GOVERNMENT NEED TO RESTUDY THE ROLE & DUTIES OF AUDITOR GENERAL AFTER UNREPORTED MISSING JET ENGINES INCIDENT

I refer to my recent statement requesting the Auditor General to explain why the irregularities involving the two (2) missing jet engines were not highlighted in the Auditor General’s Annual Report in year 2007 or even 2008, notwithstanding a police report was alleged being lodged.

It was recently reported that Tan Sri Ambrin Buang, the Auditor General replied that the National Audit Department had yet to receive a report about the engine. He was further reported as saying that:-

1. in a case of theft of government assets, a police report must be made and a copy of the police report must be lodged with the National Audit Department.

2. the National Audit Department did not audit the air force inventory because there was no report requiring it to do so. An audit is done on a particular case if there is a specific need for it.

Firstly, it should be the responsibility of the National Audit Department to ascertain whether there is any police report filed for any theft of government assets. The National Audit Department cannot just rely on the ministries to forward such police reports to them. There must proactive steps taken by the National Audit Department, such as requiring an annual statutory declaration by the respective ministries that there is no police reports filed for any theft or misappropriation of government assets.

Secondly, the reported statement that the National Audit Department did not audit the air force inventory because there was no report requiring it to do so is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

Under Section 5(1) of the Audit Act 1957, the Auditor General shall in such manner as he may deem fit examine, enquire into and audit the accounts of accounting officers of the Federation.

Under Section 9(1) of the Audit Act, the Minister shall, as soon as a statement required under section 16 of the Financial Procedure Act 1957 (which includes statement of the assets and liabilities of the Federation, including the manner in which the assets are held), has been prepared, transmit the statement to the Auditor General who shall forthwith cause the statement to be examined and audited and prepare his report thereon.

Section 9 (2) of the Audit Act further states that in the event of any such statement not being received within a period of (7) seven months after the close of the financial year to which it relates, the Auditor General shall submit a report to that effect to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong who shall cause it to be laid before the Dewan Rakyat at its next meeting.

Based on the aforesaid, the Auditor General should have alerted the Parliament in accordance to Section 9(2) of the Audit Act in the event the Ministry of Defence had excluded the assets or inventory list of the Royal Malaysia Air Force (RMAF).
Further to that, the assets of the RMAF are certainly part of the assets of our country.

Thus, the Auditor General should have audited the RMAF’s inventories or demand a copy of the RMAF’s inventory list (if it was not given to them) whether or not there is a report requiring it to do so or just for any specific reason.
If there is no requirement for the Auditor General to automatically audit the assets of the RMAF or any other departments of various ministries in our country, then I believe the purpose of establishing the Auditor General under Article 105 of the Federal Constitution is defeated.

It is now important for the Auditor General to explain and confirm whether the National Audit Department had complied with their duties under the Federal Constitution as well as the Audit Act 1957.

The non-reporting of the incident surrounding the missing RMAF jet engines in any of the Auditor General’s Annual Report, including the unsatisfactory reply from the Auditor General may need the government to seriously restudy the role and duties of the Auditor General under the Federal Constitution as well as the Audit Act 1957.