By KABS KANU :
Transparency International yesterday damaged their credibility further by saying that they did not conduct the polls that led to the organization unilaterally and wrongly declaring Sierra Leone as the most corrupt nation in the world.
According to AWOKO Newspaper : “Questioned as to whether TI-SL was involved in the survey, the Executive Director replied, “We were not directly involved in the exercise, it was conducted by a company called RMS Africa who were contracted by Transparency International to do the surveys for Sierra Leone, Cameroon, D.R. Congo, Senegal and Liberia.” We are learning from our usually reliable sources that Transparency International are actually unhappy with the manner the polls were conducted , but they made the mistake of rushing to publish the findings. The question that one would be tempted to ask is : Why did they contract another group and how credible is this group ? Secondly, how can a supposedly reputed and equipped international organization like Transparency International depend on secondary sources for such an important survey that affects the image of a whole sovereign country ?
LAVINA BANDUAH : HAD A PRECONCEIVED NOTION ALREADY BEFORE THE POLLS
Also casting doubts on the validity of the survey was the explanation given about how the survey was conducted . Read ( Again from Awoko ) : Apparently responding to the cogent argument by Information Minister , Hon. Alpha Kanu, that the survey was not representative of the totality of the Sierra Leonean people, “ She also explained that most surveys are done through random sampling systems and it is very difficult to get a large number of people involved.” Our question here is , if it is that difficult, should not they have found a more reliable method to do such a survey for such a very important topic on which hinges the future of nations ? According to AWOKO : “She went on that most African countries included in the survey were surveyed on the sampling figure of 1,000 people and that this included Zimbabwe, Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa and Sierra Leone. She said a few countries were little bit above the 1, 000 threshold. ” Again, here is our question : If the same sampling figures were not used for all the countries, does this not cast a doubt on the validity of the polls ? She herself conceded that “The 1, 000 number is what we decided on as the substantial range considering the population of the country. ” If so, why was not the same method used across the board ?
And if Madam Lavina Banduah had preconceived notions and conclusions about corruption in Sierra Leone already , before the study , how sure are we that the study was not tailored to cohere with her presumptions ? According to Awoko : “She stated that in the long past, people were moderate in their embezzlement of state funds, but that now, they don’t mind, they take everything away in their quest for quick wealth at the expense of the general populace. ” Who are the they ? Are they representative of the sum total of Sierra Leoneans ? This singular statement by the Executive Director is clear proof that Transparency International had already made up their minds to give Sierra Leone a very bad rap. I thought researchers start their studies from a position of a blank slate ?
Let those who hate their country and want to hear only bad news about Sierra Leone because the SLPP is not in power continue rejoicing over this study and heaping insults on us and lying woefully about us in their depleted forums where only 10 or 16 people recycle their views and insults with MULTITUDES of monikers . Cowards will forever live in backwardness . THEIR INSULTS ARE THE PRICE WE HAVE TO PAY FOR OUR PATRIOTISM. TODAY, GOOD PEOPLE SUFFER INSULTS MORE THAN BAD PEOPLE,AS THE BIBLE TEACHES IN THE BOOK OF SECOND TIMOTHY SO WHAT IS NEW ? We who love our country and want her to prosper will not sit down and allow anybody to tarnish our good name unfairly. We will continue defending the best interests of our nation against the odds.
The Government of Sierra Leone should take this matter up with the international community. Everything must be done to dispute the conclusions of the polls and to let the world know that the study was seriously flawed and that Sierra Leone was unfairly taken advantage of by being adjudged wrongly as the most corrupt country in the world.
HERE BELOW IS ANOTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE CREDIBILTY OF TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL HAD BEEN UNDER CONSTANT ATTACK BY OTHER COUNTRIES THAT BELIEVE THAT THEIR METHODS OF ARRIVING AT CONCLUSIONS ARE FAULTY AND UNRELIABLE :
Gov’t dismisses Transparency International corruption report – Teixeira says report not credible, generated from non-empirical survey
Saturday, 08 December 2012 00:23
PRESIDENTIAL Advisor on Governance, Ms Gail Teixeira, has challenged the credibility of Transparency International’s (TI) latest Corruption Perception Index (CPI) report, which has ranked Guyana at 133 amongst 174 countries.
Acting as Cabinet Secretary in the absence of Dr. Roger Luncheon at this week’s post-Cabinet media briefing, held at the Office of the President on Shiv Chanderpaul Drive, Georgetown, yesterday, Ms Teixeira told reporters that the survey conducted by Transparency International (TI) involved only four persons.
“So four persons…are part of the group that had been asked to give an opinion on Guyana, and they hold in their hands the fate of our country. Four! Four men alone!” she stressed.
In addition, she noted that, in relation to TI, there is currently ongoing a big debate among reputable universities and professors at the international level, particularly examining the consequences subjective, incorrect, or flawed opinions can have on a country.
Teixeira emphasised that the TI report was generated from a non-empirical survey, which is the main issue with those universities and professors.
“People who study these issues do not put much credence on these, except the media. All over the world, (they) make a big thing of it, because it’s the easiest thing to go through and just pull numbers out and throw them into the newspapers,” she asserted.
She also highlighted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Article Four’s most recent statement on Guyana, which, again, gave the country a good report.
She added that the IMF goes through extreme and intensive methods before they arrive at conclusions on Guyana; and not only its performance is looked at, but also its prudent fiscal management.
“So if one were to assume that TI is right, then therefore how is it that the IMF, who comes in with their ‘top dogs’ go through every single line and analyses your projections, your revenue, etc. How come they are congratulating Guyana and its commitment to fiscal prudence?” she questioned.
Teixeira further pointed out that, in the World Governance Index on 2011, Guyana’s standing in terms of the rest of the world is at a high level, which is approximately 62 out of 174 countries.
She mentioned that the areas on which they assess Guyana and all the other countries relate to peace and security, rule of law, human rights, sustainable development and human development.
“You can’t have what are high levels of corruption and still come out looking good in human sustainability and economic factors. It’s mathematically, arithmetically impossible,” she remarked.
She noted that Guyana is a signatory to the Inter-American Convention against Corruption, and that the country has been reviewed three times. She related that it is up-to-date in its report, and the fourth review of the countries in the Organisation of American States (OAS) has commenced.
She said preparations for the fourth review of Guyana will begin next year, and the review itself will be done in 2014.
Teixeira emphasised that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the country are free to be able to comment on Guyana’s performance, but she stressed that it should be a rigid and rigorous methodology presented to the countries, wherein they would have to be the answer on the implementation of the convention against corruption.
She disclosed that Guyana will again have to be reviewed, as the country more recently signed the United Nations (UN) Convention against corruption, which she said has similar but different methodologies from the OAS.
She advised that neither the Inter-American convention’s mechanism nor the UN Convention ranks countries, but rather are more concerned with procedures, systems, governance frameworks, and progress.
She also pointed out that recommendations are made to the countries reviewed to improve the functioning, checks and balances, and oversight that are in place.
Prominent businessman Captain Gerry Gouveia, in an interview with the Guyana Chronicle last Thursday, also lashed out at the findings in the TI Report.
The former Chairman of the Private Sector Commission (PSC) dismissed the conclusions contained in the TI Report as “nothing but a mere reflection of a negative perception that is being created by some individuals.”
Captain Gouveia was blunt in his assessment, noting that there has been a massive campaign by persons, whom he called “negaholics”, which according to him are people who spread negativity and are “prophets of doom and gloom”, to create the perception of large-scale corruption in Guyana.