Flood aid should be given to all fairly
Allegations Madani has been partisan in aid to needy flood victims
A national disaster is always the test upon the ideology and fairness of a government in power. The recent floods in the northern states have been no different.
Stories floating around the flood ravaged areas of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, and Perak is that much of the assistance given out to Malaysians in need was based upon voting patterns. Places in temporary relief centres, it was claim was given out to supporters of a certain political party, excluding others. Much of the early aid was dished out to victims through government MPs, and not through official agencies. The government preferred to send out aid through federal agencies, including JAKIM, bypassing the state governments. Kelantan and Terengganu only received RM 25 million in aid from the government.
Mixing politics with floods and hardship.
Many of the emergency suppliers were from crony contractors, who are financially benefitting very well from the plight of Malaysians.
Such acts are scornful, and even seeded with hate towards political adversaries. A sign of a small mind. This should never happen in any national disaster, no matter who is the government.
There are winners. Once again civil servants have been chosen are recipients of special payments. Unfortunately, not all those in need are civil servants.
Fortunately, deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has stepped in yesterday and pledged that assistance from now on will be channelled through the relevant agencies, rather than MPs. Zahid as the chairman of the National Disaster Management Committee is now ensuring funds are being channelled fairly.
Zahid has assured that assistance will now go to all flood victims regardless of what constituency they live in. This assurance shouldn’t have to be made, if it was not occurring in the first place.
Disasters in Malaysia should not be managed in any politically partisan way whatsoever.
Subscribe Below:
I think spreading rumours without documented evidence serves no purpose because doing so is acting unfairly towards the party against whom the allegations are made. If indeed it turns out to be untrue, would the author of this piece be considered as an arsonist?