IS PARLIAMENT a place where laws are made or, as recent events have demonstrated, an avenue for its disgruntled members to air their personal grouses?
MPs must serve the people, not air personal grouses
IS PARLIAMENT a place where laws are made or, as recent events have demonstrated, an avenue for its disgruntled members to air their personal grouses?
What was Datuk Mohd Said Yusof thinking of when he met reporters at the Parliament House lobby on Tuesday? That there was malpractice in the Customs Department, all because he could not buy a seized Mercedes-Benz?
The Jasin MP, who has an ongoing feud with the department, has somehow diminished the stature of the august House. Surely there are other avenues for him to seek recourse when he was told that he could not buy the Mercedes-Benz that he was eyeing.
Although it was not quite clear what Mohd Said’s thoughts were when he told reporters he could not get the “luxury car” that he wanted, one thing’s for certain – voters in the parliamentary constituency of Jasin in Malacca expect more than that from their elected representative.
Certainly the voters would want him to concentrate on more serious issues, such as improving their livelihood and attending to their basic needs. Instead, the people of Jasin had their representative complaining that he could not get his Merc.
If Mohd Said is not careful from now on, he will only become a liability to the ruling coalition and provide an avenue for the opposition to continue criticising the Government.
It would be good for Mohd Said, and for other elected representatives, to remember that when they were elected to the House, they had promised to make life better for their constituents.
The election is a contract between two parties. The voters gave their support in the hope that those they had backed would bring up issues affecting them. Voters want a better life and, most certainly, would not care if their elected representative had been denied the chance to buy a seized luxury car.
The MPs’ behaviour in the House would also reflect on the government of the day. When Prime Minister and Barisan Nasional chairman Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi chose the candidates for the last general election, he did not anticipate this.
As MPs, Abdullah would expect them to spearhead his efforts to bring prosperity to the people and to make the nation a better place for all.
Abdullah would also expect representatives of the ruling coalition to set a good example to the people who voted them in, not what Mohd Said had done.
All his previous allegations against the Customs have been answered. Even this most recent one has been clarified by Customs director-general Datuk Abdul Rahman Abdul Hamid.
As for the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity, would it be a wise move on its part to call up Abdul Rahman to reply to unsubstantiated allegations made by Mohd Said?
The committee should remember that Mohd Said, until now, has not provided compelling evidence to back his allegations. Most of his allegations were made in Parliament, where he has immunity.
All he claimed was that he had evidence of Customs' malpractices. Perhaps the committee, before asking Abdul Rahman, should ask Mohd Said to furnish evidence.
Should the committee proceed with asking Abdul Rahman to explain before evidence was presented, it (the committee) would have endorsed Mohd Said’s allegations against the department – sans evidence.
The Parliament is a place where serious business is conducted. Qualified privileges apart, its members should not abuse these privileges to air petty complaints.
As for Mohd Said, he should take a breather and reflect on what it really means to be a Yang Berhormat. He is there to serve the people, not whine when he could not buy a seized car.
Another thing Mohd Said should take heed of: the offer made to him by Customs is not a right to buy – it is a privilege.
Related Stories:
MPs: No such privilege
Customs: Mohd Said can make fresh bid for a Merc
Reps have same perks as top government officers
IS PARLIAMENT a place where laws are made or, as recent events have demonstrated, an avenue for its disgruntled members to air their personal grouses?
What was Datuk Mohd Said Yusof thinking of when he met reporters at the Parliament House lobby on Tuesday? That there was malpractice in the Customs Department, all because he could not buy a seized Mercedes-Benz?
The Jasin MP, who has an ongoing feud with the department, has somehow diminished the stature of the august House. Surely there are other avenues for him to seek recourse when he was told that he could not buy the Mercedes-Benz that he was eyeing.
Although it was not quite clear what Mohd Said’s thoughts were when he told reporters he could not get the “luxury car” that he wanted, one thing’s for certain – voters in the parliamentary constituency of Jasin in Malacca expect more than that from their elected representative.
Certainly the voters would want him to concentrate on more serious issues, such as improving their livelihood and attending to their basic needs. Instead, the people of Jasin had their representative complaining that he could not get his Merc.
If Mohd Said is not careful from now on, he will only become a liability to the ruling coalition and provide an avenue for the opposition to continue criticising the Government.
It would be good for Mohd Said, and for other elected representatives, to remember that when they were elected to the House, they had promised to make life better for their constituents.
The election is a contract between two parties. The voters gave their support in the hope that those they had backed would bring up issues affecting them. Voters want a better life and, most certainly, would not care if their elected representative had been denied the chance to buy a seized luxury car.
The MPs’ behaviour in the House would also reflect on the government of the day. When Prime Minister and Barisan Nasional chairman Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi chose the candidates for the last general election, he did not anticipate this.
As MPs, Abdullah would expect them to spearhead his efforts to bring prosperity to the people and to make the nation a better place for all.
Abdullah would also expect representatives of the ruling coalition to set a good example to the people who voted them in, not what Mohd Said had done.
All his previous allegations against the Customs have been answered. Even this most recent one has been clarified by Customs director-general Datuk Abdul Rahman Abdul Hamid.
As for the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity, would it be a wise move on its part to call up Abdul Rahman to reply to unsubstantiated allegations made by Mohd Said?
The committee should remember that Mohd Said, until now, has not provided compelling evidence to back his allegations. Most of his allegations were made in Parliament, where he has immunity.
All he claimed was that he had evidence of Customs' malpractices. Perhaps the committee, before asking Abdul Rahman, should ask Mohd Said to furnish evidence.
Should the committee proceed with asking Abdul Rahman to explain before evidence was presented, it (the committee) would have endorsed Mohd Said’s allegations against the department – sans evidence.
The Parliament is a place where serious business is conducted. Qualified privileges apart, its members should not abuse these privileges to air petty complaints.
As for Mohd Said, he should take a breather and reflect on what it really means to be a Yang Berhormat. He is there to serve the people, not whine when he could not buy a seized car.
Another thing Mohd Said should take heed of: the offer made to him by Customs is not a right to buy – it is a privilege.
Related Stories:
MPs: No such privilege
Customs: Mohd Said can make fresh bid for a Merc
Reps have same perks as top government officers
posted by SEE FU at 10:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home