‘If it’s from the PM, I will act on it’: Ex-finance minister Tengku Zafrul says in Muhyiddin’s trial

**Former Finance Minister Tengku Zafrul Testifies in Muhyiddin's Power Abuse Trial: Reveals Crucial Details on PM's Influence**

Former finance minister Datuk Seri Tengku Zafrul Abdul Aziz today made a pivotal statement in the ongoing trial of former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, sparking heated debate on the extent of the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) influence over government projects. Tengku Zafrul, a key witness in the case, revealed that while he had the power to decide on applications for government projects, he would ensure that the Finance Ministry considers the applications if they were forwarded by the Prime Minister. This startling admission has raised eyebrows, highlighting the blurred lines between the executive and administrative branches of government.

Background & Context

Tengku Zafrul served as finance minister from March 2020 to August 2021, a period marked by significant controversy surrounding the government's handling of contracts and projects. His testimony comes as part of the prosecution's case against Muhyiddin, who is accused of power abuse and money laundering. The trial has shed light on the intricate web of relationships between the PMO, the Finance Ministry, and private companies vying for government contracts.

At the heart of the controversy lies the Bumiputera contractors' programme Jana Wibawa, which aimed to promote the interests of indigenous Malaysian businessmen. However, allegations of cronyism and favoritism have dogged the programme, with many questioning the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process.

Key Details

Tengku Zafrul's testimony centered on three key letters forwarded to the Finance Ministry by the PMO during his tenure. The first letter, dated November 13, 2020, proposed 54 contractors for government projects under Jana Wibawa. The then-Prime Minister Muhyiddin requested the Finance Ministry to immediately consider the proposal. Tengku Zafrul confirmed that he had the power to decide on the applications, but would ensure that they were considered if they were forwarded by the Prime Minister.

When cross-examined by Muhyiddin's lawyer, Tengku Zafrul revealed that he had received many minutes from the Prime Minister, which he described as a way of highlighting matters and passing them on for consideration. However, he also stated that if the applications were from the Prime Minister, he would act on them. This statement has sparked debate on the extent of the Prime Minister's influence over the Finance Ministry and the decision-making process.

A key aspect of Tengku Zafrul's testimony was his confirmation that he had the power to decide whether to take action on companies' applications, regardless of their origin. He agreed that it did not matter where the applications came from, as long as they were brought to his attention. This has raised questions about the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process.

What Experts Say

Analysts have long warned about the dangers of unchecked executive power and the blurred lines between the executive and administrative branches of government. The controversy surrounding Jana Wibawa and the PMO's influence over the Finance Ministry has sparked heated debate on the need for greater transparency and accountability in government decision-making.

Political scientist Dr. Lim Teck Ghee noted that the trial has highlighted the importance of separating the executive and administrative branches of government. "This is a classic case of the executive branch overstepping its bounds and interfering with the administrative process," he said.

Key Takeaways

• Tengku Zafrul confirmed that he had the power to decide on companies' applications for government projects, but would ensure that they were considered if they were forwarded by the Prime Minister.
• The trial has highlighted the blurred lines between the executive and administrative branches of government, with many questioning the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process.
• Tengku Zafrul's testimony has sparked debate on the extent of the Prime Minister's influence over the Finance Ministry and the decision-making process.
• The controversy surrounding Jana Wibawa has raised questions about the need for greater transparency and accountability in government decision-making.

What This Means For You

The trial has significant implications for the public, particularly in the areas of transparency and accountability. The blurred lines between the executive and administrative branches of government have raised concerns about the potential for abuse of power and favoritism. As citizens, it is essential that we demand greater transparency and accountability in government decision-making.

As we move forward, it is crucial that we prioritize the principles of good governance and ensure that the executive and administrative branches of government operate in a transparent and accountable manner. By doing so, we can build a more just and equitable society for all Malaysians.