The MyDigital ID project is back in the spotlight, this time because of concerns raised in the Auditor-General's Report 1/2026. The report highlighted RM28.13 million in spending that didn't match what was approved by the relevant committee, and that naturally triggered the kind of questions Malaysians tend to ask when big national digital projects involve big money.

MOSTI's response has been firm: the ministry says there were no leakages, no irregularities, and no misuse of funds. Instead, it argues the issue was an administrative and governance mix-up, not a procurement or integrity failure.

MOSTI's Main Message: Administrative Confusion, Not Misappropriation

In the Dewan Rakyat, MOSTI Minister Chang Lih Kang said the problems flagged were caused by confusion in administrative oversight rather than anything shady happening behind the scenes. His point was that the project was implemented transparently, and that there's no evidence the money was siphoned off or misused.

So in MOSTI's framing, the Auditor-General's findings don't point to "funds went missing," but rather "the paperwork and decision trail didn't line up cleanly."

Where the Confusion Allegedly Started

Chang explained that spending details for the National Digital Identity Project (JKT IDN) were presented to both the steering committee and the technical committee in February 2024. According to him, both committees acknowledged the financial and implementation details before the project's oversight changed hands.

That change matters a lot. He said supervisory responsibility was formally transferred in March 2024 to the National Security Council (MKN) under the Prime Minister's Department. From that point onward, the project continued under MKN's supervision.

MOSTI's explanation is basically: the project moved from one "boss" to another, and during that transition, overlapping roles and shifting authority led to decision-making misalignment and documentation gaps.

"Weaknesses" Acknowledged, But MOSTI Says It's Not a Governance Collapse

Importantly, MOSTI didn't claim everything was perfect. Chang reportedly acknowledged there were "weaknesses" noted in the report, but he tied those to overlapping committee responsibilities and confusion over governance structure, not failures in procurement or a breakdown in internal controls.

In simpler terms, the ministry is saying: yes, there were flaws, but they were procedural and administrative, not criminal or corrupt.

Parliament Still Wants a Cleaner Breakdown of the Money

Even with MOSTI's clarification, MPs continued pressing for more transparency. The big sticking point is still the RM28.13 million that the Auditor-General said didn't align with steering committee approvals. When lawmakers hear "spent outside committee decisions," they're going to ask the obvious follow-up: so who approved it, exactly, and under what authority?

Datuk Seri Jalaluddin Alias (BN–Jelebu) called for a clearer explanation of allocations and suggested the National Audit Department audit MyDigital ID Sdn Bhd. That push reflects a bigger theme in Parliament: if a project is important enough to be national infrastructure, then the financial reporting needs to be simple enough for oversight to actually work.

Questions Raised About Salaries, Operations, and Who Paid for What

Another pressure point brought up during the debate involved salary payments reportedly handled by MIMOS Berhad. Some lawmakers questioned why government operating expenditure records didn't clearly reflect staffing or operational allocations tied to the project.

That kind of gap tends to make people nervous, even if nothing illegal happened, because unclear records can make it harder to verify whether spending followed the proper approvals.

Calls for Stronger Oversight, Not Just Explanations

Some MPs argued the situation looks bigger than a minor procedural hiccup. They framed it as a compliance and governance issue, with internal controls that may not be tight enough for a national strategic initiative.

That's why proposals started leaning toward stricter oversight measures, especially for projects executed through special-purpose vehicles. Suggestions included deeper audits (including forensic audits) and periodic reporting to Parliament, covering both financial progress and physical implementation milestones.

The Bigger Picture

MOSTI's position is clear: no leakages, no irregularities, and the problem was governance confusion during a transition of oversight. Parliament's position is also clear: even if there's no misappropriation, the trail of approvals and spending must be clean, consistent, and easy to audit.

And realistically, that's the key tension here. When trust depends on documentation, "it was just confusion" isn't the end of the conversation. It's usually the start of "fine, then show us the full breakdown properly."