Rewards as a stimulus to honesty

We would not be overstating the case nor would we be saying anything particularly new if we take up the position that corruption is almost a way of life among some in this country today. The kickbacks, commissions and 'cuts' syndrome has spread so surreptitiously, intensively and freely that one could not be faulted for adopting the pessimistic viewpoint that it is here to stay and that little or nothing could be done about it.

Bribery and corruption have been around as far as one could recollect but these blights registered a steep hike with the liberalization of the economy in the mid seventies. The observer would be right in saying that it is with the explosive emergence of the 'open economy' in the mid- seventies in Sri Lanka that the opportunities for making a fast buck proliferated most. It is the contention of many that no weighty transactions could be carried out successfully without under-the-table payments not being made. Thus has graft come to consolidate its blighting influence in our midst.

Given this backdrop, it is most unfortunate that only some institutions are singled out, in popular discourse, for castigation on the grounds that they are notorious for corruption and dishonest practices.

The evidence is that corruption is not only widespread but that it cuts across sectoral boundaries and divisions, although the public bodies and institutions may be numerous that are untouched by the evil. In short, no generalizations could be made in this regard and we are not intent on pillorying all and sundry for sleaze.

Nevertheless, the urgency of fighting and putting down corruption is great. The complex issues surrounding the problem of curbing corruption are quite well known and it would not be relevant to recall them here.

Suffice it to know that the state-installed corruption-curbing machinery needs to be empowered more and the personnel involved in carrying out the trying task given all the necessary wherewithal and powers to discharge their responsibilities without let or hindrance. Generally, no offender, big or small should be in a position to dodge the attendant anti-corruption legal regime administered by the relevant Commission.

While this law and order approach to dealing with corruption needs to be sustained, state policy of rewarding honesty and conscientiousness should also be strongly supported. It is public knowledge that the Police Department, for instance, periodically rewards its personnel who have been found to conduct themselves honourably and exemplarily and this could prove a great stimulus to conscientiousness and honourable conduct.

It was only a couple of days back that Chief Government Whip and Water Supply and Drainage Minister Dinesh Gunawardena disclosed in Parliament that the state has already dispensed Rs 8.2 million thus far this year, as rewards on honest police personnel and private citizens.

This is as it should be because honesty has to be rewarded and in the full glare of the public because good examples need to be seen on account of their potential to be replicated by those who witness them.

Rewarding honesty in this manner has the potential to act as a deterrent against corrupt practices because those who are prone to dishonesty would see the value of working conscientiously and replicate the good conduct of their colleagues who are rewarded by the state. However, the state needs to ensure that this process of rewarding good work is itself free of irregularities. If not, the state's efforts could prove ineffective.

It is also appreciated that even exemplary civilians are thus rewarded by the state. This too could have a replicatory effect.

Although there is a widespread 'itch' for the fast buck which makes many a man and woman act beneath his or her dignity, the country is not short of 'small' persons who would not dare take what does not belong to him or her or resort to deceit to fill their private coffers. Such persons need to be rewarded and we are glad that the systems are in place to meet this requirement.

However, a special duty is cast on those holding high and important office to show the way on the question of honourable conduct. The bad example easily catches on and this is particularly so when the initiator of the action is looked up to. Therefore the influential, in particular, need to guard against that fatal penchant for acquiring forbidden 'pelf' and possessions.