KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 28: The Government Procurement Bill 2025, which had its second and third reading in the Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday, Aug 27, must not be passed, says the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center).
In a statement issued today, C4 Center said it was in agreement with the Members of Parliament who had rejected the Bill, saying it “should be referred back to the Parliamentary Special Select Committee on Finance and Economy, who were notably left out during the initial phase of this Bill’s drafting.”
C4 Center said it had analysed the Bill in a previous statement and had raised the following issues:
- Granting almost unchecked powers of procurement approval to the Minister of Finance and Chief Ministers at the State Level;
- Establishing an Appeal Tribunal and appeals process which is not independent of the Executive;
- Concentration of power in the Registrar which may lead to abuse;
- Numerous clauses that weaken oversight, accountability, and the scope of the Act; and
- Granting authorized public officers under the Treasury and State Financial Authorities wide investigative and enforcement powers that, in some cases, exceed police powers.
“These issues were voiced in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday. C4 Center reiterates that the Bill in its current form will not address existing problems within the procurement system. Instead, it cements the institutional flaws of the status quo that has previously led to grand corruption.
Thus, it called on the government not to pass the Government Procurement Bill in its current form.
“The Bill must be revised with meaningful stakeholder engagement – including review by the Parliamentary Special Select Committee on Finance and Economy – to ensure a procurement regime that actually strengthens integrity, transparency, and benefit for the rakyat.”
The anti-corruption organisation also said the Bill was rushed through.
Within a brief period of 15 days, “the white paper was released by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) for distribution in a Cabinet meeting for summarising (Aug 12), then it was brought to the Cabinet on Aug 20 and on Aug 22, the Cabinet approved the draft Bill.
From Aug 23-24, the Blue bill was printed and on Aug 25, the first reading on the Bill was held at Dewan Rakyat. On Aug 26, a briefing session on the Bill with MPs aligned with the government was held, before the second and third reading of the Bill on Wednesday, Aug 27.
This has raised serious questions as to why the Bill is being rushed through the legislative process by the government, C4 Center said considering:
- The Bill is an entirely new law that will regulate almost all government procurement at both the Federal and State level
- The Bill is 91 pages and 93 clauses long and deals with major areas of governance in relation to government expenditure, the national economy, and infrastructure
- MPs, the business community, civil society, and the general public were very clearly not afforded a sufficient amount of time to read the Bill, analyse its contents and implications, and to raise questions about it in the two days between its first and second/third readings.
C4 Center also said the degree to which Ministers are afforded decision-making powers throughout the procurement process is staggering.
“Ministers can approve procurements with no upper limit of contract value, dictate regulations and the process by which app44rovals take place, appoint members of the Appeal Tribunal, exempt individuals and entire classes of persons from being subject to this procurement law, and amend the Schedule which sets the contract value approving bodies can decide on.”
Any internal controls for check-and-balance are few and far between in the Bill, and the ones that are present do little to alleviate the risks of corruption and abuse of power that would almost certainly arise with such wide powers over government procurement, the anti-graft organisation said.
C4 Center pointed out some of the controls that were cited in the Dewan Rakyat and their limitations. These included:
- Clause 37 which mandates a duty to disclose interest upon any person administering, conducting, or implementing a government procurement, failing which a sanction of a fine or imprisonment or both is imposed;
- Clause 79 that states that proceedings of the Appeal Tribunal shall be made open to the public;
- Clause 6 which outlines the role of the Secretary General to the Treasury to be responsible for the administration, control and supervision of all matters relating to the Bill.
“The disclosure of interest requirement appears to merely be just that — a requirement to disclose. Nowhere in the Bill does it require the Minister to recuse himself from a decision where there is a conflict of interest.
“Furthermore, what use is a public hearing when the Minister appoints the individuals for the Appeal Tribunal, and where there is no prescribed avenue for the public to even participate or provide input in the process — here, the public hearing is nothing but a performance for viewing.”
On Clause 6 and the responsibilities of the Secretary General, none of the provisions regarding the exercise of the Minister’s powers under this Bill mention how they can be kept in check by the Secretary General, C4 Center said.
Clause 13(4) makes clear that the Minister’s approval of procurements are “final” — nowhere does it say that the Secretary General would be able to intervene in this or any other decision.
One of the issues raised yesterday was that the Bill was absolutely necessary as it would prevent rampant and uncontrolled sub-contracting, a practice that has cost the government a great deal of losses as well as leading to poor-quality or incomplete infrastructure projects.
It was stated that Clause 35 on “Prohibition on transfer, etc., of Government procurement” would prevent sub-contracting from taking place.
However, this clause does not necessarily prevent sub-contracting at all because it only prohibits a person from transferring, assigning, or novating a contract without prior approval of the controlling officer responsible for the government procurement. There is not much control being imposed at all since the approval of a single controlling officer is barely a barrier and would not realistically prevent cartelisation of the civil service, a problem that already exists in the status quo.
Among other shortcomings of the Bill, C4 Center said the Bill does not impose a minimum standard of procurement-related information disclosure by any party nor does it even mandate any form of public disclosure at all. The only provision that makes reference to such an issue is Clause 25 on the power to publish information:
“If the Registrar (of Government Procurement) thinks that it is necessary or expedient in the interest of the public, the Registrar may publish any information in the form and manner as may be determined by the Registrar…”
The wording of this particular provision is extremely important because of its legal implications:
- The Registrar has the power to subjectively decide what information is relevant to the public interest;
- Even if the Registrar decides that something is public interest, they are still not obligated to publish said information
C4 Center pointed out that under Clause 14, the Registrar of Government Procurement is a public officer of the Treasury who is appointed to the position by the Secretary General to the Treasury, thus making the Registrar a non-independent civil servant whose office is still subsidiary to the Ministry of Finance.
It also reminded that many of the disastrous procurement scandals such as the littoral combat ships, Scorpene submarines, defective ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic, were all caused by unilateral decision-making by Ministers.
— WE