Every ringgit must deliver public value

A project should only be considered genuinely successful when it is safe, of good quality, meets the needs of the people and delivers benefits proportionate to the public money spent.

Public money must always be treated with the highest degree of responsibility.

Hence, Premier Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Abang Johari Tun Openg’s recent reminder that all state ministries, departments and agencies must ensure their procurement processes are conducted transparently and competitively should be taken seriously.

His message was clear: procurement must be guided by the principle of value for money, while every development project must be monitored from the planning stage right up to its completion and handover.

That means costs must be adhered to, timelines met, specifications fulfilled and quality standards maintained.

There is much wisdom in that reminder.

After all, government procurement is not simply about awarding contracts, spending allocations or completing projects.

It is about public trust.

Every ringgit spent by the government belongs, ultimately, to the people.

And because public money is involved, the public has every right to expect that procurement decisions are made fairly, responsibly and in the best interests of Sarawak.

Transparency is therefore crucial.

When procurement is transparent, there is less room for favouritism, conflicts of interest, unnecessary cost increases, poor workmanship or other abuses.

It also creates healthy competition among contractors.

Companies know they must compete based on their ability, experience, technical capacity, price and track record rather than on who they know or how well connected they may be.

That, surely, is how it should be.

At the same time, transparency protects honest government officers and contractors.

When there are clear procedures, proper documentation and established evaluation criteria, decisions can be defended and explained.

There is less room for suspicion.

But transparency should not stop once a tender has been awarded.

This is perhaps one of the most important points raised by the Premier.

A project has to be monitored throughout its implementation.

Too often, people tend to regard a project as successful simply because the building is standing, the road has been completed or the allocation has been fully spent.

Abang Johari rightly argued that this should not be the measure of success.

A project should only be considered genuinely successful when it is safe, of good quality, meets the needs of the people and delivers benefits proportionate to the public money spent.

That distinction is important.

Completing a RM50 million project does not automatically mean RM50 million worth of value has been delivered.

If a road begins to deteriorate soon after completion, if a building develops defects, if facilities are underutilised or if a project fails to solve the problem it was intended to address, then questions must surely be asked.

Was the project properly planned?

Were the specifications adequate?

Was the contractor capable?

Was there sufficient supervision?

And most importantly, did the people receive value for their money?

The Premier also described unreasonable delays, wastage, poor workmanship and negligence in monitoring as integrity issues because it is ultimately the people who bear the consequences.

I agree.

A delayed project is not just a statistic in a government report.

It may mean villagers waiting longer for clean water, commuters continuing to use poor roads, children waiting for better school facilities or communities being deprived of services they have been promised.

This is why transparency should cover the entire life cycle of a project.

For major projects, basic information such as project cost, procurement method, successful contractor, commencement date, expected completion date and implementation progress should, where appropriate, be easily accessible.

Where open tender is not used, the reasons for adopting another procurement method should be properly documented.

Variation orders and significant cost increases must also be carefully scrutinised.

Of course, changes are sometimes unavoidable, particularly in large and complex infrastructure projects.

But substantial increases in project costs should always have a clear and defensible explanation.

The same applies to contractors’ performance.

A contractor’s past record should matter.

Those who repeatedly fail to complete projects on time, deliver poor workmanship or fail to meet specifications should not simply be allowed to move from one public project to another without consequence.

Conversely, contractors who consistently deliver quality work, within budget and on schedule should be recognised for their good performance.

Technology can also play a useful role.

A digital monitoring system for major development projects could allow responsible agencies to track physical progress, financial expenditure and completion timelines.

If a project is supposed to be 70 per cent complete but actual progress is only 50 per cent, alarm bells should be triggered early rather than when the project is already seriously delayed.

There should also be strong physical inspections and post-completion assessments.

Auditing should not merely ask whether the allocated money was spent according to procedure.

It should also ask a more important question: did the money produce the intended outcome?

This becomes even more significant as Sarawak continues to pursue its PostCovid-19 Development Strategy 2030.

The strategy is not merely about constructing more roads, bridges, schools and public facilities.

As the Premier pointed out, development must be based on the people’s actual needs, every ringgit must be spent prudently and every benefit must reach its intended recipients.

Sarawak’s development ambitions are growing.

So too will the scale and complexity of projects undertaken in the years ahead.

As the development budget grows, so must our standards of accountability.

A good policy, after all, means little if implementation is weak, delayed, wasteful or misused.

Transparency therefore must never be treated as an obstacle to development.

It is what protects development.

It protects public money, honest officials, responsible contractors and, ultimately, the people.

Perhaps the principle should be simple: Transparency must begin before a tender is called, continue throughout implementation and remain until the final ringgit is accounted for and the promised benefit is delivered to the people.

That is how public confidence is built.

And that is how development earns its true value.

The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at [email protected].