15 Jan 2010

A conclusion of your own

Some statements by the PM give me pause.

"What has to be understood is that there are many citizens of our country who are eligible to serve on boards and who choose not to do so precisely because of the requirements of the Integrity Commission."

The first question that jumped in my head feet first is, "Why?" Then came, "Are they corrupt? No opportunity to tief?"

Maybe I should tone down my thoughts? Yet, I can't help but wonder what it is about the requirements of the Integrity Commission that is so detrimental to prevent people from working on state boards. Or for that matter, from sitting on the Commission? If the IC is designed to prevent corruption in state affairs, and people refuse to serve on boards because of the requirements, then what possible conclusion can one come to other than they do not want to declare their assets and where/how those assets were obtained?

"We are in a difficult situation, and left to the Government, we would have modified the legislation a long time ago but to do that requires a special majority which is not now forthcoming. So we are in a bind."

Are you saying you would modify legislation to allow a more lax IC, or IC requirements? Or stronger? If stronger, why would people want to serve then, if at the moment they aren't willing to do so? If weaker, isn't that defeating the purpose? Or are you saying that maybe you want to introduce some loopholes that can be legally used, like you did in the Monteil/Stone capital share issue?

I think I will end here, but before readers jump onto the bandwagon to agree or disagree with my thoughts, I prefer you to ask yourselves some of these questions, and independently examine the issue. Don't let tribal or party loyalty prevent you from seeing the wood for the trees.

Comments