KUALA LUMPUR: Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) called for the removal of those responsible for the losses of more than RM681 million in public funds.
Its president Dr Muhammad Mohan said the top management at the related federal ministries, government departments and statutory bodies should be sacked for their failure in identifying the issues, which led to the huge losses.
He said the fact that huge losses were repeatedly highlighted in the Auditor General's report every year indicated a continuous lack of good governance in the public sector.
"Year after year, when the AG report comes, there is always this kind of report where several millions or even billions in ringgit are lost.
"But the question is, who is made accountable for this?
"You don't hear about the action taken against those responsible for it. Then the thing happily goes on and it is not rectified," he told the New Straits Times.
Muhammad said those failing in their duties, leading to these losses, should be replaced with competent individuals.
He said it was unfortunate that the concept of accountability and fiduciary duties does not seem to exist in the public sector.
"TI-M and myself have repeatedly said so many times that the government needs to hold the civil servants accountable.
"Politicians come and go and during their time (leadership), they can give all kinds of instructions. But you as a civil servant, you know your job," he said when refering to the top brass in government and statutory bodies.
"You know the standard operating procedures, and you know what can and cannot be done.
"Why can't you stand up and tell the ministers who are instructing you, what is possible and not possible?" said Muhammad.
He slammed the agencies' top management for failing to detect and rectify issues under their jurisdictions, which resulted in significant financial losses.
Muhammad said in governance, there are three levels of defence.
He explained that those responsible for operations such as the secretaries-general, directors and civil servants, who are entrusted to carry out their duties in the agencies, are the "first line" of defence against such wastages.
The "second line of defence", he said, comprised the compliance, integrity or finance units. In giving an example, he said these officers would have conducted due diligence before releasing any payment.
The last line is the audit institution, he said.
"If you asked me why it took so long for us to spot the issues (as revealed in the AG's report), it is because the first and second levels failed.
"That is why I keep on saying those in this 'line one' and 'line two' should be held accountable."
He cited an example of an authority which might have failed to complete a project. He said in such a case, the secretary-general of the related ministry should have taken before such losses were incurred.
"Let's say for example Langkawi Development Authority has a project and they did not complete it. Then the secretary-general or director or whoever is in charge should question why this happened. They should stop (the project) immediately.
"That's why we pay you. What's the point of paying someone to do the job but he failed to do it? What's the point of allowing him to go on in the job?
"When a report like this comes out, you have to explain. If you cannot, please resign," said Muhammad.
The 2022 Auditor-General's Report on the Activities of Federal Government Ministries/Departments and Federal Statutory Bodies revealed today that there were losses in six cases of public funds worth RM681.71 million.
Auditor General Datuk Wan Suraya Wan Mohd Radzi said six programmes that suffered losses were the Padi Planting Management Programme, Langkawi Development Authority (Lada) Property Development Management, the management and regulation of firearms of the departments and agencies under the Home Ministry; the management of the Marine Protected Area Conversation Programme, the Investment Promotion Programme for the Manufacturing Sector; and the management of the Safe City Programme.
The losses include the granting of exemptions from fines imposed on the delays in the supply and delivery of fertiliser; the distribution of sub-optimal subsidies and incentives to padi; and the failure to collect land lease and procurement revenue in lieu of the disposal of firearms that were not fully supplied.