The public has the right to know

 FINALLY, the Registrar of Political Parties Alphonse Gelu is getting serious about enforcing the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates.

After being treated lightly, to the point of being flaunted by Members of Parliament, this development should bare the kind of fruit that will see stability in national politics.   

It is a welcome and long overdue measure to hold Members of Parliament accountable.

It is one of the strongest indications yet of just how serious Prime Minister Peter O’Neill is about fighting corruption – perceived or real.

That is not to say the nine MPs out of an original 23 listed for failing to provide general election funding details and who have been referred to the Ombudsman’s Commission are or were corrupt.

It is simply that they have failed to file details of their campaign funding in the 2012 General Election in accordance with the law and that creates a perception that something is not right.

In politics, perception counts and the wrong perception about someone must be briskly discredited. 

In PNG though, perception seems to take a back seat, with politicians opting to take the innocent-until-proven-otherwise stance, no matter how glaring their failings are or whether their standing in the eyes of the community has been tarnished. 

But the way these Members of Parliament or  politicians have treated the integrity law can only be described as contempt. 

This would have been a far cry from what then Prime Minister Sir Mekere Morauta envisaged when he introduced the change 13 years ago.

But what is the need for secrecy? 

Registrar Gelu should state publically first of all who the original 23 MPs were.

He should tell the people of Papua New Guinea how much each of the 14 MPs had to pay, why and when did they make the payment.

Afterall, it’s the public’s money that they had spent and they shoold be answerable to the public. 

Then Gelu should tell the people just who the nine errant MPs referred to the Ombudsman Commission are. 

Naming and shaming should be part and parcel of the price MPs risk when it comes to these type of matters. 

They do not hold back when it comes to criticising in parliament when they have protection to do so even if they are wrong. So why should they be spared in such circumstances.     

Legal action should be the next course should they continue down a vein that is oblivious to the ethical and moral considerations every man who holds public office must respect and observe. 

Gelu should tell the country the details of each and every MP.

The people have a right to know because it is the people who voted and put the MPs where they are. 

But an attitude of entitlement is prevalent among members. They think that because they have poured a significant amount of resources (time and money) that they somehow have a claim of ownership to the office they occupy, at least for the term. 

This mentality then engenders a disregard for following the letter of the law. 

Granted the integrity bill only came into existence on Dec 22, 2001, claiming that a culture of self-service that had grown since independence was hard to shake off – a cop out.  

MPs who fail to provide such details face being found guilty of misconduct in office and they could be dismissed as the representatives of the electorates they stood for in the election.

Should that happen, it will be the people who will suffer as the government’s increased funding to the electorate dries up until a new representative takes office.

The registrar must tell the people why this is the first time since the Organic Law’s inception in 2001 that Section 89 is being invoked.

The 2012 general election and every general election funding details of all MPs and their political parties should be public information. They say a fish rots from the head down so tightening the rules governing parliamentary behaviour is the best method of controlling corruption, negligence and incompetence. 

This is one situation where the dirty laundry, if any, must be aired in public.

It is the only way the people will know just what kind of person they voted for and hopefully they will think twice and harder before voting the next time.