This Fall, the Auditor General turned her attention to Canada’s temporary labour migration policies.  The AG’s report reached some important findings which mainstream commentators expect will impact how these policies function.  On closer reflection, however, the importance of certain findings notwithstanding, the audit just as noticably reinforced and legitimized Canada’s ass-backward immigration system.

Scope of Audit

Covering the period of June 2002 to June 2009, (the entire life of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), the AG examined two issues: 1) how Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, supervises the entry of permanent and temporary workers into the country and the recognition of foreign credentials; 2) how Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC, supports CIC in its role, particularly with respect to issuing labour market opinions, done through Service Canada offices.

In the AG’s own admission, the audit excluded three key issues: 1) how CIC assesses applicant admissibility; 2) how provinces and territories nominate candidates for selection; 3) Canada Border Services Agency’s processing of work permit applications at points of entry into Canada.  These represent glaring omissions as much controversy surrounds each of these issues.  The provincial nominee program, for instance, provides a means for employers and the state to bypass the established immigration admission policies, effectively diluting current and prospective efforts to criticize the existing Points System.  Now, with some workers (skilled workers) having an end around the Points System, the incentives for reform are lessened.  This in effect reinforces the segmentation of im/migrant workers relative to each other (high versus low skilled), and im/migrant workers vis-a-vis citizen workers.

Findings

The audit found CIC’s development of the Canada Experience Class, designed to facilitate permanent residence for skilled foreign workers and foreign students with work experience in Canada, to be sound.  However, it criticized CIC’s other policy changes as piecemeal and short-sighted.

The audit chastised CIC for not dealing with the inventory of applications in the Federal Skilled Worker category in a timely manner, despite the implementation of limits on the number of applications.  By the end of 2008, over 620,000 people awaited a decision — a doubling of the number of applications since the time of the AG’s previous audit of immigration policies in 2000.

Specific to temporary migrant workers, the audit identified the lack of clarity in the roles of CIC and HRSDC.  Of particular concern is the failure to assess employers’ requests for temporary foreign workers.  There is no assessment of the “genuiness of job offers”, “no systematic follow-up” to verify employer compliance with the conditions imposed on work permits.  According to the AG: ”This creates risks to program integrity and could leave many foreign workers in a vulnerable position, particularly those who are physically or linguistically isolated from the general community or are unaware of their rights”.  This also “raise[s] questions about the quality and consistency of decisions being made by HRSDC officers” with respect to labour market opinions.

Finally, the audit criticized CIC’s failure to implement an information technology system in overseas missions, some ten years in the development, as it detracts from application processing times.

Auditing the Auditor

What should not be lost in an assessment of the audit is how the AG’s basic assumptions, and its exclusion of key issues, reproduce the most egregious if subtle features of Canada’s immigration policies.  This is evident from the audits own language: “Immigration has played an important role in the economic, social, and cultural development of Canada throughout our history. … Canada has an ongoing need for permanent workers with various skills and must compete with other countries to attract them.  Canada has a need for various types of temporary workers to address short-term needs of the labour market, which vary from year to year and from region to region of the country”.

Rather than questioning it, the audit replicates the practices and discourse of the state.  The permanent versus temporary worker distinction is treated as a real one by the AG when in fact it is an invention of immigration policies — racist policies to be sure.  In this way, the AG is complicit in legitimizing the backward immigration policies of the Canadian state.

[INDIA] India’s national newspaper The Hindu has pressed for an audit of India’s fiscal stimulus package. Journalist A. Rangachari considers that the large budget expenditure warrants special discussion by the increasingly busy Lok Sabha (lower house). The Government has spent on a broad range of measures including boosting public servants’ pay and waiving farm loans and factory levies.

One of the life lessons that I have tried to teach my kids is the value of learning from your mistakes. I frequently remind my daughter of Thomas Edison’s famous quote when, after numerous failures in developing an electric light bulb, he was asked if he was ready to quit.  Edison replied

“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”

Another quote that I have shared with her and even printed a copy to hang above her desk is from Winston Churchill

“Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.”

More recently, I was struck by President Barak Obama’s view on failure:

“Making your mark on the world is hard. If it were easy, everybody would do it. But it’s not. It takes patience, it takes commitment, and it comes with plenty of failure along the way. The real test is not whether you avoid this failure, because you won’t. it’s whether you let it harden or shame you into inaction, or whether you learn from it; whether you choose to persevere.”

