IN every institution you have good and bad officers whose functions are guided by rules, laws, regulations, procedures and customs and practice. In dealing with those institutions, it is expected that officers will act within those guidelines irrespective of whether the outcome is favourable or unfavourable and our perception of their performance will be shaped by those outcomes. 
At times we are afraid to approach those institutions based on previous experiences, but we have to because it is the relevant authority that deals with our particular problem.  And, sometimes we are fooled by a courteous, polite and accommodating approach that ultimately transcend as a front for other ulterior motives.
The allegation of rape against the top cop is a typical example where, according to the accused, his condescending approach lulled her into a false sense of security that allegedly led to her being abused.  While we do not want to stigmatise the top cop by abiding with the maxim innocent until proven guilty, we must also be cognisant of the sayings, where there is smoke there is fire.
As an institution the perceptions of the police force  being very corrupt will not help to dispel doubts as to the veracity of the top cop, given the exposure of similar allegations prior to.  And, this may just be the tip of the iceberg as it relates to malfeasance based on overwhelming evidence of police excesses in all departments, but more particularly the traffic division.
The recent allegations of extortion of station bail to drop charges by a resident of Grove, allegations of sexual favours or bribery to obtain drivers’ licences by a resident of Essequibo and everyday shakedown of motorists where the police act as accusers, enforcers, adjudicators and collectors reinforce the perception that the traffic division is the most corrupt within the police department.
It is also no secret that police officers at all levels instil fear and deliberately frustrate law-abiding citizens through veiled threats and procrastination as a prelude to extort bribes. In other instances their inaction on glaring evidence of violations supports the view that their motive is influenced through corrupt outcomes, sometimes visible to the general public such as taking a fry rice and a beer.  The police may want to tell us how many traffic tickets were issued or charges filed and how many persons were placed before the courts for the noise nuisance, two very prevalent offences.
There is also the perception by East Indians that the police are biased and lethargic in their response to reported violent crimes of which over 90 percent occur within their community.  The normal query of “how much they tek” enhances the belief that they are more interested in a fair share of the loot through complicity with the criminals. We may also want to know the rate of apprehension, in the violent robberies, against the number of robberies committed. And, the current upsurge of criminal activity is not assisting to allay the fears of the Indian community.
The question therefore is, how can citizens have trust and confidence in an institution whose motto is to serve and protect when there is always the apprehension that their grievances will not be dealt with fairly, efficiently and professionally?
I think, the same, in terms of corruption can be said of the Customs and Exchange Department.