The Ministry of Finance’s parliamentary reply dated 19 October 2026 to Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng gives Zahid Hamidi and Wee Ka Siong serious questions to answer.
MOF explicitly states that KKDW made commitments and incurred expenditure exceeding its original annual allocations for rural roads, resulting in arrears and delayed payments to contractors.
This is the Finance Ministry’s own explanation to Parliament. Wee should read it carefully before delivering another lecture on financial procedures.
The figures are clear. Rural road expenditure exceeded the original allocations by approximately RM750 million in 2023, RM680 million in 2024 and RM700 million in 2025. That amounts to approximately RM2.13 billion over three years.
MOF explains that KKDW sought to reduce payment arrears by reallocating existing development funds from other projects through internal Notices of Change. Even after these reallocations, the revised allocations were insufficient to meet KKDW’s commitments.
This raises a fundamental question, did KKDW obtain all the necessary approvals and establish that funding would be available before awarding these contracts?
If it did, Zahid must produce the approval records and explain why the contractual payment obligations exceeded the funds available, even after reallocations. If it did not, he must explain who authorised the commitments and on what authority.
Approval for a multiyear project and the annual allocation available to pay contractors are separate matters. Zahid must disclose the contract values, approval conditions and payment schedules so Parliament can establish whether KKDW made commitments without the necessary approval or failed to budget adequately for approved obligations. Either explanation demands accountability.
Wee cannot simply repeat that MOF approval is required. He must show that the necessary approvals were actually obtained for the commitments in question. A rule requiring approval is not evidence that approval was secured.
Wee also told Parliament that every additional ringgit must be included in a supplementary budget. Yet the mechanism described in this reply is the reallocation of existing funds from other projects. Where is the supplementary budget covering the expenditure he was defending? He should identify it or correct the impression he gave the House.
An internal reallocation is not a supplementary budget. Wee should know the difference before attempting to dismiss legitimate questions about public expenditure.
The reallocations raise serious questions for Zahid, which projects had their allocations reduced to cover KKDW’s rural road commitments? How much was reallocated from each project, and what happened to the communities expecting those projects to proceed?
The original rural road allocation was increased to RM2.11 billion for 2026, with RM2.27 billion provided for 2027. Yet MOF states that these increased annual allocations still do not meet KKDW’s contractual commitments. It has therefore approved an additional RM500 million for 2026 using development expenditure savings identified from other ministries.
Other ministries’ savings are now being used to help meet KKDW’s commitments. Zahid must explain how his ministry allowed the funding gap to become so serious.
Most revealingly, MOF instructed KKDW on 10 September 2026 to suspend the issuance of new Letters of Acceptance for rural road projects so that payment arrears would not worsen.
If everything was properly planned and under control, why did MOF have to instruct KKDW to stop issuing new award letters?
Zahid cannot simply complain that contractors have completed work without being paid. As the minister responsible, he must explain who authorised the commitments, what funding arrangements were in place and why contractors were left waiting for payment.
Contractors deserve payment for work properly completed and rural communities deserve the roads promised to them. Both deserve better than commitments that the ministry cannot meet from the funds available.
MOF further states that the Auditor-General found that the TTPKT procurement method, including its implementation in KKDW, did not achieve the Government’s original objectives. MOF has consequently stopped approving that method for new KKDW projects. Zahid must account for these shortcomings as well.
I have already submitted notice of a motion to refer Wee to the Rights and Privileges Committee under Standing Order 36(12). This latest reply reinforces the need to scrutinise the factual basis of his parliamentary defence.
Wee should stop making this about my supposed interest in him. I am interested in public money and ministerial accountability. If he chooses to defend Zahid, he must answer the facts.
Zahid must disclose the outstanding liabilities, approval records, projects affected by reallocations and a credible payment timetable. Wee must substantiate his claims or withdraw them.
Neither political seniority nor a ministerial title puts anyone above scrutiny.