Damaging the country's image
The finance minister, in his address to the above conference, blasted Transparency International (TI) for damaging the country's image by publishing graft index on Bangladesh sitting in Berlin. According to him, such reports have nothing to do with corruption. The minister is reported to have also blasted the comptroller and auditor general (CAG) of Bangladesh, stating that such reports are picked up by the media and are published out of context.

In respect of TI's reports, this is not the first time that the finance minister has lashed out against the TI index on graft. His predecessor in office also did the same. None has, however, come out with alternative solutions or facts that cast doubt on the validity of the TI index. Worse still, does Bangladesh have its own index? In this context, it will be relevant to mention that Professor Nurul Islam, the former deputy chairman of Bangladesh Planning Commission, has recently raised some questions about TI's graft index. His arguments are available in his book titled Looking Outward: Bangladesh in the World Economy. It will perhaps make more sense to come up with a scientifically credible index than to indulge in periodic outbursts against TI.

The outburst against the media is not new. This has been going on for some time in the context of the debate about Bangladesh's governance, not directly related to lack of probity in public expenditure. The people from the media argue that it would not conduce to the good image of Bangladesh if the very same information is circulated by the media outside the country. It is also argued that the publication of news relating to bad governance by the national media is contributing to the country's image that the media is free to publish news without any let or hindrance. There is at least one element of good governance in Bangladesh. This is freedom of the press. On the other hand, none would disagree with the finance minister when he says: "I believe developing countries are poor because of bad governance and governance is the sine qua non of democracy."

Explicit in this statement lies the frank recognition that Bangladesh is an example of bad governance. It is a hard fact which cannot be turned into a fiction, periodic blasts notwithstanding. Look at the three organs of the state, the executive, the judiciary, and the parliament. The effectiveness of the executive has been questioned time and again by the media both at home and abroad. There is no need to expand on this. The public image of the judiciary, in particular, the higher judiciary, is perhaps at its lowest ebb with the recent decision of the Supreme Court Bar Association to boycott the court of the chief justice for reasons which have already appeared in the press. The parliament is dysfunctional. Who will clean the augean stable remains a big question?

WB's call for strengthening

The country director of the World Bank has called for strengthening the oversight institutions to help fight graft. She is reported to have said, "Unless oversight institutions are empowered, good governance will remain elusive." She made the statement at the regional conference already referred to. What has been left unsaid is that (a) what powers the existing standing committees have, and (b) whether they have the willingness and ability to exercise their existing powers when the three organs of the state are in a state of disequilibrium. These questions need to be looked into before making any statement on further empowerment.

In 2002, a World Bank study (Financial Accountability for Good Governance) noted that considerable progress had been made in the functioning of parliamentary oversight committees. The evidence on record points to the contrary of what has been said. In the fifth parliament (April 5, 1991 through November 19, 1995), the number of reports which the oversight committees did not submit before the parliament stood at 24. In the seventh parliament (July 14, 1996 though July 13, 2001), the number of reports that such committees failed to submit before the parliament stood at 29. No one knows what the parliament did with the 49 reports submitted in the fifth parliament and the 53 reports submitted in the seventh parliament.

In the World Bank study referred to, the conclusion drawn, however, was that "the work of the committees is largely unknown and unnoticed. They are not properly accountable to the House and to the public. The public accounts committee meetings should be open to the media and the public, and all committees should submit annual performance reports to the Speaker." Why is the World Bank now coming out with a prescription for further empowerment when such committees have, by all accounts, lost their credibility with the public.

MP's prescription for reorientation of policies
A member of parliament (MP) and a former minister with background in accountancy attended the conference. He held the view that the public accounts committee reports were never debated in the parliament making the reports "irrelevant." What he also left unsaid was how many of such reports were placed before the parliament. Is there any need for reorientation of policies or is it a case for putting policies into practice?

The policies in this regard are clearly laid down in the rules of procedure relating to the public accounts committee (Rule 233). The rules require that "upon examination of irregularities and lapses of Institutions, the Committee shall report to Parliament with recommendations of remedial measures." Has anyone ever probed into the nature of irregularities and lapses and the quality of the recommendations made?

The finance minister made a statement about CAG which must be corrected. He is reported to have said that "huge number of public expenditure, particularly of development expenditure do not come under the scrutiny of CAG." The correct position is that CAG is constitutionally mandated to conduct audit of the public accounts, of all courts of law and all authorities and officers of the government (Article 128). It is not clear what the finance minister meant when he said that development expenditure did not come within the purview of CAG.

Big versus small
One of the finance minister's remarks related to the advice to CAG to avoid petty details or cases. CAG's reaction, as reported in the press, was that both big and small cases were important. There is a case here to prioritise instead of thinning out efforts, otherwise it amounts to being penny wise, pound foolish.

Duplication of efforts
The constitution provides for separate audit by institutions other than the CAG if it is so prescribed by law in case of a body corporate. In fact all statutes of bodies corporate have provision of audit by a chartered accountants firm. This is done in addition to CAG's audit. Why then the duplication of efforts? The answer is simple. CAG will not cede his empire, no matter whether he can do this in time. In the domain of audit, there is thus an accepted distinction between CAG's audit and the statutory audit. Should this duplication of efforts be allowed to continue? That remains a key policy issue.

The finance minister emphasised the need for performance audit by CAG. This catchy phrase has been used for the past decade or so. What prevents the CAG from going for performance audit remains unclear. It is understood that the issues raised could not be solved in the course of a one or two-day conference. But then there is something called "best practice." Is it difficult to adopt "best practice" model of performance audit?

There is need also to evaluate the performance of CAG's outfit in terms of quality of output and integrity in the disposal of audit objections and in early disposal of pension cases.

AMM Shawkat Ali, PhD, is a former Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture.