Here's an excerpt of the conversation:
Sunil Sudheeson:
We know that (Section) 165 (of the Penal Code) is part of the suite of offences to deal with protection against corruption, but 165 doesn't suggest any corruption to begin with. It suggests a conflict of interest. But conflict of interest doesn't jump straight to corruption.
Crispina Robert:
Explain to my listeners what needs to be quite clear cut corruption.
Sunil:
Clear cut corruption is the giving of a favour in exchange for the gift.
Crispina:
So for example, if I bought you a meal ...
Sunil:
... and you get a contract to build a road in return. That's the absurd scenario, of course.
Crispina:
But it's this idea of quid pro quo, right?
Sunil:
Precisely. There has to be a meeting of the minds an exchange of favours, if you would and there has to be something done to the detriment of your principle.
So for example, let's say building the road. I have five bids that come in. Your bid is actually the second lowest, I should be giving to the lowest bid but then I remember that nice makan (meal) you gave me, so maybe the second lowest bid can get the deal instead.
So that means that my principle is deprived of the ability of getting the lowest bid. This is assuming that all five are equal quality. So in that scenario, because of the detriment suffered by the principle, because of the favour given, that's clear cut corruption.
Continue reading...
Sunil Sudheeson:
We know that (Section) 165 (of the Penal Code) is part of the suite of offences to deal with protection against corruption, but 165 doesn't suggest any corruption to begin with. It suggests a conflict of interest. But conflict of interest doesn't jump straight to corruption.
Crispina Robert:
Explain to my listeners what needs to be quite clear cut corruption.
Sunil:
Clear cut corruption is the giving of a favour in exchange for the gift.
Crispina:
So for example, if I bought you a meal ...
Sunil:
... and you get a contract to build a road in return. That's the absurd scenario, of course.
Crispina:
But it's this idea of quid pro quo, right?
Sunil:
Precisely. There has to be a meeting of the minds an exchange of favours, if you would and there has to be something done to the detriment of your principle.
So for example, let's say building the road. I have five bids that come in. Your bid is actually the second lowest, I should be giving to the lowest bid but then I remember that nice makan (meal) you gave me, so maybe the second lowest bid can get the deal instead.
So that means that my principle is deprived of the ability of getting the lowest bid. This is assuming that all five are equal quality. So in that scenario, because of the detriment suffered by the principle, because of the favour given, that's clear cut corruption.
Continue reading...