Corruption accused appointed DDC chairman

KOL Report

KATHMANDU, June 14 - One of the newly appointed District Development Committee Chairman has been found of facing a corruption charge at Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority, the CIAA.

Shambhu Prasad Chaurasiya who was appointed as the chairman of Parsa DDC by the government, has been accused for embezzling more than 1 million rupees by the CIAA, reported our correspondent.

The CIAA is carrying out investigation against Chaurasiya in the case.

Earlier, he was also appointed chairman during the Surya Bahadur Thapa government.

The corruption case against all the DDC Board members had been filed after the board headed by Chaurasiya decided to cancel the money amounting to Rs. 1.41 million needed to be paid by a contractor to the DDC.

Chaurasiya was released by the Parsa district administration on bail five months ago.

The Chief District Officer of Parsa, Nabin Ghimire claimed that even though Chaurasiya has been appointed chairman, the action against him would continue. (snn)

Since the whole rationale for the Royal Committee on Corruption Control (RCCC?) is
to root out corruption in Nepal -- a task in which it appears to be muddling through --
I asked the following question to Steve Levitt and Steven Dubner.

(Levitt is an economist, known for his work on the economics of crime, corruption and cheating; Dubner is a journalist. Both are authors of this summer's bestselling book "Freakonomics". They have started writing a monthly column on economics in The New York Times Magazine.)

My question was:

"Corruption is rife in many developing countries. It siphons valuable resources into officials' pockets. In recent times, most countries have set up anti-corruption bodies that try catching, trying and punishing corrupt officials. But these bodies usually fail to do any of the things they are set up to do. Is there a better way for third-world governments to a) identify corrupt officials b) catch them and c) punish them so as to deter others from engaging in corruption?"

Levitt and Dubner answer:

It is tough to catch corrupt individuals by establishing new governmental bodies because the people you send to catch them are likely to be just as corruptible! One approach is to do what we do in "Freakonomics" ? use the data in unusual ways to detect the cheaters. (The cheaters we write about include schoolteachers, sumo wrestlers and ? though some people do not count this as cheating ? people who take a bagel from the office snack room and fail to put money in a lockbox.)

Another approach is to set up incentives so that officials do not want to be corrupt ? if government wages are high, for instance, and if anyone caught stealing is immediately imprisoned. Ultimately, the people who use government services need to believe that it is in their own best interests to turn in corrupt officials, either by getting bounties (which can lead to false accusations) or perhaps just making it easy and safe to report bad behavior.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/readersopinions/questions-freakonomics.html?pagewanted=print

*********

My question to Sajha friends: What could be the effective ways for Nepalis to root out or mitigate the effects of corruption in Nepal?

oohi
ashu

oohi
ashu

Uproot Corruption TOP DOWN: Start with the KING and HIS CRONIES

Foster Development BOTTOM UP: Start at the GRASSROOT level (basic needs and education)

On a related note, I have been thinking:

Late Dinesh Chandra Pyakurel, the bureaucrat who lived in Gairidhara in Kathmandu, committed suicide last week.

It's quite possible that his suicide was just that: a suicide, and there was nothing more to it.

But tellingly, according to reports, he was also about to be under investigation for his involvement in the Melamchi Project.

Maybe he was guilty of corruption when he was in that project.
Maybe he wasn't.

We'll never know for sure.

BUT
ASSUMING that he was guilty, the question is: why did he commit suicide?

After all, if DCP had looked around, he would have seen that pretty much ALL the certifiably corrupt people in Nepal have gone on to have pretty good careers in
their post-corruption-charged life.

For example, I know for sure that of the so-called corrupt people that CIAA caught
during its infamous midnight raids in August 2002 ( raids that were publicly lauded at
the time), ALL were eventually freed, and many of them went on to win promotions
at their sarkari jobs.

In other words, the message coming from that and other examples, has been: NO matter how corrupt you are in Nepal, CIAA kicks you around for a while, before setting you free so that you can vanish in the relative anonymity of our corruption-land with your loot intact.

But DCP was an exception.
He took his own life.

Why could he NOT see that being "formally" accused of corruption in Nepal was not the same as being actually punished for it?

Why?

Could it be that -- and this is my theory -- unlike most CIAA-certified corrupt officials -- DCP happens to be from Kathmandu itself (after all, you don't come from a place like Gairidhara, if your roots in KTM are not pretty deep), and that the costs of losing his reputation in his own hometown were too great than the benefits that he could have derived from his corrupt act?

In other words, the shame factor was at play. That is to say, if DCP were, say, from Dang or Salyan, he probably would have ridden the storm out WITHOUT committing suicide.

I don't know.
Just thinking aloud.

oohi
ashu

Hi Ashu-ji, in fact you have raised quite interesting question, which doesn't have specific answer to treat it. However, people may have different opinions about it. Only in my mind, there are several thoughts which could be helpful for reducing corruption. I mention here to reduce than uprooting, while later is just an ideal term and the definition of corruption is really vague. The ways to reduce corruption also depends upon how you are going to define corruption. e.g. is corruption a process through which people misuse the government or state property, without following the system i.e. not making bills or vouchers, then what about informal payments? One important thing to note is that corruption in Nepal is only regarded as financial terms, where its crux of the matter is to abuse the specific rights at ones specific position. It may include bribery, graft, extortion, nepotism, ticket-fixing etc.

1. In my opinion, the root cause of the corruption is not at the point where corruption takes place, but at the top level. There are several obvious examples in Nepalese bureaucracy. Therefore, everybody should be bounded with the law and order not only in written form but also in practice. Nobody should be exempted from the defined law: best example was the DIG surpassing the traffic rules only has to pay 60 Rs. And King can do anything, Parsas is allowed to do anything he wants.

2. Secondly, the corruption in Nepal is culturally and traditionally supported. How? I have already mentioned in one of the threads that we have a tendency to respect how one has made house, how big is his house, whether he has car or not. Nobody cares how he earned so much money. Nobody excluded such corrupt people rather offered higher position in society, and even in the Government. Rather our culture and society excluded who try to bring positive changes in society, such as elliminating intouchability from society, socalled forced witches charges and so on. We respect one person with no identity arriving on car than the one Prof. coming to College on public bus. Therefore, this culture to respect money has to be somehow changed.

3. The basic cause of the corruption is also a poverty and low income. At the same time, people donot have social security and insurance. Since the available income is not enough to feed family and relatives. As we are living in joint family structure, we have to take care of our family plus the people around, unlike in western culture. Therefore, people are tempted to have extra informal income, who have access. Though it is not right or previlage.

Hi, all, after talking about corruption now, I felt like I became 486. I will comeback later.

Hi Sitara, it is really easy saying uprooting Corruption! What is in practice?

Corruption in and of itself is simply bad. Everyone knows that. However, if we are to address this disease with only a patch-up work on an ad hoc basis -- by [seeming to] punishing only a few corrupt individuals -- without addressing the STRUCTURAL problem of corruption, we may never be able to rid ourselves of the disease.

From a very brief synopsis of Levitt and Dubner's book (which I will make it a point to purchase and read) provided by Ashu above, I get the feeling that they also focus on immediate "patch-up" redress to corruption. I am not saying that is not good. Yet, while providing immediate disincentives to corruption to control it, we must also seriously work towards long term eradication -- or minimization -- of corruption, by addressing the STRUCTURAL problem of the disease.

I believe that the STRUCTURE of corruption in many developing countries -- like many of their other social problems -- are rooted in INEQUALITY. When there exists a structure in which people are forced to compete UNFAIRLY for resources, they would obviously fall prey to corruption, either at the giving or at the receiving end. A truest sense of equal opportunity, therefore, if implemented properly, will gurantee that people would be less inclined to provide bribes to officials for resources and services; and by depriving the corrupt officials of their source of illegal incomes, the society would be more free of corruption.

Therefore, in Nepali context, I think the recent moves towards arresting and "looking like punishing" few corrupt individuals are a farce in the name of eradicating corruption. For one thing, the current leadership is relying on populist moves -- which are not sustainable -- to consolidate its powers. For another, the Panchayati-era-type governance only exasperates the predicament of INEQUALITY, which further provides grounds for more corruption in the future, rather than resolving it.

It's good to punish the corrupt individuals, but it must be done in a widespread manner without ANY preferences; AND, it must be followed through by genuine efforts to minimize unequal treatment of ALL citizens. To completely rid the society of inequality is a Utopian dream, but attempts MUST be made to minimize it.