Putrajaya urged to abolish MP’s fixed allowances to avoid similar fall-out to Indonesia

 

BILLOWING smoke, burning government buildings and angry mobs. Those were the scenes unfolding in neighbouring Indonesia as angry citizens took to the streets to protest the death of an e-hail rider and escalating costs of living.

But the spark that lit the fire in Jakarta was news of government officials receiving handsome housing allowances with MPs seen dancing in Parliament.

Perhaps sensing similarities in public opinion, industrialist/thinker khalid karim STEMKITA (@Khalidkarim) suggested on X that all fixed allowances for elected representatives as well as senior government officials be abolished.

A claims system based on actual costs incurred supported by receipts should be implemented to encourage transparency.

In the reckoning of the science, tech, engineering and math (STEM) education advocate, this will ensure accountability and align public spending with genuine needs while preventing abuse.

The poster was reacting to a list of allowances published in Malaysiakini and BFMNews with the post eliciting plenty of responses as evident from it having generated 218.2K views at the time of writing.

Agreeing with the poster, one commenter simply stated that transparency was of the utmost importance.

Some commenters wondered if such a move would be counter-productive given by removing fixed allowances, it would actually breed more corrupt practices.

One went on to express concern that this would lead to a system where elected reps will be susceptible to lobbyists as is the case of the US.

One commenter argued that it may be an unpopular opinion but it was the first condition that an elected representative CANNOT be mired in poverty, an insinuation that this is a sure way to encourage corruption.

Some even contended that such fixed allowances were justified considering that Malaysian civil servants and elected reps were poorly renumerated.

However, there were those who took the opposite view, feeling these bunch were already on “crazy salary”. This did not include other perks and pensions which should be done away with.

One commenter could not hide his contempt at the numerous perks and benefits MPs were entitled to. He suggested that these “expenses” be borne by the MPs themselves and that pensions should only be given to those who have served in public office 10 years or more.

There were calls to revamp the system. One asserted that the monies would be better spent assisting frontliners such as firefighters and the armed forces.

Another commenter laid bare the truth when he pointed out that nobody would want to be an MP if these fixed allowances were abolished.

It was also reasoned out that such fixed allowances were fine for senior government officials as they had worked many years to reach their positions. However, such payouts to MPs need to be re-examined.

As can be seen from the varying comments, views differ whether abolishing such fixed allowances would actually improve performance and encourage transparency. As pointed out by some, such allowances were designed to eliminate graft.

However, many comments indicated that the public battling a cost-of-living crisis have had it with MPs having an easy and privileged existence.

This was summed up by one commenter who sarcastically mooted that “there should also be allowances for MPs to urinate and pass motion”. 

 - Focus Malaysia