in responding to facebook entry by
Chong Chieng Jen If my allegation that “80% of the development Fund for 2009 is controlled by Minister of Finance” is damaging to the State, the correct thing for BN to do is not to allocate such high proportion of the budget for Ministry of Finance. There should be fiscal decentralisation. More allocations to be given to other ministries, not concentrating on the Ministry of Finance only.
Dear YB Chong (in reply to your posting on FB) and all the other YB reading this article on my blog.
I see your allegations from two perspectives.
Firstly, from your perspective. I think the overwhelming need for you to do something has caused you to ask the question on the allotment of funds. I see this as propaganda, I questions the necessity of these questions. whether its your job requirement as a YB or not, I am not sure cause nowadays, I didn’t see as much of YB doing actual ground work as in the old days when my late uncle was still around. To me, it makes no difference on how much is for this and how much is for that. It will make more sense if we, the people will know how much is direct and how much is indirect. A different retrospect.
I see both camps of politics is harping on their own seeing and doings. It seems that nowadays, YB are high and mighty people who fights for the right of people, be it in any camp. There are protocols set for YB. I don’t know how to picture it clearly here in words. In the old days, when the few YB I knew from my uncle’s days (prefer not to be named) met people in the face of deluge, they went and gave alms to these people on first instance notice. They don’t wait for the photographers to show up. They don’t wait for reporters to be on the ground before they arrived. They were the first to be duly there if not of the people who are already there. One who visited my late uncle in his office got a call from a “ketua kampung” and he cut short the meeting with my uncle just to be with his people. What they get in return is hug and kisses, and much respect from the people who has received alms from them. This is only one example. I only see these in the golden old days. Nowadays, it is just a childhood memory for me.
I always ask myself what are all these projects here and there for? Are they for the people or are they for a people? If the allotment is a direct channel of funds to the benefits of the people, why none of the ministry can quantify and qualify the benefits out on writings for the benefit of the people? There is no definition of how direct and indirect will it be for the people. Commonisation of saying “This benefits the people” has been used by politician of both camps and none of them can tell so far, how direct and/or indirect these benefits are. In school times, when we make an allegations or assumption in statement, we were told to support it with facts, knowledge of facts. I surely didn’t see any facts other than quoting a few numbers here and there. Are those facts? Can it be explicit? Those in the politic or around it will always flip the commonising inside out (correct me if I am wrong) I only see a few who still maintain their stance on commonisation.
I wouldn’t question how someone handle one’s bank account, it is just not the right things to do. I would rather questions how the spending is going to be, how efficient the money is going to be managed, how well will the delivery channel from the result of using the money and in the end, who is the recipient of the money.
Disclaimer: This writing is an expression of my own thoughts of the subject with no explicit intend. Reader discretion is advised.