiation process

The direct negotiation process is one of the key area that requires a complete revamp. By right, the direct negotiation process is only initiated when the required works can only be supplied by a sole or distinctive company but somehow, there are cases where a local company is taken as a main supplier whose job is only as a liaison between the principal and tender board. Because of that, the tender becomes more expensive as it goes through a middleman layer and the service level again is double charged by the local company without providing any form of support. This is undesirable.

B. Closed tender

Close Tender invitation is offered to specific tender companies who were pre-determined based on capability, technical and financial strength. This category of tender companies should be vetted carefully based on track record but since there is no transparency, some companies are inadvertently favoured over the rest and hence benefitted a great deal from this system. It is also not very competitive judging from the fact that the selected few company may put a higher price than normal and by the end of the day still be selected for the contract.

C. Open Tender

Open tender is the preferred system in many countries. In open tender, the bidding process is open to all qualified bidders, the sealed bids are opened in public for scrutiny and bids are chosen on the basis of price and quality. This will ensure competitiveness and best price over performance for the awarding body.

One of the cynic on the current system is there is not enough transparencies in the tendering process, especially in the direct negotiation and closed tender categories. I strongly believe the tenders be it closed or open, should be open for public scrutiny to ensure that there is no foul play.

My suggestions for improvements are as follows:

1)  Continuous tender monitoring for non-conformance

Overall, the entire tender process should be monitored by an independent body for breach of terms and conditions such as non-compliance, soaring prices, variation orders (VO), delay in delivery etc. In many instances there is a strict time to delivery after a tender is floated. Tender committees are sometimes forced to make unfavourable decisions; for example, to select the cheapest offer from the tender company which may still be way beyond the market price or to select items from vendor whose specifications are less than the stipulated requirements. In actual fact, the non-conforming tenders should be refloated until the prices or specifications are compliant with the stipulated budget and specifications. It is alarming that some of the departments have even go to the extent of asking for more funding directly from the ministry of finance or the respective finance department for more funds so that the tender can proceed. This is ethically and fundamentally wrong!

To overcome these problems - a special review committee must be formed to take over the task from the tender select committee and review the tendering process whenever there is a breach of terms and conditions. They should be empowered to overrule or reject the decisions made by the tender select committee. The scope includes termination of tender, suspension of tender pending compliance, refloating of tender, and revised of capital expenditure (CAPEX) budget. It should be noted however that this empowerment does not cover reselection or endorsement of vendor to ensure neutrality of the review committee.

2)  Revise the vendor certification process

One of the major drawbacks of the procurement process is that the vendor certification process. Many tenders are only open to registered vendors, which are supposed to be vetted by ministry of finance or the respective finance division. The ministry or respective finance department is supposed to vet through the track record, financial strength and capabilities of the companies, but somehow in the process, many under qualified vendors are approved to take on jobs that they do not have expertise in. To overcome this problem, one of the entry criteria may be to ensure that the companies are registered members of the relevant professional bodies. To ensure conformity and qualification, the certification process should be removed and replaced with a point scoring questionnaire of track record relevant to the tender expertise sought. Only vendors who have scored well in the track record questionnaire may be allowed to take on relevant jobs. The same thing can be done for financial strength to ensure that the selected vendor are financially sound for the project.

3)  Purchase strictly through the principal company without any intermediaries

If there is an item that can only be bought from a principal company abroad, the preference of purchasing should be to the principal and not to a local company. The support however, must come from an establish local entity to ensure swift response. Often, this criteria is the one that invites problems. To alleviate the problem, purchasing shall only be made directly to the principal subject to the following criteria:

·         Principal companies without a local presence should either set up a local subsidiary company or nominate a local support partner before the deal is made. This is to ensure that the level of support will be on par with the principal’s specification. The local maintenance and support contract can be terminated if the service does not conform to the approved service level agreement (SLA).

·         The principal undertake to provide support should the local subsidiary or appointed local support partner fails to deliver the service as stipulated in the SLA.

4)  Abolish Closed Tenders

Closed tenders are anti-competition as it is awarded only to an exclusive group of tender companies. It may also encourage favouritism and hence is not a good system to be used nowadays. In a global competitive world, exclusivity is counterproductive and should be avoided at all costs. As such, closed tenders are no longer a viable choice compared with open tenders. Although the selection process of open tenders can be slightly longer, the benefits of getting the best price over performance from the tender greatly outweighs the complaints of a slow vetting process.

With full transparency in the tender process and the mechanisms mentioned above, the tender process will become more competitive and problems like over budget and corruption can be reduced to a minimum.

Steve Teoh Chee Hooi