Corruption curtailment
One of the best method to curtail this in government is to curtail the arbitrary powers of the bureaucracy; e.g Tax Authorities ..power to ask for penalty, interest, or charging the individuals as offenders. Their scope should be limited to ask for and collect tax as applicable.
Penalties or interests should be applicable only after applying merit under the observation of law authorities only, possibly at tribunals on-words. This will avoid unnecessary threats to the common man.
Any false application of Government Policies, Laws or conditions should be taken seriously. The public should be permitted to charge such crooked officials and be permitted to collect their direct loss at-least either from the government or from the responsible individuals.
The government itself should take very seriously, any offence reported, which communicates the smell of corruption. It should be understood by all that you can not catch the corrupt easily; in-fact at times the corrupt may charge the honest person, following the procedure. Citizens should be trusted.
No one likes to punish the honest. Therefore, where ever there is no immediate proof, the punishment decisions should be based upon multiple complaints.
The government should set up a fund of marked currency of 10 Cr in every district, available for the public to collect and trap the culprits. The individuals funds should not be blocked for this.
The authorities, the law, the legal institutions should encourage this. The actions should be immediate and possibly with limited period punishments. The intentions should be to correct only and not spoil the carriers.
The suggestions / complaint books should be available freely and the citizens should be encouraged to report. Any one obstructing the reporting should be taken seriously.
The Law authorities, The courts should follow the
true path and merit and should not be the negotiating tables; e.g. OK HOW MUCH YOU CAN DEPOSIT? Any demand ought to have the merit first? How and why the courts should ask for pre-deposits, even when the merit is not established and governments own demands are questionable?
The courts should not favor the government. All benefits of doubt should be to the citizens. more
Penalties or interests should be applicable only after applying merit under the observation of law authorities only, possibly at tribunals on-words. This will avoid unnecessary threats to the common man.
Any false application of Government Policies, Laws or conditions should be taken seriously. The public should be permitted to charge such crooked officials and be permitted to collect their direct loss at-least either from the government or from the responsible individuals.
The government itself should take very seriously, any offence reported, which communicates the smell of corruption. It should be understood by all that you can not catch the corrupt easily; in-fact at times the corrupt may charge the honest person, following the procedure. Citizens should be trusted.
No one likes to punish the honest. Therefore, where ever there is no immediate proof, the punishment decisions should be based upon multiple complaints.
The government should set up a fund of marked currency of 10 Cr in every district, available for the public to collect and trap the culprits. The individuals funds should not be blocked for this.
The authorities, the law, the legal institutions should encourage this. The actions should be immediate and possibly with limited period punishments. The intentions should be to correct only and not spoil the carriers.
The suggestions / complaint books should be available freely and the citizens should be encouraged to report. Any one obstructing the reporting should be taken seriously.
The Law authorities, The courts should follow the
true path and merit and should not be the negotiating tables; e.g. OK HOW MUCH YOU CAN DEPOSIT? Any demand ought to have the merit first? How and why the courts should ask for pre-deposits, even when the merit is not established and governments own demands are questionable?
The courts should not favor the government. All benefits of doubt should be to the citizens. more
Viewed by 2439
View all 24 comments Below 24 comments
Thanks this is good suggestion from Prem, but also there must be accountability of all officials and outcome of all decisions/ orders must be recorded in personal file for appraisal purposes as well, so as to make things transparent and accountability is imposed Thanks more
Feb 05
It is great to read articles from local circles/TI? There're big big intellectuals(?) writing on corruption!? You 're all taking bribe from one hand and opposing it from other hand! Now you fight just for publicity/time pass! Hope you 'd realize!!! On Jan 10, 2017 4:00 PM, "Prem Madan" wrote: > more
Jan 17
Dear All, Thank you for the appreciation and support. However, considering the seriousness of the matter this is not sufficient. Possibly, the pain is not felt by all. Almost every company big or small passes through the challenges and the economy suffers, indirect costs increase and results in corruption at various levels or industry fails. It may be just appropriate, to take a survey of Industries and commercial institutions suffering because of illogical actions of the bureaucracy, which have resulted only in inconvenience and the government has not gained anything. A determined step is needed in this direction. A mechanism needs to be built in to compensate the sufferer. Kind regards and best wishes to all for your support. I will continue to work in this direction. I am sure your support will be forth coming. P P Madan On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Arun Patro wrote: > more
Jan 15
All regulations, whether in Government domain or in private domain, give the authorities exercising these regulations the power of discretion. It is in the exercise of 'discretions' that unscrupulous ones seek illicit gratification. A computer cannot seek a bribe, as it does not exercise any discretion. If we press one button, it behaves in a specific pattern; if we press a different button, the computer will behave differently. This can happen indefinately. But when it comes to exercising of powers, authorities exercising such powers can exercise discretion. Here comes the vicious circle. Officers are put in various positions because the organisation needs them to exercise discretion. The implication is that seemingly similar cases can get different responses. Can we replace these authorities with computers? No, we cannot - because we want human responses. Hence the dichotomy. Computerisation / digitisation is a good method of reducing graft. We need to identify all activities which can be performed without human discretionary interference. Booking of railway tickets is one such example. Identification of such activities (or even a portion of such activities), will go way in curbing corruption. more
Jan 12
