By Muhammad Elyas
Saujana Utama, Sungai Buloh
1 September 2026
I have been following closely the statement by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi concerning delays in payments to contractors and subcontractors for government projects that have already been completed.
What caught my attention was not merely his expression of dissatisfaction over the situation.
More importantly, his statement raises fundamental questions about the management of public finances.
Zahid himself expressed his dissatisfaction that projects had been completed and payments that should have been made were still being delayed, placing considerable pressure on contractors and subcontractors.
He even questioned why funds that had already been allocated for payment appeared to remain withheld, while at the same time there were other expenditures that had not originally been provided for.
This is no longer a minor issue.
It concerns government cash flow, budgetary discipline, spending priorities and, ultimately, public confidence in the country's financial administration.
With my 12 years of experience as an accountant in several companies, including a public listed company, and having served in my last position as a Group Accountant, I understand one very basic principle of financial management:
Once a legitimate liability has arisen, it does not disappear simply because payment is delayed.
In the corporate world, once work has been completed, certified and found to comply with the terms of the contract, payment to the party that performed the work is no longer a matter of goodwill.
It is a financial commitment that must be honoured.
The government is no exception to this fundamental principle.
Of course, the government has both the right and responsibility to ensure that every claim is legitimate, that the work meets the required specifications, that the documentation is complete and that there is no leakage or abuse.
But once all those requirements have been satisfied, the question becomes straightforward:
Why is the payment still being delayed?
Based on my own experience, including during the economic recession of the late 1980s, the government has previously faced periods of severe financial pressure and difficult cash-flow conditions.
Yet the government still had a responsibility to manage payments to contractors and suppliers.
There were occasions when payments were delayed.
There were contractors who had to wait.
Some eventually took legal action against the government to recover what they were rightfully owed.
And when such disputes were eventually resolved, the government still had to make the payments.
That experience teaches us an important lesson:
Delaying a payment does not eliminate the liability.
In certain circumstances, it can actually make the eventual cost higher, particularly when legal costs, interest, compensation or additional claims become payable.
This is perhaps the most worrying aspect of the issue.
The government has significantly greater financial capacity than most small and medium-sized contractors.
Yet when government payments are delayed, contractors are the ones forced to carry the financial burden.
They still have to pay:
A company may appear profitable on paper but still face serious financial difficulties if cash does not arrive when it is due.
This is one of the most basic principles of accounting:
Profit does not necessarily mean cash.
A company may have a profitable project and yet eventually struggle to pay its employees or suppliers if its receivables remain outstanding for too long.
That is why delays in government payments do not affect only one company.
They can create a domino effect:
Government → Contractor → Subcontractor → Supplier → Worker → Family
When one link in this chain is disrupted, the consequences can spread much further than initially anticipated.
This is where Zahid's statement deserves serious attention.
We should not immediately conclude that there has been abuse of power or that something improper has taken place.
Such allegations require evidence.
But neither should we ignore questions raised by a Deputy Prime Minister himself.
If the delay is caused by government cash-flow constraints, explain it to the public.
If it is because documentation is incomplete, explain it.
If the work has not been fully certified, explain it.
If there are audit or contractual compliance issues, explain them.
But if all requirements have been fulfilled, the project has been completed and the payment has become a legitimate government liability, then a much bigger question arises:
Why has the money still not been released?
At a time when the Malaysian economy is showing strong growth, questions concerning the timely settlement of government commitments become even more relevant.
However, I also believe that we must be fair in our assessment.
Strong GDP growth does not necessarily mean that every ringgit is sitting in the government's account and can immediately be used for payment.
The government has many financial commitments — debt servicing, subsidies, salaries, pensions, public services, development expenditure and numerous other obligations.
This is precisely why fiscal management must be carried out with discipline.
But fiscal discipline should not mean transferring the government's financial pressure onto contractors who have already fulfilled their contractual responsibilities.
If an allocation has been approved for a specific purpose and a financial commitment has already been made, the public has every right to know why that payment has not been settled according to schedule.
In my view, Zahid's statement could become the starting point for a broader effort to improve public administration.
He is not merely talking about contractors.
He is touching upon a much bigger issue:
How does the government determine its priorities when funds that have already been allocated need to be paid?
This requires transparency.
If the government genuinely wants to ensure that the economy continues to move forward, payments to government contractors and suppliers are themselves a form of economic stimulus.
When contractors receive payment, they pay their subcontractors.
Subcontractors pay their suppliers.
Suppliers pay their workers.
Workers spend money in the economy.
Therefore, government payments are not merely accounting transactions.
They are part of the heartbeat of the national economy.
For that reason, I believe this issue should not end simply with a statement that a minister is "dissatisfied".
We need to go further.
How much in government payments is currently outstanding?
What is the average length of the delay?
What are the reasons for the delays in each category of payment?
Have the relevant allocations already been approved but not yet released?
And if funds have indeed been allocated for a particular commitment, why have payments to parties that have already completed the work still not been made?
These are not merely political questions.
They are questions of governance.
The government has the authority to formulate policies, approve projects and award contracts.
But once a contractor has carried out work under a valid contract, the government also has a moral, administrative and financial responsibility to ensure that its commitments are honoured.
We want Malaysia to be seen as a country that attracts investment.
We want local companies to grow.
We want both Bumiputera and non-Bumiputera contractors to become stronger.
We want the construction industry and its supply chains to continue expanding.
All of this requires one fundamental ingredient:
Confidence.
And confidence does not come solely from GDP figures.
Confidence comes when a contractor can say:
"If I perform work for the government according to the contract, the government will pay me."
That is perhaps the simplest measure of the credibility of the system.
I see Zahid's statement as a wake-up call to the entire government administrative machinery.
It should not be about finding someone to blame.
It should be about identifying what needs to be fixed.
If delays are caused by procedures, simplify the procedures.
If delays are caused by documentation, strengthen and streamline the system.
If delays are caused by cash-flow constraints, reassess and prioritise the government's spending commitments.
If delays are caused by weak coordination between ministries and the Treasury, resolve the problem immediately.
But do not allow contractors who have fulfilled their obligations to become victims of weaknesses within the system.
The government can save money.
The government can control expenditure.
The government can determine spending priorities.
But when a payment has become a legitimate obligation, contractors should not be turned into the government's bank.
Because ultimately, money held up at a government desk is not merely a figure in an accounting ledger.
It represents an employee's salary.
It represents a company's working capital.
It represents payment to a supplier.
It represents the livelihood of a family.
And it represents the circulation of money throughout the people's economy.
Therefore, the most relevant question today is not:
"Why is Zahid angry?"
The real question is:
"If the work has already been completed and the payment has become a government obligation, what exactly is holding that money back?"
That is the question the government needs to answer — not only to Zahid, but to the people of Malaysia.
Muhammad Elyas
Saujana Utama, Sungai Buloh
1 September 2026