As the debate about integrity in public life continues to
gain momentum, it is apparent that while members of both sides
of the political divide are being brought before the courts
on various charges related to integrity in public life, a
chorus is beginning to emerge that is singing a song of exclusion
from being required to declare their assets and liabilities.
Last week, this column chose to highlight the Senate debate
on the enactment of the amendment to the Constitution that
widened the net for public and parliamentary officials to
make declarations of their assets and liabilities.
Some of those who voted for the legislation in 2000 are taking
a different view today. At the same time, others are coming
forward to declare that they have declined to serve on various
State boards because of the presumption that everyone in public
life is likely to be, or could be, or will be corrupt, because
of the way in which the legislation is structured.
All of this makes very interesting reading, and sometimes
the lessons of our own history are useful in examining a debate
like this. For example, an article published in the Trinidad
Guardian on Wednesday, September 16,1998, under the headline,
“Govt, industry must act now to make TT more competitive,”
in the column of the American Chamber of Commerce of Trinidad
and Tobago, made the following allegations of bribery and
corruption against public officials in T&T: “In a
survey in which 85 senior executives belonging to local and
multinational companies gave responses, 69 of them, or 81
per cent, complained of this. An overwhelming majority of
65 said that improper practices such as bribery and corruption
prevailed in the public sphere.
“The Government of Trinidad and Tobago lacked transparency
in all its dealings towards its citizens, said 58 of the executives.”
While the American Chamber of Commerce was particularly blunt
about this issue back in 1998, it appears that the reforms
that were instituted in 2000 seem to have offended some people,
while others regard them as a personal inconvenience.
The independent senators of the 1995 to 2000 Parliament were
very supportive in 2000, and they voted for the amendment
to the Constitution at that time.
Some of the independent senators in the current Parliament
have taken the view that they should be excluded from the
net of people who are required to file declarations with the
Integrity Commission.
In making their point, they must be cautious not to appear
to provide the appearance of being too powerless in the public
eye, lest others form the view that they are irrelevant to
the political and public policy process.
James Madison, writing in 1788 in The Federalist Papers by
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay (Penguin Books,
London, 1987), spoke of the great challenges of controlling
the abuses of government that were facing the United States
of America, as the debates about its new constitution unfolded
prior to its ratification in 1789. He said: “If men were
angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to
govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government
would be necessary.
“In framing a government which is to be administered
by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must
first enable the government to control the governed; and in
the next place oblige it to control itself.
“A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary
control on the government; but experience has taught mankind
the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” (pp 319-320).
The relevance of this excerpt from The Federalist Papers is
based on the fact that it expresses a critical concern of
mankind as regards the promotion of ethics and morality in
governmental affairs through the use of controls.
It highlights the role of the people as the final control
over governments, but concedes the need for “auxiliary
precautions” to get government to control itself.
In T&T, the issue of morality in public affairs was first
promoted by the People’s National Movement (PNM) as part
of its campaign in the 1956 general election. In 1974, the
Constitution Commission, under the chairmanship of Sir Hugh
Wooding, had this to say: “One of the root causes of
the growing lack of faith in the conventional political process
is the widespread belief that corruption is rife among those
who hold high political office.
“No proof has been forthcoming of any acts of corruption,
but we agree that suspicions have been not unreasonably aroused.
Such suspicions should, as far as possible, be removed if
public service is to be preserved as an honourable career
for talented citizens.” (Report of the Constitution Commission,
January, 1974), para 235.
The proposal advanced by the Wooding Commission to address
this problem was the establishment of a parliamentary integrity
commission to receive declarations of assets and liabilities
from members of their proposed National Assembly, as discussed
in their report at paragraph 237.
However, the 1976 Republican Constitution of T&T made
provision for an integrity commission at sections 138 and
139, which included two categories of public servants, namely
permanent secretaries and chief technical officers, alongside
three categories of politicians, namely ministers, parliamentary
secretaries and Members of the House of Representatives, who
were required to submit declarations of their assets and liabilities
to the Integrity Commission. In 2000 that was widened.
In 1996, a code of conduct was promulgated for public servants
in the form of The Civil Service (Amendment) Regulations,
1996 (Legal Notice No 217). This Code of Conduct was designed
to address various types of impropriety relating to defined
cases of misconduct.
The current calls for exemption under the 2000 legislation
raise the issue of moral leadership in the society, as opposed
to personal convenience.
Abolition and exemption should not be options for people exercising
the powers of the State in accordance with the separation
of powers.
