Declarations for integrity

THE country may now be assured that, at long last, the demands of the Integrity in Public Life Act will be comprehensively met and that all persons required to declare their assets to the Integrity Commission will do so by the August 15 deadline. This “consummation” is welcome, not only because of the anti-corruption effect the measures are supposed to have on the conduct of those engaged in public life, but also because it follows a willingness to cooperate coming from both the government and the opposition. It is somewhat refreshing to see that the two opposing parties can agree on a measure intended to serve the national interest. In spite of that, however, we do not believe that this issue has been finally settled. It may, in fact, continue to be troubled by the apparent conflict between the necessity, on the one hand, to ensure that integrity in public life is strictly maintained and the need, on the other, to attract the best qualified persons to serve in various public offices including membership of State boards.

Even before mutual agreement on the declaration forms was attained, we heard about resignations from State boards by persons who preferred not to serve rather than declare their assets to the Commission. A year ago, both Prime Minister Manning and former Attorney General Morean-Phillip expressed such concerns, holding that the “net” of persons falling under the Commission’s purview had been cast too wide. We ourselves had argued that members of our judiciary — which has established an impeccable record for integrity throughout its history — should not have been lumped in this category; that there was really no need for it, that, in fact, it may be regarded as a derogation on an institution that has served the country with exemplary honesty. Be that as it may and regardless of what changes the government may intend, we must now deal with the reality of what the law requires. Looking at the two asset declaration forms, we are struck by the detailed comprehensiveness of their demands.

Required persons must declare their total income from all sources together with that of their spouses and their dependent children if employed. They must also provide details of all their assets — lands, buildings, money held in banks and financial institutions, Unit Trust, mutual funds, credit unions, cash and valuables held in safety deposit boxes, life insurance policies, stocks and shares held in companies, government or corporate bonds, mortgage loans and vehicles owned. Form B, “Statement of Registrable Interest,” requires details about directorships, contracts with the State, investments in partnerships and associations and positions of trustee. The purpose of these declarations should be obvious; they are the means by which the Commission will fulfil its essential mandate, to monitor and maintain integrity in public life, calling for explanations in cases of considerable and unexplained increases in personal wealth or  assets.

If it does its job vigilantly and effectively, we believe the Commission can be an effective way of ensuring a high level of integrity in public life, especially when those found guilty of non compliance or knowingly making a false declaration can be fined a total of $250,000 and sent to jail for ten years. As far as we are concerned, persons who honestly want to serve in public life and, by extension, the national interest, should not be deterred by the necessity of declaring their assets. However, we have heard concerns expressed, particularly by board members, about the confidentiality of the information provided; they are uncomfortable with the idea that ordinary staff members of the Commission would be processing the forms on which their assets are detailed. How confidential would it then be? Hopefully, the Commission will come up with an answer for their concern.