If I've said it once, I've said it a million times-we need to move away from this integrity trap contained in the Integrity in Public Life legislation. I have long since advocated that we scrap the entire Integrity Act and replace it with a merger of the present Prevention of Corruption Act Chap 11:11 and relevant provisions from the Integrity Act to create a unified and much more practical and sensible Anti-Corruption Legislation; one that is more precise, focused and to the point of what we really want to get rid of...corruption. Just the word integrity is the root of the problem because it brings into the mix a whole host of nebulous ethics, beliefs and value systems as to what is integrity or not.
Moral and spiritual values
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 moral rectitude in Trinidad and Tobago, it is not that all such people are reluctant to serve in public office. The problem is that when you introduce the concept of moral and spiritual values into the realm of secular society, and then seek to use this as a yardstick to judge who should or shouldn't serve, or what people should or shouldn't do, it is a recipe for unending chaos.
This will put Trinidad and Tobago in a tailspin and conundrum from which we may never emerge until we take a full frontal approach to rectifying this legislation. If we do not do so it will continue to create absurd and illogical scenarios which can be twisted into something obscene, garish and ghoulish in the hands of seasoned politicians for the purpose of scoring political points. This is a dangerous and destructive path to start to venture down, as the very weapon which one side weilds today will turn out to be a two-edged sword. In the end, when you survey the battlefield, it will be a case of "who ain't dead, badly wounded" as is said in local parlance.
Is a free ride home a gift?
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, but this must all be circumscribed by what is practical, reasonable and realistic. So if someone drank a little too much rum in a party and a friend gives him a free ride home, is this to be considered a gift? If this friend then says it's better you stay the night and go home tomorrow, is that a gift and an inducement? You see, we have to be careful as to how far the application and interpretation of this legislation is taken because people may be unfairly held up to public scrutiny and odium. There will be no shortage of protagonists and antagonists to micro-analyse and scrutinise every minute detail of a person's life or past to seek to unearth and expose alleged breaches of the Integrity in Public Life Act.
Skeletons dragged from the closet
It is quite possible that with the searing and searching scrutiny that the society can subject and possibly inflict upon all people in public life, the tiniest skeleton, secret or smallest infraction or error of judgment in one's life will be dragged kicking and screaming out of the closet. It will be paraded publicly and beaten to death in Woodford Square, like a Good Friday bobolee for all the world to see. Remember the case of members of a former Integrity Commission, where the priest and all couldn't make the grade. He couldn't withstand this type of public "character inquisition" and public soul baring, to the point where he had to come forward in sackcloth and ashes and offer the great "mea culpa" and tender his resignation. We have to ask ourselves: Who is without sin?...And then cast the first stone. Who will ever be fit to serve? We will keep going round in circles for eternity.
Prevention of corruption
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 merge the Prevention of Corruption Act with the Integrity in Public Life Act 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 in public life. The focus would now be on "corruption" and not "integrity". The fact is that we can much easier 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.
Corruption Prevention Commission
We need to immediately re-think the whole legislation and change the name to the "Prevention of Corruption in Public Life Act" instead of an Integrity Commission. We need to set up under the Act, a Corruption Prevention Commission (CPC) and then along with procurement legislation and guidelines, set up rules and regulations for all public officials, state boards and public or state bodies governing on how they are to treat with contracts, procurement and tendering. This will effectively put an end to the absurd or obtuse occurrences as can happen with the present integrity trap.