12-13-2010, 01:22 PM
There are reports that a large deal with China is in the offing and there is a degree of opacity here that makes concrete look positively transparent. The deal is worth $233.7 million (Rs20 billion), is titled ‘Safe City Project’ (renamed for no apparent reason from the ‘Government Emergency Command Centre) and has not been approved by the Planning Commission nor subjected to a tender process. The deal is probably going to be signed off when the Chinese premier visits us later this month, and our own PM has, in his infinite wisdom, seen fit to give the project exemption from the usually-obligatory rules of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority. Assorted reasons are given for this anomalous arrangement, but principally the ‘security’ nature of the project seems to guarantee it a free pass.
Whatever the merits of the project – and it may well be beneficial and enhance the security of all of us – the opportunity for graft and corruption without adequate oversight is glaringly obvious. There is also the not-insignificant matter of the cost of the equipment associated with the project, which the Planning Commission noted to be three times the market price for similar equipment. The Planning Commission has at least made the effort to stick to the rules on this one, and has protested at several points throughout the process, but to no avail. The project is being financed on a soft loan from the Chinese, but we will still be paying the mark-up on funding for a project that could have come in cheaper if it was competitively tendered. The Chinese may well be our good friends, and we have much to thank them for over the last thirty years. But they are not the only bazaar to shop in, unless of course the deal was ‘sweetened’ for somebody – no names mentioned – who ensured its smooth passage, bypassing the offices of Mr Regulation and Mr Oversight.
Whatever the merits of the project – and it may well be beneficial and enhance the security of all of us – the opportunity for graft and corruption without adequate oversight is glaringly obvious. There is also the not-insignificant matter of the cost of the equipment associated with the project, which the Planning Commission noted to be three times the market price for similar equipment. The Planning Commission has at least made the effort to stick to the rules on this one, and has protested at several points throughout the process, but to no avail. The project is being financed on a soft loan from the Chinese, but we will still be paying the mark-up on funding for a project that could have come in cheaper if it was competitively tendered. The Chinese may well be our good friends, and we have much to thank them for over the last thirty years. But they are not the only bazaar to shop in, unless of course the deal was ‘sweetened’ for somebody – no names mentioned – who ensured its smooth passage, bypassing the offices of Mr Regulation and Mr Oversight.