The Association of Former Members of Parliament yesterday presented a number of proposals, including the suggestion that the financial statements of MPs should not be tabled in Parliament unless the 'Auditing Ombudsman' finds discrepancies.
We could not disagree more with this proposal. We believe that it is both undemocratic and opaque.
As journalists we feel that we have a duty to the public to request access to and sift through the declaration of assets tabled by MPs, a process we repeat every year. In these forms, MPs write down the amounts they have deposited in the banks, the directorships or other company positions they hold and the property they own.
Scrutiny of these asset lists is one way in which journalists can hold politicians to account. We are not saying that we do not have faith in the Ombudsman (or is it the Auditor General?) to go through these declarations, but we can never agree with a proposal that would see less information being made available to the public.
It is in people's interest to know how much politicians are depositing into their bank accounts - especially in the case of MPs who
Editor's pick are also government ministers and who, as a result, are involved in the negotiation of huge contracts. This is, however, not limited to government MPs, for politicians from both sides of the divide brush with big business. In view of this, we expect politicians to also declare the subsidiaries of companies in which they are directors, for an added level of scrutiny.
Some politicians have not always been honest when filling these declarations - there were those who failed to declare their riches or under declared the amounts resting in their bank accounts or the number of properties they own. There were also, of course, the Panama Papers and Swiss Leaks scandals, which showed how politicians sometimes use secretive jurisdictions to hide their money.
This is precisely why the media, and the public, should be given full access to such information, and not the other way round. Scrutiny over politicians should be increased, not decreased, especially at a time when 'corruption' has become one of the most widely used adjectives. Members of the European Parliament have to submit similar asset declaration forms, which are always made public. There is no reason for our national parliamentarians to be different.
Besides, the suggestion by the association also goes against the spirit of the Party Financing Law, which does not only speak about political parties, but also about individuals. Certain donations may be made to individual MPs, rather than to the political party they belong to, and this is another reason why the financial statements should be made public.
To give credit where credit is due, we agree with some of the other proposals made by the association, namely that MPs go full-time and that parliamentarians who are medical specialists volunteer at state hospitals so as not to lose their practice. The proposal that MPs should not work in areas they were responsible for, for a period of five years after leaving office is also commendable. This reduces the chances of the so-called 'revolving door' practice.
Another proposal is for election candidates to be lectured on the Constitution before the general elections and on newly-elected MPs to be taught parliamentary practice. May we also suggest adding some lectures on civilised debate and good manners?