I was reminded of my many discussions with my children about failure and mistakes when I read the federal Auditor General’s report on Canada Health Infoway.   Although I wholeheartedly support and endorse Canada Health Infoway, I have long felt that they don’t  share failures or anything less than positive news.  Given the number of investments that they are making it is not reasonable to assume that they will all be roaring successes and, given the statistics on IT projects across all industries, we can expect a number of failures and only partial successes.  How are we communicating these lessons learned from these failures?  In this current era of eHealth “scandals” no sane person would want to risk media attention by admitting that IT project for which they were responsible had failed.  Too bad.  If we want to get the best return on our investments I think that we need to openly share all lessons learned and to admit, without fear of recrimination, when something goes wrong so that other can benefit.  Failure is indeed an acceptable option provided that we learn from it.  Otherwise, we have squandered our investment and have not generated any value for the money spent.

Mike

This morning whilst driving into Wellington, Adam heard Sean Plunket interview Bill English over the Auditor-General’s report on his ministerial housing allowance. Mr Plunket opened with a question asking Mr English whether he regarded himself as vindicated. Now Bill English did not respond saying Yes or No, nor did he use the word vindicated. Instead he responded as to what the report said.

Yet in a news bullettin a little later, there was a headline saying Bill English regarded the report as vindication. At the least sloppy reporting, but someone more prone to paranoia and conspiracy theory might infer that RNZ was attempting to link the Auditor-General outcome with that of the Ingram inquiry where from memory Philip Field supposedly regarded himself as vindicated. That of course cannot be the case, as noted only a paranoid conspiracist would think that.

The Auditor General has ruled there are no grounds for an inquiry into Finance Minister Bill English’s housing arrangements.

However, the AG says the rules need to be improved and recommends:

that the aim be to develop a simple and sensible system for providing MPs and Ministers with appropriate support for the costs of their accommodation while in Wellington. The system should be:

• clear and well explained;
• grounded in principle, with a clear purpose and scope;
• controlled by appropriate checks and limits;
• transparent; and
• seamless for those receiving the support, whether they are an MP or a Minister.

As with the administration of all public money, the system should also reflect the fundamental principles of accountability, transparency, fairness, and value for money. We emphasise that the system needs to be able to be understood not only by those administering it, but also by those to whom service is being provided, and by the general public who fund it.

We endorse the new practice of publicly releasing information at regular intervals on the various support arrangements for MPs and Ministers that are being funded by the public purse. It is an important step towards better transparency and accountability.

It is in the best interests of MPs and the public to have clear rules.

MPs should not be out of pocket if they have to maintain a house in their electorate and Wellington. However, Bill has decided that he will not receive any allowance, although he could legitimately claim one or live in a ministerial house at greater cost to the taxpayer.

“I’m determined to continue focusing on the things that matter to this Government – helping Kiwis into jobs and managing the economic recovery.

“To that end, I took the personal decision last month to voluntarily repay all of the housing allowance I’ve received since the election. I’m now receiving no housing allowance – that’s my decision.”

Bill has been exonerated by the Auditor General. He has also made the right decision on this.

Running the country and getting the economy growing again are too important to be distracted by sideshows generated by the opposition which is making personal attacks because they have nothing political to get their teeth in to.

Many people that I have heard from or read comments from point to the seemingly high administrative costs related to the district’s overall expenses as a central reason not to support the continuation of the budget override.  They cite a report from the state Auditor General that examined district practices for the 2006 fiscal year – which runs from July 2005 to June 2006.

The first comment I have is an obvious one.  The Auditor General’s report is looking at where the district was four year ago, not where the district is today.  The report itself is now a year old!  Having said that, the findings by the Auditor General are valid and useful in helping the Governing Board and administration improve important operational and financial aspects of the organization.   As a result, the implementation of those improvements have now been underway for at least a year, if not longer on some issues that we had already targeted for improvement.

Yet, the issue that opponents of the override keep referencing is administrative costs.    This doesn’t surprise me given the national climate of corporate bail-outs and CEO bonuses  happening at the same time.   When folks who are hurting and pinching every penny in today’s economy see this type of behavior, it’s easy to color our local situation with the same brush.  I believe that this is a mistake.

I acknowledge that during the times of high prosperity and success for our community and the district – about 15-20 years ago, an attitude of complacency took root – where district officials at that time had less of an incentive to run a tight ship.   Today, most of our departments and schools have cut expenses to the bone – including administration.  Yet the perception that we are top heavy still persists.   Let’s explore some facts that might contribute to this false perception.

