Dear Editor,
TOUGH talk and stringent rules are insufficient to stop corruption, as this social menace is grounded into a subculture that had its genesis in colonialism, and which has persisted into the present. To uproot this subculture (characterised by low guilt, selfishness, greed, and twisted values) would not be easy, but this does not suggest any paralysis of action to mitigate or control it.

Corruption takes many forms and expresses itself in situations of bribery, kickbacks on contracts, not sticking to specifications, shoddy work, ineffective project management, denying contract award to the most responsive and responsible bidder; delaying payments for work done; conflict of interest, paying off for jobs not completed, sabotaging government’s policies and programmes, favoritism in staff promotion, among others. What is often overlooked is the despicable behaviour of public officials who abuse their position of authority to engage in sexual conduct. And what about trying to steal an election?

At the legal level, the Integrity Commission must enforce its mandate of requiring top state officials, including MPs, to file their annual income and assets report and they must be sanctioned (including given jail time) if they fail to comply.
Another stringent measure was enacted that requires the minister responsible for Finance to publicise and notify Parliament on the revenues and withdrawals from the Natural Resources Fund (NRF). Failure for non-compliance could result in jail time for the subject minister. Though these and other measures have been instituted to achieve accountability, one must ask if they have been effective in curbing corruption.

Why was there a pressing need for both the Vice President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo (at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre) and President Dr Irfaan Ali (at State House) in September 2024 to speak out strongly against public misconduct?
They avoided the use of the word corruption, but their subliminal message was telling. Why did Minister of Governance and Parliamentary Affairs found it necessary to conduct an “Anti-Corruption March?”

As leaders, they know that while the rapid development and transformation of Guyana create numerous opportunities for economic and social development, they also recognise that these generate setbacks that shake up traditional values and unwittingly create more opportunities for deviance, including corruption. In addition, they know that opposition forces would capitalise on this setback (corruption) and would readily exploit it to their advantage.

The opposition forces would be hard pressed to use racism as a political tool because of the PPPC government’s embrace of the “One Guyana” philosophy (with its numerous achievements in diversity, equity, and inclusion) which is so compelling that it blunts the appeal to racism.
Consequently, they (opposition) have elevated corruption at the top of their political arsenal. A caveat is necessary. While they would continue to lament that a significant ethnic group is suppressed, and would only relent if they acquire state power, they will not discard the race card and would use it as needed.

Laws, rules, regulations, swift auditing, and tough talks are insufficient to curb corruption, which is grounded in a subculture which gradually engulfs its participants into corruption addiction. A powerful deterrence for this addiction is jail term for those found guilty.
Since two or more individuals benefit (illegally) from corrupt practices, none is likely to come forward to provide evidence. A few persons who might be inclined, would fear victimisation. This is a major challenge to the authorities. What I suggest as one method to deal with this matter is for the government, through SOCU, to consider undertaking “sting” operations.

Conventional methods are not effective. It is necessary, therefore, that the government works to strengthen (reform) existing enforcement institutions and create an Independent Office of Inspector General (OIG).
The OIG would have oversight and investigative authority. It would review standard operating procedures, specifications, quality control measures, evaluation committee reports, accounting procedures and protocols, areas of weak governance, etc. notwithstanding, in the short term, jail sentence might be appropriate for infractions.
There must be ZERO TOLERANCE for corruption.
Sincerely,
Dr Tara Singh