Rethink your position on MPs car money

By Guest Writer

Dear Dr Muniini K. Mulera,
I read your article titled MPs self-indulgence is not new (Daily Monitor of July 27) You raised issues about the governance and said our country seems to have been deprived of leaders with empathy. You described MPs as greedy and heartless because they each received Shs200 million car grant.
I am honestly convinced that your hard description arises from an honest desire to see a country better governed and developed.
However, the article came off as if money for MPs cars was all that was needed to resolve the country’s health sector and other governance challenges.
But long before MPs received the grant, budget allocation to run government had been done. Parliament also passed supplementary budgets to help government fight against Covid19. Money for vaccines and personal protection equipment (PPEs) had been provided for. Several entities including Parliament had budget cuts as government mobilised resources to tackle the pandemic. This information is public knowledge.
Vaccines unavailability and or inadequacy for now is not the desire of government but it’s a situation occasioned by factors beyond the control of our leaders. The long term solution lies in the efforts by President Museveni to motivate and facilitate local scientific developments. It takes time though.
About money for MP cars; you already know that the economy is an interlinked relationship implying that no sector can thrive outside of the other. Covid-9 presents a dangerous situation but does it make the delivery of other services undesirable?
All arms of government must work. The individuals who run them must be facilitated to work. The money for cars is from the allocation Parliament received, not a special fund. The government allocated money to Parliament because the existence of the legislature is primarily to facilitate the Executive in the performance of its duties to the country.
And for MPs to work, they must be present mainly in the House and their constituencies. This can only be facilitated by the means of transport. Since the MPs have two work stations too far from each other, what would be the best alternative in your view?
As of now, individual financial status is not a requirement for one to become an MP. The requirements are: minimum academic qualification, endorsement by a political party or an independent candidature. Would you prefer that Parliament is an assembly of only the rich who can afford cars of their own? If so, then instead of damaging the reputation of leaders by describing them as vultures, would it not be appropriate that you push for a national referendum for citizens to resolve that if one is not capable of owning a car, they should never be elected into leadership? Once that resolution is made, surely, Parliament will not pay vehicle facilitation to MPs. For now, we do so because it’s the duty of government to facilitate people’s representatives to perform roles for which they were elected regardless of their wealth profile.
The offer of a car grant is cheaper compared to public officials at the rank of MPs or even below who use chauffeur driven cars. It would be better for you to see the cost of managing government fleet in terms of purchase, driver, fuel and repairs.
It will convince you to accept that Parliament position of a one-off car grant for five years with the MP footing repair bills and chauffeur costs, is cheaper and that outside Parliament, is expensive.
You could also consider that unlike other public officials outside Parliament, MPs do not choose which cars they should drive across board. While Shs200 million is a lot for one MP, it’s little for another. There are MPs who drive cars more expensive than the Shs200m but they do not have the scope to demand that money be added to them to buy cars fit for their status.
You may argue that the number of MPs is big. Should it be just about the numbers or more about whether they do what they were elected to do?
If the issue is the numbers, before we scale down, have we addressed the issues that occasioned the increase? The increase in numbers was largely demanded by the population. What do you suggest as mechanisms to get the population buy-in?
I share this so that while legitimately critising Parliament, we try to separate issues in order to provide clarity. I also invite you to recognise that there are distinguished MPs who feel offended and demotivated by generalised statements.