While the JKR director testified that there was no interference in the payment process, critics and investigators remain focused on the initial selection of contractors for the Jana Wibawa programme. The fact that the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) proposed a list of 54 companies for direct negotiation raises significant concerns about the transparency of the entire initiative. Even if the subsequent payments were handled according to standard procedures, the initial appointment of these firms suggests that the playing field may not have been level from the start.
This perspective argues that the 'process' itself is the core issue. When a prime minister's office directly recommends specific companies for government contracts, it creates a systemic risk of cronyism, regardless of whether the technical work is eventually performed correctly. For the public and competing contractors, this raises questions about whether the most qualified or cost-effective firms were chosen. The fact that some companies, including KCJ Engineering, reportedly failed initial evaluations before eventually securing contracts after further information was submitted through the PMO, adds weight to the argument that the selection process was susceptible to political influence.
Ultimately, the concern is that such practices undermine public trust in government procurement. If the selection of contractors is driven by recommendations from the highest levels of government, it can lead to inflated project costs and a perception that government contracts are used as tools for political patronage. Accountability-focused observers maintain that even if individual payments appear legitimate, the broader framework of the Jana Wibawa programme requires rigorous scrutiny to ensure that public funds are allocated fairly and transparently, rather than through a system of direct negotiations that bypasses competitive open tenders.