SEPTEMBER 26 — In Parliament, when geographical areas are called out individuals stand up to speak.
Why do these men and women — though not enough women — respond to shouts for highway exit names? Have they lost their individuality and melded with these locations? “If I cannot find myself, I will find a place to unify with! Be one with Simpang Renggam.”
Existentialist pangs notwithstanding, there is a straightforward reason why they are referred to by parliamentary constituency names.
We are the country, we are the MPs
Dewan Rakyat is the country divided 222 ways. Two-hundred-twenty-two individuals represent all Malaysians — even though it really is just those above 17 years of age and who chose to turn up on polling day to cast votes.
All meaningful — legal, democratic and ethical — powers emanate from them, the elected MPs, thereafter.
In other words, when all 222 are present and speaking — hopefully in turns and not all at once like children — the entire Malaysia speaks. Though perhaps not all of Malaysia is listening, when considering the current furore over MP allocations.
The Unity Government demands its competitors — aptly dubbed the disunited opposition? — sign a MOU as a prerequisite to receive constituency allocations.
No John Hancock, no funds. No funds, no fun.
How do non-pliant MPs pay rent or for lunch? Do they rely on the Dewan Rakyat visitors’ tips to pay for their Grab rides back to their hotel rooms?
No, parliamentarian salaries and allowances are not being contested here. MPs can buy as many Italian suits per month with their salary.
The argument is about the other money. The more money. The money ploughed through MPs so they can exhibit love for their constituents.
There are no legal requirements for MPs to spend on their areas, only to speak on behalf of their elected areas in Parliament.
But in reality, they have to bring their wallets.
Money makes the world go round
MPs who do not deliver physical things to constituents are rarely voted in again. Speaking voluminously in Dewan Rakyat about healthcare or national security is noble, but in a developing country “things have to be given” in order to attract votes.
For this they need both development and general funds. During the uncertain times of Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob (2021-2022), MPs could claim up to RM3.5 million annually, for both development (RM2 million) and general (RM1.5 million) expenses.
Whether to repair roads or extend small envelopes to grieving families, there is no end to the type of help to extend.
But all of these expenses are monitored. They are tax monies distributed via MPs for the benefit of the people. The theory? MP talks to rakyat, rakyat tells MP what they need, MP spends in coordination with relevant bodies for justified rakyat needs.
However, the Italian suit-loving MP cannot use the general funds to buy similar expensive suits for all of his parliamentary and service centre staff. Forms have to be filled and documents processed, and abuses are punished. Italian suits can be spotted by junior auditors.
Rakyat money is for the rakyat, simple.
Unfortunately, as the current impasse continues — PN MPs cannot access development and general funds since they refuse the MOU — not so simple.
If PN MPs are watched on how they spend the money, why is the federal government paranoid?
PN MPs are as capable as BN or Pakatan MPs to spend unwisely, even if legally.
Build a shelter in a swamp. Hold one food orgy after another under the guise of cultural-religious holidays. Fill up another floral arrangement class for single mothers, because everyone knows that divorced women can never stop thinking of aesthetically pleasing flower displays.
All MPs have the ability to diligently waste is the point.
Still, damn the efficacy, because even the worst spent ringgit brings a vote in.
The only five guys who used the shelter over five years are grateful. The four single mothers from 100 picked for floral arrangement as a hobby are grateful.
Voters’ gratitude brings in votes. Naturally, the government of the day prefers to monopolise spending so they monopolise thankfulness.
Abuse of concepts or conceptually abused
PN folks are not the most progressive folks. Nevertheless, they are Malaysians just like the rest of us. Malaysians do not have to like each other but they have to respect each other.
The people of Marang and Pendang for instance chose their representatives, and those representatives deserve the same amount of financial support as all other MPs regardless of the logo they stand for.
These MPs do not need to sign a MOU. They took an oath when sworn in as Malaysian MPs. What is it that the MOU covers which the oath of MP office does not?
The reason PN MPs cannot oppose the MOU method is because when they were in power they made Pakatan MPs sign an MOU.
Should Pakatan do to PN what they did to them? Tit for tat?
Pakatan repeats that the MOU ensures their opponents play by the rules and remain constructive in Dewan Rakyat.
There’s a slippery slope when the team ahead gets to determine what is fair engagement for the team trying to catch up.
And parallelly, Pakatan may feel less guilty because they find different ways to pass funds, resources and development to Pendang, Marang and Bagan Serai. Certainly, but circumventing the respective MP is disingenuous.
Why should the Unity Government representatives in Pendang, Marang and Bagan Serai have more say on funding than the MP elected by the voters there?
This MOU requirement for MP funding kerfuffle reveals a moral crack in how the Unity Government wants to defend democracy.
Opposition MPs do not need to be conditioned or curtailed any further than what the present laws prescribe. There is the chance roles may be reversed after the next general election.
And in that regrettable outcome, Pakatan or Umno will likely pray that they are not condemned to new rules and conditions in the zeal to protect democracy from itself. As PN sees it.
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
