 |
|
 |
|||
|
|
Culture of corruption, a big worry Readers of this column would not be far wrong if they had felt that much of my writing has been somewhat ambivalent on the issue of corruption.A few of my good PNG friends have accused me of being soft on the subject because of my Asian background. There may be a grain of truth in that because for many years, I have witnessed a number of countries that seen high levels of corruption moderated over time as their societies developed better foundations. One of those that stand out has been Indonesia, even though there are many claims lately that former president Suharto has been one of the world’s most corrupt dictators. I have no way of judging these claims but it is clear that broad-based, societal corruption has declined tremendously from the pre-1960s era of the late president Sukarno, one of the most charismatic leaders of his generation. It was a time where corruption, in one form or another, was entrenched from the top of society to the bottom-most levels. It was a time when high ranking bureaucrats and top army officers were likely to be spending more time on private businesses than their publicly funded roles. Most could not make ends meet with their meagre salaries. While corruption remains bad and widespread, I would like believe it has a much lower intensity in today’s society where, amazingly, some academics are suggesting that Indonesia is transforming itself into one of the most democratic societies in South East Asia. It is easy to paint everyone with the same brush with claims that Asians, for example, are prone to be corrupt. It is unlikely anyone making that claim would have observed Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding prime minister, in action. His anti-corruption views and actions are stuff of legends. It has been said he has told former colleagues their lives were not worth living if they were tainted by such allegations. Singapore, in the days of president Sukarno, were not much different from Indonesia, but today, there would be few countries in the world that could match its public servants and ministers. Admittedly, they are well paid for their efforts, in terms of their efficiency and straight forward dealings. All of this is a roundabout way of coming to a point I wish to make. For the first time since these columns began, I am deeply concerned that corruption has become the nation’s No 1 challenge. Partly this is because times have changed. Possibly since independence, with a deterioration occurring from the mid-1990s to early this decade, the biggest challenge has been the lack of resources. Even though the situation remained pretty good in the first two decades after independence, there was really not enough financial resources available to ensure that all children, for example, received a primary education. That problem has only got worse. The situation for the last three or four years has been quite different. The government’s financial resources have increased considerably as a result of the commodities boom and it is capable, and has been, doing much more. But the pervasive culture of corruption, made somewhat worse by the negative demands imposed by wantokism, is a cancer gnawing at society’s foundations. The Government, through its Financial Management Act and other devices, has tried to minimise corruption through greatly improved levels of transparency. For example, the 2008 Budget has an entire section dealing with the K3.8 billion allotted in supplementary budgets, charting out where the money has been apportioned and levels of usage. In spite of these efforts, we know from past history that the numerous trusts that have been set up will be rorted at a variety of levels, from a national level right down to the districts. When people at the village level cry out for development, this is partly because expectations have possibly been raised too quickly – it takes a long time to offset past damage – but this is also certainly the case because money is being stolen by people in charge, sometimes in collusion with others in the private sector. Some people tell me they sometimes get very angry when they read my column. I am sure some will be furious at these allegations. But let me assure you the first step in facing up to a major challenge is to face up to the truth. In a previous column on the supplementary budgets, I suggested that possibly 15% to 20% of supplementary budget funds would vanish due to corrupt or improper handling. But a recent story in The National makes me wonder if it is possible that the amounts that would be “stolen”, rather than put to good use, could be as high as 70% or 80%. It would be enough to explain why some people are able to live lifestyles comparable to rich people in the West, while a large minority – possibly a majority – cannot afford to send their kids to school. Some readers would recall the wonderful sense of euphoria created when Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare graced a fundraising dinner for the Boram Hospital in Wewak, where many generous people contributed a grand total of K300,000. The public was told this money would be used for essential needs at the hospital, at a time when it was in dire straits. We heard no more about this money despite regular reports of ongoing problems at the hospital. But a few weeks ago, The National reported that between K10,000 and K20,000 remained in the trust account for the hospital. The chief executive at the hospital told our reporter he could find no records of any of these funds being used at the hospital, so one can only surmise the funds have virtually been “stolen” and made use of by unauthorised persons. Since this story appeared, I have not seen a single criticism of what has taken place or any demand for an explanation, an excellent sign of the culture of corruption that engulfs the society. According to the 2008 budget, the biggest spending from the supplementary budgets has been in the infrastructure arena. By the end of last year K215.5 million had been spent, including K70 million on the Highlands Highway, from the 2006 supplementary budget. Have all these funds been well spent? The public could well have reason to harbour doubts.
|
||
| Previous | Back to top | Next | |
|
|||
