Laughing Stock Of A Procurement Bill Shockingly Passed

---

 


Incredibly, despite the fierce opposition, including from its own bench, the government did not defer the Procurement Bill 2025 but passed it by a margin of 125 to 63, which means most DAP and PKR MPs supported it.
So serious are the defects that I am forced to question whether they were made with the full knowledge and intention of the promulgators to deliberately give excessively high power to policy makers and ministers, making a laughing stock of their original intention.
PKR MP Hassan Karim highlighted some of these in Parliament two days ago when he expressed concern that the draft law grants overly broad powers to the finance minister and asked for it to be deferred, an excellent suggestion.
“Section 10(1)(a) of the First Schedule says the minister can approve mega contracts without any ceiling. No ceiling. This is dangerous.
“...In Section 13(2) to (4), the minister is not bound by the procurement board’s recommendations. (The minister has) wide powers.
“Then Section 12(8) allows the minister alone to decide if the board reaches a deadlock.
“... And under Section 11(1) of the Second Schedule, the minister can influence appointments to the board,” he said in the Dewan Rakyat.
Hassan warned that this puts the minister in a dual position as both regulator and participant in procurement decisions.
PKR MP Hassan Karim“This is a conflict of interest. These dual roles weaken (and) disrupt the basic safeguards against abuse,” he said.
Indeed, yes. If the minister can approve projects of any size, ignore the procurement board, and influence appointments to the board, that puts enormous power in the hands of the minister and chief ministers, perhaps even more so than previous de facto powers.
It offers no oversight by outside independent parties over ministerial authority; in fact, there is no independent party. What difference does it make? None!
Weak oversight mechanisms
Apart from ministerial overreach, overriding of procurement board recommendations, and exemption of entire programmes from procurement rules, oversight mechanisms are weak.
Complaints must first be submitted to the procuring entity itself (Clause 61), creating a conflict of interest. The minister appoints the Procurement Appeal Tribunal, compromising its independence.
Further, others point out that the relevant registrar may reject supplier applications without justification (Clause 17, 26), opening the door to arbitrary exclusion and politicisation of vendor access.
Clause 12(7) allows decisions made in breach of procedures to remain, diluting the provisions for the enforceability of procurement safeguards.
There was an obvious unholy rush to pass this bill, with government MPs saying they had no notice that the bill was going to be passed and that they had no chance at all to see the contents before it was tabled.
Opposition MPs stage a walkout today after failing to stall the Procurement Bill 2025Civil society groups, including Transparency International Malaysia and C4 Center, have criticised the lack of meaningful engagement ahead of its presentation.
Given the haste and the lack of disclosure of key points, one wonders why it was rushed through with insufficient time given to examine key points and debate them before it was passed in Parliament.
Did the govt want debate?
It is almost as if the government did not want proper debate, but to rush through the amendments to give arbitrary power and no limits on project size for ministers and chief ministers, concentrating enormous power in their hands and making a mockery of the intention of the bill, which is to regulate procurement.
Indeed, in his address, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said on Wednesday that it will end leakages and prevent a recurrence of 1MDB.
Citing a litany of past failures, ranging from the 1MDB scandal to foreign exchange losses at the central bank decades ago, The Edge quoted Anwar saying the bill underscores that transparency and accountability in the use of public funds are no longer optional, but mandatory.
“The culture of awarding contracts through direct negotiation cannot continue. This law will cancel the absolute discretion of the finance minister or any authority to award contracts without transparent procedures, public disclosure and open tender.”
If only that were true! It is unclear how 1MDB’s failure and foreign exchange losses at Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) could have been prevented by a procurement bill because it was not about procurement in these cases.
In 1MDB, a huge part of the losses of perhaps up to US$7 billion (RM29.5 billion) arose out of a like amount of proceeds from bond issues stolen through illicit transfers using many major banks throughout the world and with the complicity of one of the world’s largest investment banks, Goldman Sachs.
This was because approval power was vested in the hands of the finance minister, then Najib Abdul Razak. Minister of Finance Inc was the only shareholder of 1MDB. It was a simple case of vesting too much power in one person, which ironically, the procurement bill seems to be doing too.
In the case of BNM, the huge losses of some RM32 billion arose because the bank took speculative positions in the currency market for gain but had to close off the massive positions at huge losses in the face of higher losses.
Then PM, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, had implicitly and explicitly encouraged BNM to take such positions.
Regulate top politicians
Perhaps the government should think of measures to control the excesses of top politicians, including prime ministers, ministers and chief ministers, instead of giving them blanket powers, which led to instances such as 1MDB and the BNM forex losses.
How about a ministerial powers limitation bill?
Without question, the new procurement bill should have been binned to consider, among others, the following suggestions made by various people:
Introduce financial ceilings and board approval requirements. Limit ministerial discretion by mandating Procurement Board approval for high-value contracts.
Establish an independent oversight body. Create a truly autonomous Procurement Tribunal with members appointed through bipartisan parliamentary processes.
Ensure transparency in supplier registration. Require written justification for supplier rejections and allow appeals.
Remove exemption clauses. Eliminate provisions that allow ministers to bypass procurement procedures.
Reopen public consultations. Publish the full bill text and allow civil society, industry, and public stakeholders to provide feedback before implementation.
Malaysia’s procurement reform must be more than a symbolic gesture. It must be a structural overhaul that prioritises transparency, accountability, and public trust.
Instead, the current Procurement Bill 2025, perpetuating the very vulnerabilities that led to past scandals, has been passed. How ridiculous! And what a travesty of justice. What more will this Madani government do? - Mkini
P GUNASEGARAM says we need to be honest, open and accountable about legislative change, not mask it in meaningless rhetoric.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---