Whose money is it? Art is appalled

PETALING JAYA: Lawyer-activist Art Harun is appalled by political arguments about public funds. Do they belong to the government, or to the people from whom it came? Is it the government’s money or the people’s money?

Writing in tones of disbelief in a Facebook posting, Art said today that anyone with the “analytical ability of an ant” could answer the question.

He dismissed a remark by an Umno politician as being a “wholly ludicrous and hair splitting position”, pointedly saying all the Umno luminaries who support the argument were wrong, and advised them: “Please lah, think before you speak.”

Art’s posting was written in response to a report about Perlis Umno Youth chief Syed Atif Syed Abu Bakar supporting a statement by Langkawi MP Nawawi Ahmad that elected representatives were paid their allowances by the government and not by the people.

Syed Atif drew an analogy to the money received by retail merchants in payment for goods and services as being also from the people, and questioned why the people did not also claim a share of the business, as they did about the government.

Art said the Umno men’s arguments were “at best shallow and at worst arrogant”.

He pointed out that the public were not saying they could go to Bank Negara or the Finance Ministry and take back their money or that they could demand their money back from the government.

“If the money belongs to the government absolutely and without any right attached to it by the people, why is it then the government has to present a budget to the Parliament on how the money is spent every year?,” Art wrote.

“Why is it that the Auditor General audits the government’s spending every year and presents his findings to the Parliament? Why is there a creature called the Public Accounts Committee?”

Art said it was “laughable that that kind of argument was used in the first place. Because really, the people are not as thick as to come out with that kind of argument,” Art said.

“It is shallow because their stand does not take into consideration the very glaring issue of what the government is supposed to do and what the government’s duties are in relation to the money.”

He pointed out that elected representatives, or wakil-wakil rakyat, were the people’s agents, and the government was a trustee for the people and had fiduciary duties to the people in relation to the money.

The government was supposed to act diligently and honestly at all times when spending or managing the money, and to spend the money only in the best interest of the people. “It is not supposed to enrich itself. It is not supposed to spend the money willy nilly,” he said.

Art said Syed Atif’s argument reflected “the dearth of intellectualism” among the political elite.

He pointed out that when a customer paid a trader, the ownership of the money was transferred to the merchant, who no longer had any more duty to the consumer. The trader could spend the money as he or she wishes, and he was not a trustee of the consumer.