PETALING JAYA: The newly-passed Government Procurement Bill has to be amended to limit ministerial discretion, narrow exemptions and ensure open competitive tendering, say graft watchdogs and civil society groups.
They also cautioned against the concentration of power in the hands of the Finance Minister and chief ministers, with weak checks and balances.
“The Bill gives ministers sweeping discretion to approve contracts of any size, override procurement boards, appoint oversight members, grant exemptions, and even decide procurement methods beyond competitive bidding,” Transparency International Malaysia president Raymon Ram said.
Public procurement involves billions in taxpayer funds, and not having robust safeguards will erode trust, he said.
“Concentrating so much power in one office create the risk of abuse, political interference and non-transparent decision making.”
Raymon said the effectiveness of the Procurement Review Panel and an Appeals Tribunal under the Act can be undermined by ministerial control over appointments and sweeping exemptions that permit non-competitive practices.
“Independent oversight must be guaranteed by ensuring review and appeals bodies are insulated from political appointments and are accountable to Parliament.”
He said procurement plans, contract awards, evaluation results and beneficial ownership of winning bidders should also be published.
He also questioned the way the Bill was rushed through Parliament, with all three readings of the 91-clause law completed in a week.
The CSO Platform for Reform also called for safeguards to limit ministerial discretion, guarantee the independence of the Appeals Tribunal and close loopholes that enable exemptions.
“Transparency and disclosure requirements must be strengthened, particularly in high-risk areas such as defence, to prevent abuse of public funds,” it said in a statement.
Public procurement is one of the largest avenues of government expenditure and a sector most vulnerable to corruption, it said.
“Any legislation governing must safeguard efficiency and ensure institutional accountability, transparency, and public trust.”
The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) agreed that the Bill had been “bulldozed”.
“MPs, the business community, civil society and the general public were clearly not afforded time to read the Bill, analyse its contents and implications and to raise questions about it in the two days between its first, second and third readings (in Parliament),” it said in a statement.
It said the Bill also does not impose a minimum standard of procurement-related information disclosure by any party nor mandate any form of public disclosure.
C4 also questioned if the Bill would control rampant sub-contracting.
“The provisions of the Bill do not explicitly state that the transfer of a contract under Section 35 must be to a secondary ‘registered person’ or if a further tertiary person must be registered.
“Taken as is, the law barely eradicates subcontracting issues at all, if approval by the controlling officer is only necessary for the primary registered person.”
