Login Here
Internet Portals
| Stop Corruption In Papua New Guinea |
|
Creating another anti-corruption agency in Papua New Guinea may be a good call to see into misconducts and malpractices by our leaders. Corruption is a major problem eating away at society – the all is, should there be a second body to look into corruption.
By HELLEN MOLIKI An anti-corruption agency (ACA) in Papua New Guinea could help minimise the level of corruption by educating the public and investigating and prosecuting those who are responsible for corrupt practices. Institutions are already there to carry out some of these functions but are not fulfilling their mandates. Before creating a new agency, it would be fitting to identify and address the current gaps to avoid repeating the same problems and overlapping of functions that remain ineffective. Stop CorruptionCorruption is a major problem throughout the world and is an obstacle to a country’s economic, social and political development. However, despite the challenges, many Papua New Guineans want to see corruption and its effects reduced in Papua New Guinea. For example, the ‘Walk Against Corruption’ campaign in Port Moresby and other campaigns using banners, advertisements and the media are some of the steps that address issues and problems associated with corruption. Papua New Guinea’s legal and institutional framework provides a basis for the fight against corruption. The Police Force, the Office of the Ombudsman Commission, the Public Solicitor’s Office and other justice sector agencies are responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations of the Leadership Code, Penal Code and the Constitution. These agencies also work towards preventing corruption and raising public awareness on corruption. However, despite these commendable efforts, corruption is still rampant in Papua New Guinea. Many calls have been made to make existing institutions work better and also to create a new anti-corruption agency.
Success factors for anti-corruption agenciesRegardless of the type of ACA a country practises, the following are associated with their success:
ACAs carry out three main functions: to investigate, and prosecute cases, and to educate the public in an effort to prevent corruption. The extent to which they carry out any of these functions depends on a particular model. For example, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) is Hong Kong’s model. It is comprehensive, and does all three functions. The New South Wales version of the ICAC is a state agency, not Federal, which reports to Parliament and emphasises prevention. The Singapore model is a small and centralised investigative commission called the Corrupt Practices Investigative Bureau (CPIB). Another model is the multi-agency model, in which all three functions are covered, but by several different agencies instead of one super agency. Papua New Guinea’s approach to fighting corruptionPrevious problems, if not addressed, would also make a new institution ineffective. Therefore, for any institution to work, the underlying defects must be dealt with. First, consider that Papua New Guinea has a relatively weak governance system. This allows for bribery demands to be used opportunistically by officials operating under unclear rules that allow them to invent offences or simply to extort funds from ordinary people. Although there are existing institutions or laws in place, they are not effectively being implemented. Next, a lack of financial and human resources has been a vital issue for most agencies in the country. The justice sector agencies such as the Office of the Ombudsman Commission and the Police are no exception to this; they need proper resources in order to effectively carry out their duties. When there is adequate funding, effective work can be carried out. Also of importance is that there has to be a domestic demand for an ACA. This includes citizens working together with the government to report and speak out on corruption. A developed civil society acts as a check against the government by providing feedback and holding the government accountable to the citizens. Does the Hong Kong model suit Papua New Guinea?In 1997 and again in 2007, Transparency International-PNG proposed the concept of an ACA much like Hong Kong’s ICAC. The inception of the ICAC in Hong Kong was in 1974 at what seemed to be the colonial era, with Hong Kong’s booming economy not evenly distributed to the people. With the support from the government and the community, the ICAC’s work turned out to be very successful. The same could be said of PNG where there are major economic activities taking place but, with little to show for. This might be due to corruption. But in more ways than not, Papua New Guinea differs from Hong Kong. Technically, we can see that an ICAC like Hong Kong’s would be good in theory, but with the benefit of over 10 years of seeing ICACs’ failure around the world, in practice, its suitability for developing countries such as PNG raises more questions than answers. Bottom-up strategiesIn 1997, TI-PNG organised a workshop that included representatives from various institutions that drafted a bill which was presented to the Prime Minister. A select committee was then sent out to collect submissions from around the country with prior awareness done by TI-PNG regarding the ICAC and corruption. Overall, 95 percent of the submissions received discussed the issue of corruption and the need to fight it. However, it cannot be said that the public specifically understood or supported the Hong Kong model. Of the 250 submissions, less than half (118) specifically discussed the ICAC. From this, 56 supported the idea of establishing the ICAC while 62 did not. Again in 2007, anti-corruption reformers were unsuccessful in getting the same bill passed by Parliament. While this may have been due to lack of public awareness and understanding, it can also be said that it was due to a failed strategy. Rather than create a bill and consult the public afterwards, a better approach would have been to consult communities for feedback on how to fight corruption, and develop a model based on local knowledge. This would not only be more widely accepted by legislators, but also by the people at the time of implementation.
Way forward for Papua New GuineaWith the current situation and problems faced in the country relating to corruption, one may see that there is a need to establish another watchdog agency. However, this may also pose the question of what is happening to those already established agencies. They have excellent roles in place but have failed in certain areas. Are these due to lack of resources such as human resource or funding? Or should we pose the question of improper policies and regulations to those who are responsible for carrying out these roles? Many public institutions start with good intentions but eventually their work is put on hold due to lack of resources. New initiatives are springing up because existing ones are not functioning or have limitations. But rather than create institutions that will need additional resources, our focus should be on strengthening existing institutions with their structures, systems and capacities; revisit the areas in which we have failed and try to build and improve on them. Where genuine gaps remain, mandates can be extended to cover them, or a new agency may be warranted to address corruption and corrupt practices.
This article was published with permission from National Research Institute of Papua New Guinea. NRI website can be accessed at www.nri.org.pgWhat do you think about this article? Add you comments and views below:
|