THE CORRUPTION (Prevention) Act was passed by Parliament in January this year and came into force in May. It, however, is yet to come into operation because the Regulations which are a necessary corollary to the law, are not yet ready and the necessary administrative machinery of the Corruption Prevention Commission is not yet fully constituted.
In fact on Wednesday of last week an advertisement for posts with the Commission appeared in this newspaper. These posts included that of the secretary/manager of the Commission which offered the princely salary of $1.1 million - 1.3 million p.a. to the successful candidate.
This person will manage the Commission which will be responsible for investigating corruption within the public service particularly amongst certain categories of public servants. To offer such a low salary for that post with any expectation of attracting applicants of the requisite calibre to carry out the duties, responsibilities and authority of this office and be a significant force to help stamp out corruption in Jamaica, is ridiculous in the extreme. Such a salary in no way reflects fair compensation for the stated duties and responsibilities nor the expectations which this nation will place on that person.
The Corruption (Prevention) Act is supposed to mark a milestone in our development, not only nationally but also as an indicator that we are ready to take our place and gain maximum benefits in the present international arena of world trade and inter-related global business.
The passage of the Act was one which generated interest, debate and participation outside of the Parliament and it went through several amendments as a result. It would be a shame that even at what appeared to be the end of its gestation period its birth is stymied by delays in the formation of a commission and the drafting and passing of the necessary regulations. Now its growth and effectiveness seem set to be stunted by being unable to attract people of the requisite calibre for management and implementation.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
