Graft busters monitoring toilet upgrade projects at schools

Graft busters monitoring toilet upgrade projects at schools

KOTA KINABALU: Graft busters are watching like a hawk the implementation of the federal government’s RM91mil allocation for school toilets refurbishment projects in Sabah, amid public concerns that shoddy jobs are being carried out.

Officers from the state’s Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) office, led by its director Datuk S. Karunanithy, have been checking out public complaints, claiming that the upgrade of toilet facility projects at certain schools were shoddy or did not meet the requirements in the contracts.

When contacted, Karunanithy confirmed that Sabah MACC is closely monitoring the issues raised by the public, particularly from concerned parents.

He reminded all contractors to execute the job scope as per required under the Bill of Quantity (BQ).

“If they (contractors) submit claims for the work they did not carry out as per in the BQ contract, they will be investigated under Section 18 of the MACC Act 2009 for intending to deceive principal by agent.

“Officers, who endorsed the claims, can also be investigated for abetting the contractors in submitting false claims,” he warned.

Karunanithy has urged all relevant parties including Sabah Education Department and state district offices to keep an eye on the projects.

“We will continue to monitor the projects to ensure that government funds are used properly,” he said.

He advised school principals to ensure that jobs carried out were done according to specification and do not give the green light to any claims for shoddy work.

It was reported that the federal government have allocated RM91mil for refurbishment of toilets in 1,100 schools in Sabah.

The cost of refurbishment per school toilet was put at around RM70,000.

The works for the projects are ongoing with main contractors sub-letting the contracts to third parties.

In some cases, contractors had to redo their work after it was highlighted that the “completed” works did not meet specifications.

What’s your Reaction?
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0

Share this post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *