The Political Secretary to the Minister of Rural and Regional Development, Datuk Mohd Razlan Muhammad Rafii, has failed to rebut either Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng or Treasury Secretary-General Tan Sri Johan Mahmood Merican. Instead, he changed the basis of comparison from the annual allocation approved by Parliament to a subsequently revised allocation.
The Treasury Secretary-General compared the annual allocation approved for the Rural Roads Programme, or JALB, with the actual expenditure. Mohd Razlan compared the revised allocation with the actual expenditure. These are two different comparisons. Both may be factually correct, but the revised allocation does not explain how, when and from where the additional funds were obtained.
Mohd Razlan’s own figures confirm the RM2.1 billion issue raised by Lim Guan Eng.
In 2023, the original JALB allocation of approximately RM1.1 billion was revised to RM1.85 billion, while actual expenditure was approximately RM1.84 billion. In 2024, the original allocation of approximately RM1.3 billion was revised to RM2.02 billion, while actual expenditure was approximately RM2 billion. In 2025, the original allocation of approximately RM1.6 billion was revised to RM2.27 billion, while actual expenditure was also approximately RM2.27 billion.
Based on Mohd Razlan’s own rounded figures, the JALB allocations were increased by approximately RM2.14 billion over these three years. His figures therefore confirm, rather than rebut, the cumulative difference of approximately RM2.1 billion highlighted by Lim Guan Eng.
Claiming that actual expenditure did not exceed the final revised allocation does not answer the real questions. Mohd Razlan must explain where the additional RM2.1 billion came from, when each adjustment was approved, which authority approved it and whether approval was obtained before or after KKDW entered into the relevant commitments.
My review of the Supplementary Supply Bills and supplementary development estimates for financial years 2023, 2024 and 2025 found no direct supplementary appropriation for KKDW under B.22 or P.22. As at 5 September 2026, Parliament has also not approved a Supplementary Supply Bill for financial year 2026.
This does not automatically mean that every adjustment was unlawful. Government financial procedures allow properly authorised virements, contingency releases and other adjustments through Treasury warrants. However, these mechanisms must be supported by proper approvals and records. Mohd Razlan cannot simply use the expression “revised allocation” without disclosing the documents behind the revisions.
Mohd Razlan should publish a complete financial reconciliation for each year showing the original JALB allocation, every subsequent adjustment, the final revised allocation, actual expenditure, contractual commitments and unpaid claims. He should also disclose the reference numbers, dates and amounts of every Treasury warrant, internal transfer and NOC approval relied upon by KKDW.
If the additional JALB allocations came from internal transfers, Mohd Razlan must identify the programmes and projects whose allocations were reduced. Malaysians have a right to know whether other rural development projects were delayed, reduced or sacrificed to cover KKDW’s JALB commitments.
He must also disclose whether the revised allocations were approved before the contracts and expenditure commitments were entered into, or only after contractors had completed work and submitted claims. An approval obtained after liabilities have already accumulated does not excuse weak financial and cash-flow planning.
Mohd Razlan’s argument that approximately RM1 billion was not the total value of all approved JALB projects is a straw man. Neither Lim Guan Eng nor the Treasury Secretary-General claimed that it was the total project value. They were clearly referring to the annual JALB allocation.
The fact that development projects may take several years to complete also does not answer the issue. Multi year projects still require proper annual budgeting. A project ceiling and a Letter of Acceptance create contractual commitments, but they do not remove the responsibility to plan those commitments according to the annual cash allocation available.
MOF has disclosed that it approved an additional RM300 million for 2026 and is identifying savings from other ministries to cover KKDW’s excess commitments. This is not evidence that there was no problem. It shows that MOF is now required to find additional funds to address the consequences of KKDW’s commitments.
Mohd Razlan must also disclose the contractors involved, the value of their contracts, the method through which each contract was awarded, the work completed, the claims submitted and the payments that remain outstanding. Asking for transparency is not an accusation against contractors. It is necessary because public money is involved.
If Mohd Razlan believes that the Treasury Secretary-General’s figures are wrong, he should obtain an official written correction from MOF. Until MOF withdraws or corrects its statement, Mohd Razlan cannot dismiss official Treasury figures merely by attacking the qualifications of a former Finance Minister.
Personal attacks cannot replace financial records. Awards received by a ministry also do not answer a specific discrepancy involving RM2.1 billion.
As the Minister responsible for KKDW, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi must provide a full explanation. If KKDW refuses to publish the relevant warrants, NOC approvals, financial reconciliation and contract details, the Public Accounts Committee and Auditor-General should investigate the matter.