PAC calls for judiciary-run bail payment system after contract breach by e-Jamin provider
The Public Accounts Committee reported that Dapat Vista (M) Sdn Bhd operated the e-Jamin bail system in 192 courts for five years without a formal contract, depositing funds into its own account.
In a report tabled in the Dewan Rakyat, the Public Accounts Committee highlighted that Dapat Vista (M) Sdn Bhd has run the e-Jamin electronic bail system across 192 courts since January 2020 without a formal government agreement, relying on repeated special exemptions. PAC chair Mas Ermieyati Samsudin noted that bail monies totaling RM193.71 million were deposited into the company’s commercial account, breaching Article 97(1) of the Federal Constitution and Section 7 of the Financial Procedure Act 1957.
The firm invested RM130.8 million of those funds under its own name and earned annual interest estimated at RM4-5 million, outside government oversight. An unexplained gap of RM557,258 between the system’s records and bank statements was also identified. The committee recommended that the government swiftly conclude a formal contract, define “public money,” ensure bail funds are managed according to existing financial laws, verify criminal bail deposit accounts, and tighten ICT procurement and financial exemption rules.
Why it matters
Mismanagement of bail funds threatens public money and calls for stronger oversight of government-contracted ICT services.
How the sides frame it
HIGH AGREEMENTBoth camps report the same facts about the e-Jamin bail system’s lack of a formal contract, constitutional breaches, and financial irregularities, differing only in headline wording.
CENTER
Centrist coverage frames the story as the PAC urging a judiciary-run bail payment system after exposing constitutional breaches and financial mismanagement.
RIGHT
Right-leaning coverage frames the story as the PAC flagging the e-Jamin system’s operation without a formal government contract and violations of legal provisions.
The right emphasises
- the system operated for five years without any Letter of Appointment, Acceptance, Intent or similar contract
- depositing bail funds into a commercial account violated Article 97(1) and the Financial Procedure Act
- a discrepancy of RM557,258 was identified in the records
In this story
