One hand don’t clap

In an extensive interview with Boyd Reid, Chairman, Trinidad and Tobago Transparency Institute ( TTTI) told Business Day’s Rory Rostant that Trinidad and Tobago  needs a system that will as far as possible ensure that public funds are spent fairly in the public interest, whether it be on airport, CPEP, NHA or other public projects. The world, he says, is watching to see how we address  the corruption.

Is TT a corrupt place when compared to the rest of the world? What do the latest reports from TI show? TI’s latest report is the 2003 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), which was released last month. This shows that out of 133 countries surveyed, Trinidad and Tobago placed 43rd along with Cuba and Jordan. The 42 countries seen as less corrupt and therefore higher on the list included Finland at the top, New Zealand in third place and Singapore in fifth. The UK and Canada were tied at 11th place, the United States was in 18th place and Botswana came 30th.

The countries perceived as more corrupt than we are include Belize in 46th place, Mauritius and South Africa tied in 48th place and Costa Rica in 50th place. Jamaica ranks 57th while China and Syria are tied at 66th. Haiti, Nigeria and Bangladesh are in the three last places. Remember, this does not say that Trinidad Tobago is actually more corrupt than, for example, the US or actually less corrupt than, say, Jamaica. It is a comparison of perceptions, not reality. But if a number of different surveys of perceptions come to similar conclusions about a country, we can assume that the reality and the perceptions are not too far apart. So, to answer the first part of your question, I would say that, among the countries for which we have sufficient information, Trinidad and Tobago appears to be less corrupt than two-thirds of them. In other words we appear to be one third of the way from the top. From what I recall, it seems we have slipped in the rankings.

We first appeared on the CPI in 2001 when we scored 5.3 out of a clean 10, placing 31st out of the 91 countries surveyed. That score was based on three surveys done by independent institutions (not TI) between 1999 and 2001. In 2002, our score dropped to 4.9, placing us 33rd out of 102 countries calculated from the results of four surveys done between 2000 and 2002. This year our score is 4.6 out of a clean 10, placing us in the 43rd position. This score is based on the results of six surveys conducted between 2001 and 2003. So yes, we have slipped, both in score and ranking.

Why have we slipped?
Well, the drop in ranking could be due simply to the fact that, from year to year, some countries come off the list and new countries come on. (This is because, to qualify a country has to have at least three surveys done on it in the previous three years.) So, comparing the place on the list from one year to the next is not very useful. As far as the drop in our score is concerned-from 5.3 to 4.9 to 4.6-we can only speculate about the causes because we cannot know for sure what was in the minds of the business people and country analysts who were polled. At our press conference we suggested that one cause might have been the surfacing between 2001 and 2003 of several cases of alleged corruption, which had serious political consequences. We also mentioned the revelations of the airport inquiry. Others have pointed to allegations of vote buying by the incumbent party before the last elections, problems with WASA contracts and delays in the implementation of the Integrity Act. All of these issues and more could, no doubt, have influenced the people whose perceptions were measured. However we at TTTI think that the main reason why our score slipped is that, despite the efforts made by successive governments, by the Press and by organisations like ours, the observers who were surveyed were not seeing results.

Are you satisfied with the measures we have instituted to deal with corruption?
I’m glad you say “we” because fighting corruption is the business of the whole national community, not just of the Government or of civil society groups like ours. But, clearly, the Government of the day has the responsibility of leading the fight by developing and carrying through an effective anti-corruption strategy. The UNC government’s measures included the Integrity Act of 2000 and the Freedom of Information Act. Also, under that government, Trinidad and Tobago signed the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption. The PNM government launched several investigations, the most important of which being the Airport Inquiry. It has started the process of enhancing the Integrity Commission to make it more effective. This will require further reform of the Integrity Act. For some time now officials of the Ministry of Finance have been working with representatives of the private sector and civil society on public procurement reform. It should not be long before the public is presented with a Green Paper and draft legislation.

Am I satisfied with these measures? Well, the Freedom of Information Act could be an effective anti-corruption instrument. But how much it is actually being used and how effective it really is, we do not know. That is why TTTI has plans to do an evaluation of the Act and its implementation. Hopefully I will then be able to say whether I am satisfied with it or not. The Integrity Act and the Integrity Commission which it established have met with several obstacles that have prevented them from working effectively. The Act mandates the Commission to do much more than receive annual declarations of income, assets and liabilities from persons in public life. It is also to investigate offences of corruption, prevent corruption by changes to practices and procedures and educate the public about integrity.

Until recently, it seems, the Commission has only been able to concentrate on the receiving of declarations and even in this case, lack of regulations and forms has frustrated its efforts. I understand that it is now being given the resources to do investigation, prevention and education, but approval of the regulations and forms has been delayed yet again. It is not clear why since everyone has surely had ample time to study them over the past three years. So it would be unfair to evaluate the work of the Integrity Commission before it is given most of the resources and tools it needs to do what it is supposed to do. We are still awaiting the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Airport Project but, thanks in good part to Newsday’s excellent series of reports on the170 days of public hearings, there should now be little doubt in people’s minds that a lot went wrong in the building of the terminal. When the Commission’s report is published we should have a much better understanding of how things can go wrong in any project where public money — our money — is being spent. This should help us prevent things going wrong in the future. There’s also a good chance that, if things are handled properly, those who deserve it will be brought to justice. So, if the Inquiry results in successful prevention and prosecution, I’ll be satisfied. As far as the public procurement reform is concerned, we just have to wait and see.

What would you like to see implemented to deal with corruption?
My list is very long so let me just mention a few things. I’ll pick out those in which TTTI is presently playing a part. First of all I would like to see the regulations and forms of the Integrity Act approved without further delay. Then I would like to see the Integrity Commission provided with all the other resources it needs so as carry out its mandate not only to receive and review asset declarations but also to investigate, prevent and educate.
This should not interfere with the work that has begun on the further strengthening of the Commission. In fact, any recommendations for further reform should draw on the experience of the Commission working ‘at full throttle’ — something it has hitherto been unable to do. In the longer term I look forward to the Government fulfiling its declared intention to develop and implement an effective national anti-corruption strategy led by an enhanced Integrity Commission.

Another thing that I would like to see is reform of public procurement. As I mentioned already, this is on its way in the shape of a Green Paper and draft legislation. TTTI is looking forward to promoting public debate on these so as to contribute to a reform that is comprehensive and effective. We need a system that will as far as possible ensure that public funds are spent fairly in the public interest, whether it be on Airport, CPEP, NHA or other public projects. One way of improving public procurement that has proved useful in other parts of the world is to make use of TI’s Integrity Pact (IP). TTTI has already introduced the public and private sectors to this anti-corruption tool and we are actively seeking to have it used in a major public project. A successful implementation would go a long way to restoring public confidence in the public procurement process. When we think of corruption we tend to concentrate on public officials, forgetting that “one hand can’t clap.” There would be no bribes taken if there were no bribes offered. So I would like to see private sector organisations developing among their members a “culture of integrity.”

Are we burying our heads in the sand?
I don’t think so. Most people do not deliberately ignore the unpleasant reality of corruption. But many may not be fully aware of the damage it does to society and thereby to themselves. When you are desperately trying to find the money for private medical treatment that, due to lack of funds, is not available in the public hospitals, you may not have time to ask why the funds are not there. But sooner or later afterwards, if you survive, you should come to realise that the corruptor and the corrupted are stealing from you.

From your research, who are the main culprits and who stands to benefit?
I don’t know of any research that has been done locally that would help answer this question. Professor Deosaran of the Criminology Centre at UWI introduced me to one Ph.D. student presently researching in this area. Let’s hope that there will more such work done in the near future. We need all the empirical data we can get.

In TT is corruption becoming institutionalised, and, if so, why?
I think this is one of those questions that need careful research. Without it, we have to fall back on perceptions. Many people say that “corruption is now a way of life.” I think we have to be careful about accepting such statements unreflectively. The fact is that corruption is not easy to study or measure. Both the briber and the bribed have an interest in keeping the transaction hidden. That is why transparency is so important. It may let them run, but it won’t let them hide. What I find to be widespread is the view that corruption is inevitable. Nothing can be done about it. This is something we have to change. The fact is that, throughout the world, things are being done about corruption.

One example is the Independent Anti-Corruption Commission that, over about twenty years, changed Hong Kong from a place considered the most corrupt in Asia to one in which the public have zero tolerance for corruption. Recently they built a large airport with virtually no suspicion of wrongdoing. We of TTTI are aiming to convince people that something can be done about corruption. We hope that many will join us in our work.

Are we seen as a corrupt society?
The CPI results are the only answer I have to that. Is the world watching TT and how we deal with corruption? I think that, more and more, governments, international institutions and transnational corporations are interested in how the countries with which they do business deal with corruption. This is comparatively new. Ten years ago, when TI was founded, organisations like the World Bank turned a blind eye to the corruption that was damaging the projects that they were funding and the countries in which these projects were located. TI can be justly proud of having helped greatly to change that. The World Bank and other similar institutions now require safeguards against corruption before they lend. Corruption is now very definitely on the international agenda. The world is indeed watching us. This is an added incentive to get our house in order.

Are people really interested in whether we stamp out corruption or not?
I think that most people want to see the end of corruption. But it is not necessarily at the top of their list of priorities. Many will tolerate corruption among public officials provided they see it does not get in the way of the government of the day serving their interests. And of course some business people see it as essential to their success. But people can change. As I mentioned before, the people of Hong Kong now have zero tolerance of corruption. If Hong Kong could do it, “who is we?”