Dear Editor,
Last week, on a drive with my family, I stopped at a popular pharmacy in Middle Street, Georgetown, for some purchases. As I was leaving the car and entering the pharmacy, a poor, unkempt beggar-boy intercepted me with one hand outstretched. His clothing was ragged and his demeanor was suppliant, and I impatiently brushed past.
When I exited the pharmacy, my wife, whose unfailing compassion frequently embarrasses me by comparison, was speaking with the boy. She saw me, and pointed me out to the boy, her instructions obvious. He approached me timidly, his hand again extended. I saw that it held plastic bags, each containing three tamarind balls. ‘$100. per bag’, he said, and I bought them. I questioned the boy. He was nine. His mother made tamarind balls and sent him out to sell.
Guyana is the third poorest country in the western hemisphere. We are failing in our obligations to the poor and the weak among us. We cannot afford to be wasteful, careless or dishonest in our use of the nation’s resources and revenues; if we are, we should be answerable to that nine year old boy.
I believe that any official who corruptly squanders resources for political expedience or for personal financial gain commits a treasonable act against our country. His punishment should be ‘condign’, to coin a clichéd phrase.
According to the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for 2014, Guyana ranked 124th out of 175 countries surveyed for corruption. The only Caricom country ranked lower than Guyana was Haiti.
In the face of a plenitude of charges of corruption made during this election season, the incumbent has taken an unassailable position: ‘give me the evidence’. The logic of this position is unquestionable. Of course no official should be punished for corruption unless he is properly convicted by credible evidence of his wrongdoing. But it is equally self evident that Mrs. Singh, sweeping her back step in Industry, and her husband, weeding the grass in the yard, do not have the access to information, the investigative training, or the coercive power which would be necessary to find and produce the necessary evidence. Neither do I.
The practical difficulty in respect of policing corruption is that only the administration has the necessary tools; it is the administration which must create the necessary controls to prevent abuse by the administration. The cat must guard the milk.
My questions to the political parties therefore are:
- Are you satisfied that the Government has managed to keep corruption to acceptable levels within its administrative structures?
- What measures have been implemented to safeguard against and control corrupt activity? Have those measures been successful?
- Is there an independent scrutinizing body empowered and competent to investigate and act on issues of corruption? If so, is it desirable that the body’s investigations and findings of corruption be made available publicly, and have steps been done to do so?
- What further measures have you planned to ameliorate the public’s concerns (real or imagined) about corruption in high places?
Yours faithfully,
Timothy M. Jonas
