|
Is
Someone in Charge of the Good Name and Standing of our
Institutions?
The
image of the country has been sullied the past one week and
a half by allegations of corruption involving the Customs
Division of the Mauritius Revenue Authority (MRA). We were
already in bad gear before that. The outgoing Director of
the Customs Division, Bert Cunningham, has stated that many
cases instituted against fraud and malpractices have not
come to their logical conclusion, be it at the internal
level of the MRA or in terms of criminal prosecution against
the fraudsters. He has been severally informed that the
cases could not be prosecuted for lack of solid evidence but
he states being of the opinion that there was sufficient
evidence. This is an issue about the burden of proof and may
turn out to be quite subjective. All this may have created
the impression that there could be a tacit cover-up of
unlawful and fraudulent activities stretching over a number
of years.
What
could have prompted him to come up at this moment with all
these allegations? Is he right when he claims that he did
not get the necessary support to get to the point on all the
identified cases of fraud and corruption? There does seem to
be more than meets the eye in the Cunningham affair.
However, we will be losing our time if we were to
concentrate on the individual and not on issues of more
specific relevance to the image of the country as a whole.
The Opposition has already taken the matter to the streets
and is claiming that we should pay sufficient attention to
the issue of corruption. Now, cases like this were springing
up when the Opposition was last in power as well.
All this will most likely finish off as it has always
been the case in the past: “Can the pot call the kettle
black?”
No
progress will be made and we will keep fudging up issues of
serious concern for short term political gains. It is no use
giving a certificate of merit to the one who comes to
denounce an unwholesome situation, on the false assumption
that the one who denounces should necessarily be better than
the one being denounced. It is no good getting into yet
another gimmick while the core problem gets perpetuated
because only superficial attention is given to it.
Many
cases have caught our attention during the past eight years
the effect of which has been to undermine the standing of
institutions. When bits and pieces of the country’s
institutional framework fall apart, there is a risk to the
entire superstructure. Not many people would do business in
Congo, for example, if the rule of law was on the top of
their agenda. The same applies to Zimbabwe or to Myanmar
where single individuals incarnate the entire power
structure. While one can say that the Congo will
nevertheless attract adventurers because of its vast mineral
wealth, the same cannot be said of Mauritius. We do not have
the minerals. We can however build on a strong reputation as
a society free of crime and corruption and respectful of the
rule of law.
The
fact that we are not getting on fighting crime efficiently
was demonstrated once again only two weeks ago when it was
uncovered that a drug called Subutex was finding its way
rather easily and regularly into the country and possibly
with covert support given to its perpetrators. This is one
example. Stun guns have been introduced and the Police came
up, after the event, to warn those holding such weapons that
they were engaged in an unlawful act. Slippages such as
these accumulate and make the commission of crime an
unavoidable outcome affecting the lives of citizens. Are we
tackling the problem of corruption as we should? The matters
being denounced by the former Comptroller of Customs may not
constitute conclusive evidence from a prosecution angle but
are we sure that everything else is under control? Is
everyone in a position of responsibility being deterred
sufficiently so as not to employ one’s office for securing
personal advantages?
More
than ever, the system is in need of the appropriate checks
and balances if our aim is to preserve the integrity and
credibility of the country. If certain people walk away with
crime, this will assuredly send the wrong signal to others
that the system will tolerate abuse. Nothing will be more
damaging than the failure of institutions. There have been
several cases of institutions that have not held together to
achieve their mission because persons at the top adopt
autocratic styles of governance or mis-governance. Chairmen
and Chief Executives don’t get along. This is not a
feature limited to public sector bodies. Before the private
sector throws the stones at the failure of public
institutions, it should make sure whether it is not itself
living in glass houses. We are not quite sure whether it has
given up its old habit of taking the law in its hands first
and apologising only when it has been caught trespassing by
others. There has been a recent case in the financial sector
involving one large group recently in this kind of
situation. The cases Bert Cunningham is denouncing all have
the counterparties in the private sector while the public
sector’s share pertains to the collateral accusation of
failure to give needed support.
The
more transparency is introduced in public life, the less
will the country be exposed to losing its international
reputation. Denial of access to information is a sure method
of perpetuating the atmosphere of doubt and suspicion on the
country’s commitment to the highest standards. For
example, while it is the constitutional right of the
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) not to have to explain
his decisions, we remain in the dark due to this as to which
factor could have motivated a decision to prosecute or not
to prosecute in some cases. And this does not apply to
recent decisions solely. The absence of transparency exposes
certain decisions of the Office of the DPP to all sorts of
speculations, positive or negative. This does not help in
the age of information and enlightenment. Greater
accountability of institutions without undermining them in
their ability to deliver their duties has to be
contemplated.
Countries
like Singapore have built up an impeccable international
track record and it has helped them to even surpass those in
the West that were once considered the paragons of virtue.
It will be difficult for you to recall when this country was
last involved in an imbroglio of crime and corruption like
the ones being levelled against institutions in Mauritius
from time to time. Such a track record is more effective to
bring investment to Singapore than all the ineffective road
shows we have been mounting in several countries. Like them,
we have to be strict in the implementation of laws, policies
and procedures to make our critical institutions more
efficient and capable of delivering the results expected
from them. We appear to have miles to go before reaching
this station. Compared to an achiever like Singapore, we
appear to be offering ourselves luxuries we can ill afford.
We should not forget that reputation can be destroyed very
much faster than the time we take to build it up.
M.K.
|
