|
Evading accountability under the BN What is a whole department of government officers hired for? Why are we paying taxes to the government to finance the salaries of civil servants if not even one of them can draft answers for the minister to approve and release to the media, and by extension, the public? By Deborah Loh, The Nut Graph
INCREDULOUS. That's how a journalist feels when a senior civil servant responds to a request for information with a flat refusal to answer. Following the commentary on the need for a Freedom of Information Act, it is timely to relate another story about failed attempts to get answers on matters of public interest from the government. On 15 June 2009, The Nut Graph published a story on how Members of Parliament (MPs) are funded. We highlighted allegations of discrimination and selective approvals that were experienced by MPs on both sides of the political divide. The funding in question was a special development fund for all parliamentary constituencies called Peruntukan Khas Perdana Menteri. This is an annual allocation. The maximum amount an MP can apply for varies from year to year. MPs apply for funds on behalf of projects in their constituencies, but they don't receive the actual funds themselves. Instead, upon approval by the government, the funds are channelled to the state and district level at the constituency for projects to be implemented. The agency that approves MPs' applications, and directs disbursement of the funds, is the Implementation Coordination Unit (ICU) under the Prime Minister's Department. In the course of writing the story, The Nut Graph compiled the MPs experiences, explained the situation in brief, and posed some questions in an email to the ICU director-general, and the agency's public relations officer. Follow-up with the public relations officer over the next few days revealed that the director-general had received the questions and had tasked his special officer to draft the replies. Finally, however, the public relations officer told The Nut Graph that the director-general would not reply. Not "could not" reply, but a wilful "would not" reply. Incredulous. That the head of the said agency, a civil servant entrusted to manage taxpayers' money with regards to how it is used to support the work of MPs elected by the people, would not answer. That on a matter which was totally under his jurisdiction, he would not reply. READ MORE HERE: http://www.thenutgraph.com/
 |
The Blogs 
you should have directed the questions to the Minister or Prime Minister