Transparency must cover how contracts are awarded

 

YOURSAY | ‘The lie is in what is not disclosed.’

Public access to govt contracts available from 2027 - PM

LimeHorse5802: Publishing who won a government contract, its value, and progress is not necessarily transparency. Taxpayers deserve to know how the contract was awarded.

Was there an open and competitive tender? If not, why not? Who were the bidders, and what were their bids? What were the evaluation criteria, and how were the technical and financial assessments conducted? What negotiations took place, and who approved the award? Was the successful bidder genuinely the most cost-effective and qualified, or was the decision influenced by considerations known only to the government?

What about arrangements where no formal contract exists, contracts have expired, or services continue through repeated extensions without fresh tenders?

Will these be captured under the transparency framework? Without access to procurement and evaluation processes, the public may simply be getting prepared contract outcome statements.

Transparency means demonstrating why a party deserved the contract, whether proper procedures were followed and whether taxpayers received value for money.

FromSpace: Displaying the results is already too late. The government should show how the selection process works inside the agency. Who are the people doing the evaluations? What are their connections and methods? How are tender submissions rejected? Are there duplicate tenders by the same company?

These are areas where scrutiny is needed.

AyamKambingBack: What about the selection criteria, the bidder’s organisation structure and financial requirements? What about discrimination among Malaysian companies?

If the government wants transparency, it must be transparent during the tender, bidding and selection stages.

This is where hanky-panky and “sakau” (stealing) activities are concentrated, with millions and billions committed.

Hoyohoyo: Transparency is only half the story. In Malaysia, government contracts can be inflated and overpriced for political patronage.

Market monopolies and a lack of competition among bumiputera contractors are major causes of inefficiency.

Procurement costs could be significantly lower if the tender process were open to contractors of all races.

Turnedback: All contracts should be made public because the expenses are paid with taxpayers’ money. Making them public can be one step closer to accountability for public spending, wastage and leakage. Abuse and corruption must also be taken into account.

We love Penang: The government has introduced the Procurement Act, under which the public can access details of government projects. But implementation is another question. Laws are only useful if they are properly enforced.

Jarchin: The Act has been passed, so why wait until 2027 for government contracts? What is wrong with starting now?

SC Dez: Give access now for 2026, then we will start believing in you. The public should also be given access to the Pardons Board minutes.

Cakap kosong: Public access from 2027 sounds strange. Many high-value contracts normally contain non-disclosure clauses for valid reasons. Is the government taking these into account?

Variant: More procurement could shift to concession companies instead, making it opaque. This only works if all procurements are subject to the same transparency requirements.

For example, pharmaceuticals and medical consumables are procured through concessions. Will the public be able to see those contracts too?

GP2025: The contracts may be transparent, but the finance minister’s influence in granting them is not. He talks about tightening controls to prevent leakages, yet approves unnecessary expenses.

This bill, like others submitted so far, may conceal influences that MPs must expose. The lie is in what is not disclosed.

Harmonious Harmony: PM, can you make the toll concession and independent power producer agreements public? You campaigned on transparency. These deals were kept under the Official Secrets Act. The public pays, so why should they remain secret?

Coward: NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) should not be used to defeat transparency where the law requires disclosure. Western countries publish deal values, while Malaysia too often relies on NDAs and the Official Secrets Act to keep contract amounts from public scrutiny.

V S: Good to hear. Seeing is believing. Malaysians will anxiously wait to see reforms taking place, especially on other reform issues promised in the election manifesto. God bless.

Tidy: We shall see. The devil is in the details. Transparency and governance have not always been strong attributes of politicians. Promises are often made loudly before an election, followed by “Nato” - no action, talk only.

Fairoppinion1: One of the good reforms. All mature, intelligent and loyal Malaysians should support this initiative. It is good for the public to see who gets procurement contracts, the locations, completion details and engineering and architectural aspects. Give credit when credit is due.

ScarletPanda9731: Transparency should also answer why a project is given to company A rather than B, C or Z. For housing projects, approvals can involve 17 or 18 departments. If every department takes a month, approval could take 18 months. There should be one approval centre, a three-month time frame, with reasons for rejection. If there is no response after three months, the project should be deemed approved.

Joeganes: People are not born yesterday. After 60 years, many already know the loopholes. The problem is there has been no will to shut them.

BlueHornet6355: If the next government changes, this could become a white elephant and become murky again. It could end up being “hangat-hangat tahi ayam” (flash in the pan). - Mkini