Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©The Sun (Used by permission)
MakingSens by Tan Siok Choo

IN A rare act of praise, both the Bar Council and DAP national chairman and MP, Karpal Singh, have commended the federal government for revealing the amount given to former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and fi ve former Supreme Court judges – sacked during the 1988 judicial crisis – as goodwill payment.

I disagree with this commendation. To me, the request by the MPs for disclosure was unwarranted for several reasons. First, the trauma these six judges were subjected to can never be measured in terms of ringgit, a point conceded by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

At the Malaysian Bar Council dinner in April, when Abdullah first proposed the ex gratia payments, he said the goodwill payments would be recognition for the six judges’ contributions to the nation and their commitment towards upholding justice as well as an acknowledgment of the pain and loss they endured.

In July, the then de facto Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim refused to disclose the amount paid because he had promised the judges and their families that this information would remain confidential.

Bowing to sustained pressure from MPs, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, disclosed last week that RM10.5 million was given as ex gratia payment to the six sacked judges and their families.

While RM10.5 million may seem an overly-large sum, it should be remembered that not only were these six judges unfairly dismissed from their positions, they were also wrongly maligned. Furthermore, as the prime minister noted in his speech, this attempt to make amends is 20 years too late.

Some may argue the ex gratia payment is excessive since the six judges also received their pensions. This argument is untenable. Although the six judges were given pensions on compassionate grounds, the pensions are an entitlement. But for their wrongful dismissal, these judges had every right legally to claim their pensions.

Payment of the pensions, therefore, cannot be used to redress the grievous wrong that these six judges suffered.

Second, this sorry episode reflects badly on the MPs who pressured the government to disclose the payments. By insisting that the government breach the undertaking given by a cabinet minister, these MPs have shown how little they value a person’s commitment. It also suggests these MPs will also treat any promise that they make to the electorate equally casually.

To be sure, these MPs justified their stand on the basis of public accountability. Because taxpayers’ money was involved, the public had a right to know the amount paid to the six judges, they argued.

This argument is flawed. In this instance, all Malaysians are indebted to the six judges for their valiant – although ultimately futile – attempts to uphold justice.

Since the ex gratia payments were intended to redress the wrong that had been done to these six judges, consideration should have been given to their request for confidentiality. Denying the judges’ request for confidentiality is not only churlish, it undermines Abdullah’s attempt to make amends.

Third, by focusing on this issue, the MPs have demonstrated a misplaced sense of priorities. Were the MPs unable to find a more important issue and one involving a larger sum of money?

I have two suggestions that MPs and non-governmental organisations should consider. Although data about the salaries of the prime minister, cabinet ministers and MPs is available from the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980, it is difficult to find information on how much is paid to mentris besar, state assemblymen and top government officials at the federal, state and municipal level.

Given the crescendo of complaints among those living in this city, I am sure information about how much the Datuk Bandar of Kuala Lumpur earns as well as the benefits he enjoys will be of intense interest to KL-ites.

Additionally, this information should be freely available from government websites, without the need to trawl through legislation or newspaper archives. Furthermore, I would like to suggest that MPs could render taxpayers an invaluable service by clamouring for public disclosure of assets owned by major office bearers in federal and state governments.

In this instance, Pakatan Rakyat is well placed to take the initiative. By disclosing publicly the assets owned by its four mentris besar, one chief minister and members of state excos, Pakatan Rakyat could become a noteworthy role model that the federal government and other states would be forced to emulate.

Not only would this be excellent use of MPs’ time and energy, it would also enhance significantly good public governance.

Opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the writer and should not be attributed to any organisation she is connected with. She can be contacted at schoo@noordinsopiee.com

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed