Those in transparent houses should keep their clothes on

By Neville de Silva

Normally I would not involve myself in a spat between another media organisation and a third party.

The Island newspaper and the Sri Lanka chapter of Transparency International (TISL), the foreign funded NGO that claims to fight corruption, are capable of looking after themselves without any intervention from outside.

However my attention was drawn to the fact that The Island newspaper in defending itself against the strictures of Transparency International’s rejoinder to an article in The Island on January 31 has mentioned me by name and also referred to this column.

It is true that last December 17 this column had occasion to ask some questions about the effectiveness of this so-called fight against corruption after TISL published a supplement on UN International Anti-Corruption Day carrying four messages by President Rajapaksa, Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, Chairman Bribery Commission Justice Ameer Ismail and TISL’s Executive Director J.C Weliamuna.Two of those messages were from political leaders under whose administrations corruption – and by that I mean the whole gamut of actions that constitutes corruption – has grown if not flourished.

Even though my name was dragged into the debate I might have remained aloof from it had not Mr. Weliamuna referred to the media in general and asked, in defending TISL against accusations of ineffectiveness and irrelevance, “what has been achieved by efforts taken by the media itself in this context.”

His logic appears to be that if TISL and similar “bona fide organisations” have not been effective in fighting corruption so have the media.

Now that Mr. Weliamuna has sought to chastise the media in general one is justified in entering the debate because his specious argument cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged.

TISL calls itself a pioneering national non-governmental organisation involved in “combating and rolling back corruption.” If so the only rationale for its existence is its purported fight to mitigate corruption, if not eliminate it all together.That battle could naturally take different forms but ultimately combating corruption in its broadest sense is TISL’s sole concern, other than its own survival one presumes.

Surely that is not the only concern of the media though taking up the battle to rid society of corruption which is eating into the vitals of our society and exposing when and where it occurs, is also the function of the media.

But the media has much larger responsibilities. Its role is to inform, educate, create or reflect opinion and entertain, though I suppose editors would not have to worry too much about the last function as long as those like Weliamuna who accuse the media of defamation and malice before thought and make veiled threats of dire consequences, continue to contribute to the media.

As Weliamuna well knows if he or his organisation has been defamed there are legal remedies. After all, one of Transparency International’s local chapters-the German one-did threaten legal action last year against a web site after it exposed the manner in which a TI employee was dismissed.

The website became a cause celebre when the issue became public and bloggers from around the world, including in Latin America, joined battle and in several languages too, on behalf of the threatened website and the sacked employee much to the embarrassment of TI Deutschland which ended up withdrawing one of its own a press releases.

Basically, Transparency International Deutschland did not want its actions made public. So much for Transparency’s boasts of transparency. Like charity, transparency too, should begin at home.

If the media have failed to influence decision and policy makers to take up arms against a sea of corruption then how much greater is the failure of organisations that dedicate themselves solely to this task?

Moreover media exposure of possible corruption in high places, in government and state institutions surely helped organisations such as TISL to follow them up, issuing press releases and launching projects or other activities and possibly even seeking funds from foreign donors to follow up such leads or accumulated evidence.

One of TISL’s own press releases says that it is concerned at the conduct of some cabinet and non-cabinet ministers “whose serious misbehaviour has been reported in the media over the last few months.”

Talking of foreign funding, Weliamuna takes umbrage with the newspaper for “insinuating” as he calls it, that TISL’s directors are not aware of its financial status.

In doing so he says that the directors are persons with “high integrity” and “serve in an entirely voluntary capacity due to their commitment to the public interest” and never received any remuneration or salaries.

Is one to conclude then that those who do draw salaries from TISL are not committed to the “public interest?” or am I reading too much into Weliamuna’s attempt to live up to what is implied by the name of his organisation, Transparency?Weliamuna argues that the failure of governments to respond to public calls to end corruption must “be vested on the government.”

That is fine. It means that governments and their leaders are deaf to calls from organisations such as TISL and the media too he would say and have little or no interest in changing the status quo that encourages corruption.

While it is certainly true that a major culprit is government and those who hold office in them, it surely takes two to tango. I am talking here of bribery and graft.

One cannot accept or demand bribes unless there is one or more persons who offer bribes or from whom such demands could be made.

One of the shortcomings of Transparency International was that when it launched its Corruption Perception Index (CPI) it only looked at governments round the world.

One could question its methodology and the sources of its information – mainly from those with business or economic interests and therefore suspect or subjective. This approach did not make the CPI very authoritative except if one were to compare say the top 10 with the bottom 10 which tends to indicate systemic failures in those at the bottom.

The real drawback was – and it has now been corrected somewhat – is that TI never looked at those who offered bribes such as the big multinationals and corporations determined to strike deals in developing countries in whatever way they could.

Now, of course TI has a bribe givers index and has gone some way to rectify its one-sided approach.

The question to ask then is what has TISL done to address this very issue? It is fine blaming governments – and doubtless they are responsible for much that happens – but what about the bribe givers?

I may not have looked too carefully but the only reference I could find on TISL’s website to anything approaching this is a “Brain storming workshop to develop the anti-corruption manual.”

If following this “brain storming” session scientists noticed a large scale emission of greenhouse gases causing another gaping hole in the ozone layer let me hasten to add that it must have been a mere coincidence.

Leave alone newspaper reports, the stories floating around in Colombo about big money being offered by major potential contractors and multinationals should have been sufficient for TISL to launch a “project” or “activity” that focussed on attempts at bribery and corruption by the private sector, particularly foreign companies.

But then how would some of TISL’s many foreign donors react to a study on private sector corruption? Remember that many foreign governments recognise the fact that their companies need to offer gratifications to promote business.

It is known that in many countries in Europe such gratifications offered to customers could be legitimately claimed as income tax deductions.

Is it not correct that in Norway and France one does not even have to declare this for tax purposes?

Isn’t Norway and some other European countries big donors to TISL activities and that Norway even funded a study on corruption in the Sri Lanka police?

International non-governmental organisations, of which TI is one, agreed to the Accountability Charter that was approved a few years ago.

That Charter states “We recognise that transparency and accountability are essential to good governance, whether by governments, business or non-profit organisations.”

Should not organisations such as TISL accept the fact that it is not enough to target only governments and that there are other players including NGOs involved in nefarious activities?

Space does not permit me to say all that I need and have to say about TISL and similar NGOs.

But suffice it to say that judging by the plethora of press releases – some with unnecessarily abrasive headlines by TISL issued almost at the drop of a diphthong, TISL seems to be venturing into the field of local politics rather than pursing diligently its mandate of rolling back corruption.

Four years ago TISL issued a press release asking the government to implement the Assets and Liabilities Law under which ministers and MPs, among others, have to submit declarations.

TISL’s great public enthusiasm seems to have waned over the years. We heard just the other day that ministers and MPs – or some of them have not submitted their declarations for the last two years and the Speaker has maintained a deafening silence.
The Speaker, it seems, is not the only one.