Perlis welfare dept kept giving aid money to the dead

audit-perlis

PETALING JAYA: The Perlis welfare department has found that due to poor record management, 32 recipients continued to receive general monthly aid although they were dead.

According to the Auditor-General’s Report 2016, an “aid” amount totalling up to RM20,610 was given to individuals who had died in 2015 and 2016.

“This happened because the heirs did not inform (the department) about the deaths, and the department did not stop giving the payments even though the information could have been given through the myIDENTITY system,” the report said, referring to the federal government service which allows citizens to update personal information details.

“In the auditor’s opinion, the record management and information on the recipients were not satisfactory,” said the report, which was issued yesterday.

“Information on deaths obtained through myIDENTITY was also not used immediately to stop the payments,” it added.

General aid at the rate of between RM100 and RM300 per month is given to every registered family whose income does not exceed the poverty line income (PLI) of RM830 per month, as well as to other target groups like single mothers, the disabled and chronically ill patients.

On January 6, the department directed its finance unit to expunge the names of the deceased from the list of aid recipients, the report said.

A month later it issued letters for the heirs of the recipients to pay back the amounts.

The National Audit Department also found the Perlis welfare department had given monthly aid to a foreigner with permanent residency status, which it said should not have happened.

“The person was approved to receive general aid of RM100 per month on 14 November 2002. This happened because the department did not investigate properly when approving the aid application,” the report said, adding that the aid was halted in March this year.

In some cases, the same individual received the same aid twice, the report also revealed.

It also said there were recipients whose incomes were higher than the PLI and those who had produced identity card numbers that belonged to other people.