Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim stated in Parliament yesterday that during his visits to five countries over the past two months, 80% of the costs were borne by private companies.

Following his statement, he needs to come forward and clarify why 80% of the costs for his recent overseas visits were funded by private companies. It must be questioned as to whether the government or the Prime Minister himself has committed to any form of reciprocal arrangements, leading to concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) should intervene to ensure that there have not been any blurred lines of corruption. Corruption is to gain improper rewards by using one’s official position. The Prime Minister himself allowing private companies to cover the costs of government officials’ overseas visits raises suspicions of covert corruption. MACC should conduct investigations to ensure that the Prime Minister’s acceptance of these private enterprising funding for his overseas trips were given in a fully transparent and legal manner; it must be compliant with the nation’s regulations and guidelines.

This is not a matter of being stern, but a matter of accountability and transparency in governance. There is always a price to be paid for ‘free’ offerings, and ultimately, someone will end up footing the bill. In business terms, no company would engage in a loss-making venture.

MACC’s website clearly outlines that government officials are prohibited from accepting any form of gifts while conducting their duties; these gifts cover many forms and may include money, free tickets, stocks, lottery tickets, travel conveniences, entertainment, services, club memberships, any form of commission, gift baskets, ornaments, gold, and other valuables.

Datuk Seri Anwar often speaks about anti-corruption rhetoric. However, he is accepting ‘conveniences’ and ‘gifts’ from private enterprises, raising questions of whether there are contradictions in his words.

We need to bring to question why costs were not covered by the appropriate government administrative for expenses. If the Prime Minister’s overseas visits were genuinely necessary for official duties, why, then, should private companies bear the costs? Are his expenses so large that the government cannot afford them? 

We urge the Prime Minister to clearly explain how much the 80% sponsorship amounts to, what it covers, and whether the private companies will receive equal or greater returns in exchange. We also urge for MACC to step in to conduct a fair and professional investigation to avoid public concerns over the possibility of collusion between officials and businesses.

In order to preserve the government’s credibility, the Prime Minister must provide a clear explanation, ensure that all sponsorship sources are transparent, and prove that there has been no exchange of benefits or conflict of interest involved.

Saw Yee Fung
MCA Youth Secretary General

22 November 2024

-MCA Comm-