NO MORE INTEGRITY ACT

 

Byline Author:
Article Date:
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Attorney General John Jeremie has come back into office and has vowed to deal with corruption and to review the Integrity Act. I commend him for this. There is also a bit of advice I would proffer to him, which is that in one fell swoop, he may be able to deal with both corruption and the Integrity Act, and it starts by scrapping the whole Integrity Act. I would, therefore, repeat some suggestions from an earlier article whereby I proposed that there be a total name change and that we have no more Integrity Act. From my observations and analysis, it seems the whole problem stems from the word “integrity.

Attorney General John Jeremie has come back into office and has vowed to deal with corruption and to review the Integrity Act. I commend him for this. There is also a bit of advice I would proffer to him, which is that in one fell swoop, he may be able to deal with both corruption and the Integrity Act, and it starts by scrapping the whole Integrity Act. I would, therefore, repeat some suggestions from an earlier article whereby I proposed that there be a total name change and that we have no more Integrity Act. From my observations and analysis, it seems the whole problem stems from the word “integrity.

”The New Webster’s Dictionary defines integrity as “moral soundness, probity, wholeness, completeness,” and this is where we run into difficulties. It is not that we cannot find people of integrity and upright character and rectitude in Trinidad and Tobago, and it is not that all such people are reluctant to serve. The problem is that when you introduce into the realm of secular society, the concept of moral and spiritual values and then seek to use this as a yardstick to judge who should or shouldn’t serve, it is a recipe for unending chaos. The fundamental underpinnings of what we believe is right or wrong, good or bad, morally correct or immoral all come from our religious and social beliefs, values and upbringing and can run the whole gamut of what is acceptable or not acceptable—one man’s meat is another man’s poison.

Running blindly
So if someone drank a little too much rum in a party, he may be disqualified, if he kicked a dog in his childhood, he may be disqualified, there will be no shortage of protagonists and antagonists to micro-analyse and scrutinise every minute detail of a person’s life or past. We have to ask ourselves: who then is without sin and can cast the first stone? Who will be fit to serve? We will keep going round and round in circles like this for eternity. You see we need to remove this whole idea and notion of integrity from the scenario and this is not as shocking a proposal as it seems, because you see the whole nation has been running blindly down the road wrapped up with the word “integrity.” It is also not a suggestion that we have as our vanguards, people who are not people of integrity or strong moral fibre, but let us look at the Integrity in Public Life legislation, let us look at the purpose and intent of the legislation and let us look at the mischief it was intended to cure.

The whole concept and thinking behind the legislation is really to try to prevent corruption in public life. So for a start, we probably need to look at changing the name of the legislation ab initio, to something that more properly reflects its true intent and purpose and call it the “Prevention of Corruption in Public Life Act.” This immediately removes the minute character examination under a microscope on a petri dish, of the lives and times of the people called upon to serve because the focus would now be on “corruption” and not “integrity.” It is a whole lot easier to screen and pre-screen people from the point of view of whether they are people who are guilty of corruption as opposed to whether they are in some way or in some minute way shown to be lacking in “integrity.”

Diverse opinions
The fact is that we can legislate to prevent corruption, and can easily define the parameters of what is or is not corrupt behaviour in public life, but we can never legislate for integrity. Because the whole concept of integrity is tied up with moral and spiritual values and runs the whole panoply of faiths, creeds, doctrines, dogmas, beliefs, believers, non-believers, atheists, agnostics and the like, one can never come to agreement or consensus with all people or groups in the society as to legislating integrity. Thus the Integrity in Public Life legislation appears to have been fundamentally and fatally flawed from inception as starting with its very name, you’re entering a minefield of diverse opinions, thoughts and beliefs from which no one will ever escape unscathed.

We need to immediately re-think the whole legislation, change the name to the “Prevention of Corruption in Public Life Act” and instead of an Integrity Commission, set up under the Act, a Corruption Prevention Commission and then just find a few good men to serve thereon and move on with the real purpose and intent of the legislation, which is the prevention of corruption in public life and thus have no more Integrity

Extracted From : Trinidad Guardian Newspaper

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

One thought on “NO MORE INTEGRITY ACT

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *