Let there be oversight............by Kath Noble
It isn’t clear why the first and often sole response of organisations whose mission statements and every other utterance stress the importance of governance to any criticism or even scandal in their midst always seems to be the equivalent of circling the wagons. Rather than checking to see whether there is something amiss, we are usually just treated to a litany of denials and obfuscation. Principles like transparency and accountability that don’t appear in the slightest bit flexible when they are being shouted at full volume outside the main railway station abruptly and unashamedly become pointless.
I was prompted to reflect on this on reading an article on the interim report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on NGOs that was presented the other day. It was authored by Basil Fernando of the Asian Human Rights Commission, an outfit based in Hong Kong that is awfully keen on laying into the Government for its every misdemeanour. I don’t know whether it is one of the NGOs attacked by the Parliamentary Select Committee, but I certainly hope it is doing a good job.
Basil Fernando argued that it was ridiculous to look into the abuse of funds by NGOs when there were so many problems of a similar nature in Government institutions. Thereafter followed a lengthy exposition of depressing charges against the Police, the Ministry of Defence, the Inland Revenue Department and others. Public money is embezzled to a much greater degree in such places, he asserted. They have access to more funds. Therefore the only necessary action, said Basil Fernando, was to strengthen and better implement the existing laws on corruption. He argued that going after a few sprats in NGOs while there were all those sharks loose in Government institutions was simply distracting attention from the real issue.
One point Basil Fernando cheerfully disregarded is that the reason we know such a lot about the abuse of funds in Government institutions is that the Auditor General produces reports on the subject on a regular basis. These are often left to rot in cupboards, but that’s another matter. At least there is a system in place, and hundreds of organisations exist to press for improvements. People officially have the right to influence the work of Government institutions, even if they don’t always manage to exercise it. Meanwhile, there are absolutely no democratic controls over public money that is handled by NGOs. There are only a few elements of a process. NGOs who opt to register are supposed to provide information on what they get up to, but it isn’t followed up or properly reviewed, and many avoid it. There are no standards. Government institutions working in the same field often haven’t a clue about their existence, never mind the rest of the population. The Asian Human Rights Commission may have some kind of a file on record in Hong Kong, but that isn’t going to help Sri Lankans concerned about its work.
Corruption is as prevalent in NGOs as it is elsewhere. We were reminded of this recently when it emerged that Sunanda Deshapriya had resigned from his position with the Centre for Policy Alternatives having returned some Rs. 180,000 found to have gone astray from a project for which he was responsible. Several newspapers rather gleefully published the details of a false invoice that had been submitted for publicity materials that never arrived.
Sunanda Deshapriya claims not to have pocketed the funds but to have spent them on some other activity he considered useful in the pursuit of media freedom. It seems there was money left in his budget at the end of the year and he didn’t want to give it back to the donors. I almost believe him. Earning Rs. 70,000 at the Centre for Policy Alternatives, it seems a bit foolish to take such an obvious risk for so little gain. Anyway, I’ve known NGOs that spent far more than Rs. 180,000 printing glossy books that they subsequently found they couldn’t even give away, never mind sell as they eagerly suggested would demonstrate the sustainability of their work in the project report, and the majority were casually burnt in the garden.
It could have been an unfortunate mistake, and legislation on corruption obviously wouldn’t have been able to help in that case. Waste isn’t like stealing, even if the result is similar. Rs. 180,000 doesn’t sound like much either, but Sunanda Deshapriyaexploits might be just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows, and Sri Lankans undoubtedly never will find out the truth unless a proper monitoring system is established.
NGOs can’t and shouldn’t be allowed to self-regulate. They want to believe that the money they receive belongs to those who have given it, so pleasing their donors is enough. But it isn’t. Funds raised in the name of the people of this country, playing on their sufferings and undertaking to solve their problems, are rightfully theirs. Likewise, taxpayers have no more claims on public money than those who earn under the payment threshold. Donors may not have an obligation to give, but they forfeit all rights to the money once they do. It is morally obvious, and that’s what such organisations are supposed to be about. They also like to think that they are the best people for the job, being do-gooders. There may never have been an era in which these organisations were full of good samaritans, but it is definitely over now. We shouldn’t imagine the Centre for Policy Alternatives is any different just because it has actually done something about the Rs. 180,000. Sunanda Deshapriya may be one of the few people to have resigned over such an issue, but he did so in the context of an internal squabble that made it inevitable that embarrassing details would find their way to the donors.
I don’t think this is the main point,however. The Parliamentary Select Committee ought to have more important things to do in its review of the work of NGOs. Corruption and waste are hardly the only problems.
Sunanda Deshapriya provides a useful example here too. While the Rs. 180,000 was clearly misappropriated, I am equally if not actually more concerned about how the Rs. 180 million or however much the Centre for Policy Alternatives overall budget amounts to was spent. Take note, Sri Lankans currently have no right to influence its choice of focus or its implementation strategy. Given the number of times I have seen fit to criticise their work, I’m not sure it makes a difference if its employees run off with the small change from time to time. Spending public money on misleading advocacy and false propaganda simply isn’t any better.
The Parliamentary Select Committee doesn’t appear to be taking this aspect seriously. We haven’t been given their interim report to consider for ourselves, but we can get a sense of what they have been up to from a press release issued by the National Peace Council last week. It quotes from the relevant sections: ‘It too is an NGO operating to propagate federalism. An organiser of the National Peace Council had once attended a protest in Geneva and also had made a speech in a rally held later which ended with the singing of the song of emancipation of the LTTE together. This organisation, which questions the need for sovereignty, has mentioned about a sovereignty divided into two and of two very close countries. The National Peace Council had engaged in a movement to brainwash the people of Sri Lanka which is very similar to the activities of the Berghof Foundation. They had acted very enthusiastically about federalism.’
It sounds a bit dumb. If this is all the information the Parliamentary Select Committee has managed to collect in the last two and a half years since its establishment, it may as well give up the job now. They could have written exactly that within about fifteen seconds of starting work. More serious analysis is needed. As the National Peace Council was quick to point out, there is nothing wrong in promoting federalism. At least there isn’t if they use peaceful means. In fact, the National Peace Council tried to pretend that it was actually campaigning for various things that might possibly - if the wind happened to blow in a particular direction - include federalism, which is a bit cowardly. They had better just admit it. Falling over themselves to avoid the idea gave the impression that they agreed with the authors of the interim report that federalism was somehow akin to terrorism. There isn’t even anything much wrong in questioning the concept of sovereignty. Some people do. Government institutions obviously won’t agree, but they have certainly promoted federalism at times.
I couldn’t help thinking back to the furore at the International Centre for Ethnic Studies. There is probably a similar paragraph in the interim report on their enthusiasm for R2P, but there is equally nothing as such the matter with it. I’m quite keen on sovereignty, and I’m not a fan of either federalism or R2P, but I don’t want to stop other people having a different opinion if they insist.
NGOs are different. Employees may believe what they want, but they don’t have any particular right to use public money to ram their beliefs down the throats of people who might rather spend it on doctors and teachers, for example. And they especially donhave any particular right to get funds from people overseas who may have their own agendas for this country. This is what needs attention from the Parliamentary Select Committee on NGOs, and things will end badly if it isn’t done with sufficient thought and care.
Organisations truly concerned about governance would have already launched their own process to consider the issue. We know they are perfectly well aware of the criticism and many scandals that have undermined trust in them amongst the public. They instead offer weak explanations as to why they are the only people who don’t need any oversight. It is shameful!
www island.lk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment