Akmal Saleh’s attempt to defend KKDW raises more questions than it answers. He claims that the additional RM2.1 billion was approved by the Ministry of Finance, but then suggests that approved funds never reached KKDW. He must substantiate these claims with financial records, not personal attacks.
First, Akmal should get his basic facts right. I lodged the MACC report as the Member of Parliament for Kampar. I have never been Finance Minister. The news report he shared names me, yet his response repeatedly attacks a former Finance Minister. Before questioning whether others understand government finances, he should at least understand the report he is responding to.
More importantly, his allegation that approved funds were not disbursed contradicts the Ministry of Finance’s official statement dated 2 September 2026. Treasury Secretary-General Tan Sri Johan Mahmood Merican explicitly stated that no restrictions had been imposed on KKDW’s rural road allocations and that the allocation had been fully disbursed.
The Treasury explained that payment difficulties arose because the current year’s allocation had been almost fully spent. It also stated that KKDW had made commitments and spent more than its approved annual allocations over several years. These are official Treasury findings, not figures invented by DAP.
If Akmal believes that a particular approved allocation was withheld, he should identify its amount, approval date, warrant reference and scheduled release date. A general claim that money “never arrived” does not rebut the Treasury’s statement.
Akmal also confuses approval of a development project, issuance of a Letter of Acceptance and availability of annual funding. These are different matters. A multi-year project may have an approved overall cost, but its contractual payment schedule still has to be matched with the funding available for each year. Issuing an SST creates contractual obligations. It does not explain how those obligations were budgeted and funded.
Calling RM2.1 billion an approved additional allocation does not resolve the issue. It makes disclosure of the approval documents even more important. When was each adjustment approved, where did the money come from, and were the approvals obtained before or after the relevant commitments were made?
Likewise, describing KKDW as merely a coordinating ministry does not remove its responsibility to plan and manage its allocations. The Treasury’s statement expressly reminded every ministry of that responsibility. The respective roles of KKDW, MOF, JKR and other agencies must be established through records, not used to shift responsibility without evidence.
Akmal says an investigation should establish who approved the allocation, who issued the SST, who was responsible for releasing funds and where the process stopped. That is precisely why I lodged the MACC report. He cannot demand that the facts be investigated while ridiculing the person who formally requested that investigation.
I have not claimed that every allocation adjustment is unlawful or that a budget discrepancy automatically proves corruption. I am asking MACC to examine the approvals, contracts, payment records and decision making process to determine whether any wrongdoing occurred. The investigation should follow the evidence wherever it leads, including to any ministry, agency, officer or contractor involved.
If all the additional allocations were properly authorised and all procedures were followed, the documents will establish that. Akmal should therefore support their disclosure and an independent investigation instead of trying to replace financial accountability with political insults.