|
国会辩论2006年附加预算案时发表的演词（4）：
财政部应公佈以极低价向关税局购买被充公豪华车的公务员、国会议员及政治人物等人的名单。
我要提到过去两年在国会提到的廉政问题，野新区国会议员莫哈末赛益促当局公佈向关税局购买159辆被充公豪华车者的名单。
赛益说，据他所知，其中7辆是卖给政治人物。
这份名单已提交给国会廉政遴选委员会，它已促关税局总监拿督阿都拉曼及其官员出席交待有关问题。而赛益也已向该委员会报到。
该委员会受制於国会条规，在将报告提呈国会前，不能向外界透露有关程序的内情。
因此，我不能说出名单中的名字，我已看过它们，儘管我对赛益的159数据感到意外。
无论如何，财政部副部长拿督黄燕燕医生已承认，她在2004年以5万令吉购买一辆马赛地320型房车，当时新车的售价是59万令吉，二手价则是18万令吉。
為示对国会及全体国会议员公平起见，无论他们是否有受惠，财政部都应公佈以极低价向关税局购买被充公豪华车的公务员、国会议员及政治人物等人的名单，并列出所有详情。
没有人会阻止个别国会议员宣佈他们是否有以极低价向关税局购买被充公豪华车。我就要宣佈，我没买过这种车。其实，在这课题於7月爆发前，我根本就不知道有让国会议员购买这种车的条例。
然而，最令人遗憾的是，经过将近3个月后，赛益要求关税局对他非法自印尼人口的锯木闭一隻眼的廉正课题没有了下文，似乎所有涉及调查的各造，包括反贪污局及内阁都至少闭了一隻眼。
在今天的海峡时报上，又有报导指赛益滥用其国会议员职位，通过手机短讯恐吓马六甲一名高级关税局官员执行任务。
Mohd Said has admitted sending the SMS
to Customs Preventive director Adnan Arrifin over the
department’s action regarding his company, although he claimed that
he sent it “as a friend” he had known for more than 10 years and
that it wasn’t meant as a threat.
The SMS, originally sent in Malay, read: "Ass kum, ji. Kau nak ajak
berjumpa, SiRomainor d mka tak habis habis mencari pasal dgn co aku.
Kalau ni berterusan jangan marah kalau aku bangkitkan hal2 Kastam
lagi. TQ." Translation - “Peace be upon you, Haji. You want to
invite me to meet up. Romainor in Malacca is continuously finding
fault with my company. If this continues, don’t be angry if I
continue to raise Customs issues. Thank you."
Rumainor Sharif is the Malacca Customs preventive chief who refused
Mohd Said’s request to "close one eye" over a consignment of timber
belonging to a company for which Mohd Said’s firm was the forwarding
agent.
Leaving aside whether the SMS is a threat or friendly
message, one thing is very clear – that Mohd Said had misused his
parliamentary position to advance the interests of his company,
which is a clear conflict-of-interest.
I do not want to get involved in the vendetta between
Mohd Said and the Customs, but Parliament is being dragged into the
tussle when it must not allow its integrity to be besmirched in the
slanging match, especially when there is the serious allegation of
breach of privileges by Mohd Said in misusing his position as an MP.
For the sake of the honour and integrity of
Parliament, Mohd Said should be referred to the Committee of
Privileges for a comprehensive inquiry into allegations of his
breach of privileges in his dealings with Customs as well as whether
parliamentary privileges had been violated in the vendetta between
him and Customs, especially whether he had spoken in Parliament on
matters where he has pecuniary interest.
In this connection, I am surprised by the news report
yesterday that the Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri
Samsudin Osman will be meeting the Attorney-General to discuss the
immunity enjoyed by MPs, especially in attacking government
departments in Parliament.
Samsudin Osman - who is to retire shortly - said
government agencies had a job to do and carry out their
responsibilities without fear of favour. He wants to know what the
parliamentary immunity entails.
I agree with the Minister in the Prime Ministker’s
Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz that there can be fetters to
parliamentary immunity, as MPs have the fullest freedom to speak up
in Parliament, subject to the constraints on the four sensitive
issues specifically prohibited by the Constitution as well as the
rules of breaches of privilege which could only be regulated by
Parliament itself.
Civil servants who are unfairly attacked by MPs have
a remedy – as it is the responsibility of the Minister of the
department to come to the defence of any such civil servant in
Parliament or the Minister will be failing in his ministerial
duties. In this case, we are referring to the Finance Minister.
There is also the Second Finance Minister. Why are both of them
keeping silent to come to the defence of Customs Department or give
an appropriate response to the MP for Jasin? Or are they admitting
that whatever the MP for Jasin said are right?
The departmental Minister concerned must either
defend or denounce the civil servant concerned, all the time bearing
Ministerial responsibility for what transpired in his Ministry.
Or do we have a situation where the departmental
ministers concerned are not prepared to discharge their ministerial
responsibilities and to give adequate defence to civil servants
under attack by MPs – as by making public the SMS message which
would show that the MP for Jasin had been involved in a serious
conflict-of-interest situation?
The issue at stake is not seek the opinion of the
Attorney-General but to find out why the Finance Minister and the
second Finance Minister are not prepared to uphold the principle of
ministerial responsibility as far as the Customs Department is
concerned. |
