|
|||||||||||||||
|
MP�s mileage claims:
Exorbitant and excessive by P Ramakrishnan Aliran Monthly 2003:9 Please support our work by buying a copy of our print publication, Aliran Monthly, from your nearest news-stand. Better still take out a subscription now. We also welcome donations.
There is no doubt that a mileage claim of RM132,335.40 for the year is excessive and exorbitant by all counts. It is, in fact, mind-boggling. If you compare this mileage claim with the meagre earnings of a rubber-tapper or a street sweeper or a daily-rated worker, their entire earnings for twenty years will not come anywhere near to this colossal sum. Or for that matter, a person earning RM1.000 a month would have only earned RM120,000 after having slogged for ten years. It is really scandalous. That aside, the claims are obviously legitimate under Statute Paper 235/8 which provides the basis for such claims. If so, what then is the fuss? Large and unexpected But according to the Minister in the Prime Minister�s Department, Datuk Rais Yatim, �large and unexpected � mileage claims submitted by MPs must be investigated to ensure that such claims were justified as public funds are involved. The mileage claims may be �large� but are they �unexpected�? Surely there must be a basis for this! Is there a celing limiting the amount that one can claim in a month? Rais further states, �It is not an offence, although such claims must be verified. We need to determine under which allocation the claims are being made.� Surely, there must have been a basis for these claims to be approved and subsequently paid? Otherwise, how could claims be made? There must be a vote for this purpose; there must be clear guide-lines spelling out the conditions under which claims can be filed. Obviously, there must have been a huge vote for the claims, if not, the MPs would not have been paid their mammoth claims. The question is: �Were these claims vetted, verified and sanctioned before the MPs were paid their claims?� This is something that is observed as a matter of routine for accounting purposes. No claim is simply entertained without careful scrutiny. House not in session Adding to this mystery, the Dewan Rakyat Speaker, Tun Zahir Ismail, revealed, �These MPs made claims when the House was not in session. We do not know the nature of their claims�� This is really baffling! Are we to understand that there might have been an element of dishonesty in the claims made by MPs? Is it then possible that fraudulent claims have been made? Is it conceivable that the approving authority for these claims could have colluded with those making the claims? But perhaps Rais may not be all that well-informed as the Speaker who seems to know more regarding this affair. Rais is of the view that �mileage claims exceeding RM10,000 were out of the ordinary�. The implication is that anything less than RM10,000 is normal and ordinary and not a concern to raise eyebrows.
If we read carefully the Speaker�s statement, it might shed some light on this question. He stated, �The Federal Constitution is clear that convicted MPs can be disqualified as elected representatives if they are fined more than RM2,000 or jailed more than a year after all avenues of appeal are exhausted.� Not only that. They will also be barred from contesting as candidates for five years after they have served their sentence. Lim Guan Eng�s case is a recent example of this consequence. As to Rais� statement that �his mileage had not exceede RM5,000 on each occasion from the time he had become a MP�(and) that many ministers did not also exceed this figure� gives the impression that if the claim is small then it is reasonable. But what is reasonable need not necessarily be justifiable. Sometimes there have been cases of people who just cart away a little at a time without arousing any suspicion. This must also be taken into consideration when the ACA is called in to investigate. Investigate all MPs It is not acceptable that only the claims of these 14 MPs be investigated. To convince Malaysians that this is a genuine exercise to combat corruption and curb abuse of their position for personal gains, let the investigation involve every MP and their claims from the time they were elected in October 1999. Instead of selectively releasing the claims of certain MPs, let the public be aware what are the claims of every cabinet minister. After all, they traverse the country ever so often and travel to different parts of the world as a matter of routine. How are they paid and what is the rate of payment? And what is the quantum of payment per year per minister? Ministers are known to have had official functions lasting a couple of hours in the day but had stayed on for party functions at night. Are they paid lodgings on those occasions when they could have gone back the same day but didn�t? Under the circumstance, could a civil servant dare question the minister when he submits his claim for lodgings? We are only too familiar with the fact that at most times, official functions of ministers and party activities strangely seem to coincide. Sometimes we wonder whether the ministerial functions are thrown in so that party activities are taken care of at public expense. It could also be that party activities are so arranged so that the minister when he is in town can fulfill his responsibility to the party without the party incurring any cost. What about PM"s claims? Our retiring Prime Minister has traveled at will all over the world on numerous occasions all these 22 years � at times even skipping parliamentary sessions and indeed absenting himself on two occasions when the Agong officially visited the Prime Minister�s office and the Ministry of Home Affairs. On another occasion he did not even attend the Conference of Rulers, a duty which requires him to accompany the Agong to the Rules Conference. How much did his claims amount to? It must surely have run into millions. If we want to conduct a through investigation, then the ACA must not have any role in this matter. People are simply disappointed and frustrated with the performance of the ACA. There are so many glaring examples of unfinished business; too many instances of foot-dragging. To top it all, it can even be directed to drop its investigation. Remember the infamous case of the head of EPU, Ali Abul Hassan Sulaiman who was caught with drawers full of unexplained cash in his office in 1998? In open court, the former former Anti-Corruption Agency head Shafee Yahya - under oath - had stated that the Prime Minister had interfered with his investigation and had directed him to drop the case. People no longer have any confidence in the ACA�s ability to discharge its duty without fear or favour. What we need is a Judicial Commission to get to the bottom of this problem. What we have witnessed so far is perhaps only the tip of the iceberg. Members of Parliament who feel outraged over this matter and who are concerned with their dignity and integrity must support this call for a Judicial Commission to clear their name and uphold the sanctity of Parliament. No other investigation can restore their pride and dignity. Taxpayers have a right to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding these claims. Now e-mail us and tell us what you think in fewer than 250 words. Your comments may be published in the "Letters" section of our print magazine, Aliran Monthly. Alternatively, post your comments to the message board. | |||||||||||||||
People are simply disappointed and frustrated with the performance of the ACA. There are so many glaring examples of unfinished business; too many instances of foot-dragging.
