JVP Propaganda Secretary and parliamentarian Vijitha Herath says that corruption has become a norm in the country with people feeling that bribes are the way to get things done. “The country’s political and economic systems have paved the way for such a situation,” he said. Herath noted that the key to address the situation is to build a strong voice against corruption from within the society and that the opposition has the responsibility to give strength to such a movement.
Following are excerpts of the interview:
Q: How do you view the level of corruption in the country?
A: Every institution in Sri Lanka is corrupt. The country’s political and economic systems have paved the way for such a situation. There is corruption in the state sector as well as the private sector. Offering and accepting bribes have become common in carrying out one’s business. There’s rampant corruption from top to bottom in every sector and it has now become a norm. People have now come to accept that corruption exists in every sector and bribes are the way to get things done. All this is due to the economic system in the country.
Q: Why do you think successive governments in the country have failed to effectively address the issue of corruption?
A: Unfortunately, corruption has become very common. As I said earlier people are aware of the corruption that exists, but have now got used to carrying out their work amidst the corruption in the system. People feel that they are unable to do any work without being part of the corrupt system. People feel that there’s no point in fighting against the system, instead they have so far opted to go with the flow. There have been constraints in proving corruption as well. The lack of right to information legislation in the country has prevented the exposure of many corrupt deals that have taken place. The inability to find the necessary details to expose corruption has also resulted in people being complacent in the face of corruption. Even some investigations that have been initiated have been stopped due to the lack of information. Authorities also use this as an excuse to discard cases they are not keen to follow.
Q: Are mechanisms like the parliamentary COPE and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption effective in cracking down on corruption?
A: COPE has exposed corruption only once. The committee is usually headed by a member of the government so corruption issues are not given too much exposure. However, once when the committee was headed by a member who crossed over to the opposition from the governing party, the report presented by COPE highlighted corruption. The next step after the recommendations is to initiate legal action, which too is in the hands of the government. Most often the investigations stop mid way. As for the Bribery Commission, since the commissioners are political appointees of the executive, you cannot expect an impartial inquiry. The Commission expedites investigations and discard some according to political influence. Recently, there were allegations levelled against Chief Ministers, but the Commission stopped the investigation. The Commission cannot function independently since it is under the control of the executive.
Q: The COPE has released several reports on the losses, wastage and corruption in the state sector enterprises. Do you think that action has been taken to implement the recommendations of the committee?
A: According to the current law, it is the Speaker who has to initiate legal action following COPE recommendations. So far there has been action initiated only in relation to an issue of Rs. 150,000 million. When corruption is noted on the COPE report, measures should be taken to initiate legal action through a complaint to the Bribery Commission. COPE can only reveal the corruption in the institutions, but cannot initiate legal action. We see that as a shortcoming in the current system. There should be a mechanism to give powers to COPE to initiate legal action.
Q: What has the opposition political arties done to take action against corruption highlighted by the COPE?
A: COPE details have been used by opposition political parties to take legal action. The case over corruption at the Insurance Corporation is one such case. Although parliament did not take legal action, individuals resorted to file a case before court.
Q: There has been a lot of focus on the corruption in the state sector. What is your view on corruption in the private sector?
A: State sector corruption has been given a lot of focus since it involves public funds. However, there is corruption in the private sector as well. The corruption in the private sector nevertheless, involves private funds. It is mostly up to each individual private sector company to establish a mechanism that would address corruption issues in the respective institution. Any such mechanism should however be according to the law that prevails in the country. Although some private companies have anti-corruption mechanisms, it is still difficult to fully address corruption since it has become a norm. Most often large scale companies engage in corruption in securing work and tenders related to mega projects in the country. Corruption is used by some private companies to get approvals for various projects. This situation is prevalent even in semi government institutions. These are areas that need to be looked at.
Q: Do you believe that the current laws are sufficient to address corruption in the state and private sectors in the country?
A: Current laws are insufficient to combat corruption. How can one expect to combat corruption under the existing laws when the laws are not implemented properly under the current system? There needs to be a legal framework with more powers to address corruption in the state and the private sector. Also, the executive’s hold on the Bribery Commission must be removed. The Bribery Commission does not have sufficient powers and must be provided with more resources. The Commission must be given more powers by amending the existing laws. The Commission must also be given the required technical and human resources to conduct effective investigations into cases of corruption. The mechanism used in China to address corruption is a good example. They have set up commissions that go to the provincial levels including to the village level and they function as independent bodies. There have been ministers who have been ousted in China due to action taken against corruption.
Q: How do you think corruption could be effectively addressed in the country?
A: The key is to build a strong voice against corruption from within the society. The opposition has the responsibility to give strength to such a movement and create awareness in society about corruption and the action be taken. When there’s a strong call from society, the necessary legal structure and other mechanisms could be put in place.
http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2013/07/07/strong-voice-from-society-needed-to-curb-corruption-vijitha-herath/