Sugath Kulatunga

Bribery is one of the most vicious, repulsive and destructive features of our society. It is a subject which should receive the attention of all citizens in the country. It should be not only investigated but researched to identify its roots which might help in confronting it. It is a challenge for social scientists and historians. This note is only scratching the surface and doing some guesswork without deep research.

In bribery there is a taker and a giver. The giver does not attract much attention. It is considered part of business strategy. Bribery results in securing an undeserving benefit to the bribe giver and depriving a rightful benefit to a deserving party. Sometimes the denial of the benefit to the deserving party can be more damaging. It leads to discontent and loss of confidence in the system.

There are two types of bribery. One is the petty bribery (santhosam) given to a person who has the authority to do a favor or expedite an approval. Normally the taker is a bureaucrat, and the giver is a person who rightfully deserves to secure the benefit.

The more damaging kind of bribery is for bending or breaking a rule and giving an undeserved advantage. Here the giver is a private party expecting a substantial benefit in a government tender or a procurement. It could also be for the benefits of a lucrative post. The taker in this case will be a politician or a very high ranking official with authority. The worst kind of bribery is when a public official accepts a bribe to collude In an illegal activity and share the loot. It is common with organized crimes and drug trade and involves massive rewards. Another joint operation is misinvoicing at customs and under -declaration of tax.

Petty bribery corrupts the system but is not as damaging as the large-scale bribery. The main tool designed to prevent large scale bribery and illicit incomes is the Declaration of Assets Law which is not strictly implemented. Members of Parliament who are susceptible to bribes seem to be not adhering to the law. They have to submit their declarations to the Speaker who is not prepared to reveal them. This cavalier treatment of the law at the highest level of the society can be understood when even a former Chief Justice had not observed the law.

The declaration of Assets is not a right or privilege of a member of Parliament and is not a matter for the Speaker to intervene. It is a duty of any person entering the public service like taking the oath of loyalty. It is suggested that the Assets of members of Parliament and the President are submitted to the Chief Justice and the declarations of Supreme Court judges are submitted to the President. That will maintain the balance of power between the pillars of government.

Sociologists and historians should research on to what extent bribery is an ugly remnant of our feudal history. During the times our kings the land was his sovereign right. Even today land which is not granted by the crown some time or other remains to be crown land. The King gifted land to chieftains and sometimes to individuals as recognition of loyalty or bravery. These lands comprised of villages and other settlements. The Landlords were not paid any remuneration by the King and had to be maintained by the settlers. They had to pay the landlords in kind and in labor. This system I guess continued with the Mudliars, Rate Mahatthyas and Muhandirams during the colonial period. Even with the introduction of a salaried public service the feudal custom of a reward from a beneficiary may have continued and encouraged. Even sophisticated beneficiaries would have yielded into the socially accepted culture of rewarding the provider of a public service. This system of rajakariya still remains with temple land.

Taking and giving of bribes have increased significantly with the change of the constituency of an MP to a District. To run an election campaign in a District costs millions and the support of hundreds of thugs. Funds required are collected from supporters who consider it as an investment. The MP has to pay back these bribes by the offer of irregular benefits. Political parties demand financial support from contractors for political campaigns which are paid back with fraudulent awards of more contracts. These illicit transactions can be eliminated by restoring the smaller electorate.  

In the current situation there must be a new definition of grave social and economic crimes which should invite swift sentencing through special courts and given deterrent punishment which includes death sentence which cannot be commuted.