New anti-corruption body

HAVING regard to the problems we have had with the so-called Integrity Commission and our very poor opinion of its effectiveness, we must welcome the Government's intention either to restructure this watchdog body or to replace it by an Anti-Corruption Commission. In our view, this anti-corruption body has done little or nothing, during all its years of operation, to fufil its vital mandate. In fact, our attempts to hold the Commission to its constitutional responsibilities, to determine what action it has taken to carry out its duties, have always met with a stern rebuff and an insistence that its operations must remain secret and confidential.

It is true that the Constitution requires the Commission to maintain secrecy with respect to all information it receives concerning the assets, liabilities and income of members of Parliament and other public officers falling under its purview. But we had never asked the Commission to breach this secrecy; what we wanted to know was the level of compliance among those required to submit a statement of assets; how many had failed to do so and how many defaulters and providers of misinformation the Commission had referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Our concern was to find out whether the Commission was active at all in its task of preserving integrity at that level of the public service.

It seemed quite strange to us that with the widespread revelation of corruption within the ranks of the former regime, the Commission was able to take action against only one Minister, and that action was disclosed only after it was publicly revealed that large sums of money had been deposited in London bank accounts in his wife's name. What then was the use of the so-called Integrity Commission? If it chose to shelter under a blanket of confidentiality, then it could simply sit back, shuffle a lot of papers meaninglessly, and no one would be the wiser.

The damage of corruption in government, of which we are all now painfully aware, is too severe, too inimical to the country's interest, too destructive of its moral standards, for us to be content or satisfied with the record or performance of the so-called Integrity Commission. We will not accept its determination to remain a secret body, resisting all inquiries from the media for information about how it is discharging its duties or how it is dealing with this major problem. So the Attorney General's announcement in the Senate on Tuesday that something will be done about the Commission is welcome news to us. It would seem that the present Government is also not impressed with the performance of this watchdog body and has decided either to "re-engineer" it for greater effectiveness or to replace it with an Anti-Corruption Commission. The change, the AG indicated, will be based on recommendations of a former Commissioner of the Hong Kong Commission Against Corruption whose services were obtained through the UNDP and whose report is now before the Cabinet.

Our reaction to this change would be to support a Commission that would be aggressive in the task of implementing or enforceing the laws against corruption, not only ensuring that culprits are brought to justice but, as the AG said, also putting in place measures to prevent corruption from occurring. This newspaper has led an unremitting campaign against corruption in government and other places as we are all too aware of its terrible economic and social repercussions. As far as we are concerned, the Integrity Commission has failed to execute its vital mission, particularly at a time when corruption became rampant. We welcome the change to a more effective body.