The Auditor General’s report compared FUSD with similarly sized districts.  While there is some disagreement about which districts the Auditor General chose to pair us with, the point as it relates to administrative costs is this:  administrator experience.   On average the experience level is higher within FUSD than in the districts we’ve been paired with.   This then puts our administrators higher in our pay scale than the districts with less administrator experience.  Therefore our payroll for our administrators would naturally be higher.    Over time as our employees retire, this situation will naturally self-correct.

Secondly, how we have classified specific employees also led to the disparity in administrative costs relative to the comp districts.   For most people, when you use the term “administrator” they immediately think of positions like superintendents and principals.  Yet there are also positions in the school and district offices that also could be classified as administration in departments like technology, human resources, and payroll.  Yet, many of them could also be classified under the category “support services”.  It’s up to the discretion of  the district how they want to classify these positions.  This classification game is how many districts hide some of their true administrative costs to make it look better for them.  In the past, FUSD chose to more accurately reflect the true costs of these employees which resulted in more people being classified as administrators.   Our finance department is constantly reviewing the criteria by which we are categorizing our employees.  In one such review between last fiscal year and this year, we re-classified several essential employees in our technology department out of administration and into the support services category to net an administrative savings of  over $300,000 per year.    Those employees are still performing what is a valueable service to the students in our classrooms, but our administrative costs look better.  Do you see how the game is played?   That’s exactly what it is in this case, a coding game that all school districts in Arizona play.  And that’s as transparent on the issue as I can get for you.  But it still doesn’t solve the real problem.

The real problem is that we likely do have some extra positions in both our schools and our central administration that, while important at one point in the past, are now a luxury.  I would guess they are at those “middle management” levels, but I don’t know where they are yet, because up to now we’ve had an administration that has been reluctant to conduct a comprehensive internal review of administrative positions.   This is why I believe we have the opportunity to correct this with the upcoming change in Superintendent.   Bringing in a new Superintendent who does not have a long standing history with the district and who can look objectively at our current organizational chart, can help us balance our administration at all levels for optimal operation.

Ultimately, if you are basing your decision on “administrative costs”  I hope you’ll now realize that the dollars are really part of a shell game that can be manipulated through coding and that FUSD, in an attempt at transparency, chose not to play the game in the past.   I hope that you now understand that the real solution lies in the changes the board will make in the coming months related to the Superintendent.  To vote no and dis-continue the override that is currently funding the district I believe would be punishing our children for the district’s honesty in its coding of employees.  A no vote also undermines what promises to be the true solution offered by the change in Superintendent.

I urge you to vote YES and support the continuation of the existing 10% override.  This is not a new tax.  It simply continues the current funding as you’ve already been providing since 2004.

[WALES] A peer review commissioned by Welsh Auditor-General, Jeremy Colman, identified successes in the Wales Audit Office’s first four years of operations, particulalry establishing a credible reputation for high-quality work and as a good employer. The review panel singled out mistrust between management and staff and cross-agency audits focussed on efficiency as areas for improvement. Stakeholder submissions formed part of the review of the Office’s efficiency and effectiveness. For the full report see: http://www.wao.gov.uk/assets/englishdocuments/Peer_review_eng.pdf

The Auditor General is looking for Accounting & Auditing students

When: Wednesday, 14 Oct, 2009

Where: Old Mutual Room, Vaal Triangle Campus

Time: 13:00

[UNITED KINGDOM] Allegations investigated in a suppressed 1992 UK National Audit Office report into a ’slush fund’ run by defence contractore BAE Systems for Saudi royals have re-surfaced. The Government’s  Serious Fraud Office has recently sought permission to prosecute BAE over bribery charges (for more: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article6856498.ece).

Bill English, again, for his failure to close down the issue of his accommodation allowances. Now the at the instigation of Jim Anderton the Auditor General is looking into the issue.

This is one of those nasty niggling issues that if not dealt to becomes a festering sore distracting attention for major matters.

See 3 articles published below:

–

THE strong stance taken against housing officials accused of having misled Parliament about repair work at the N2 Gateway by the standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) has been praised by the auditor-general.“This is the kind of leadership and oversight we expect to happen,” said Auditor-General Terence Nombembe.

And Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale has noted Scopa’s comments “with great concern”, saying he will act “without any equivocation” once he has received the committee’s recommendations.

The Scopa visited the flagship government housing project on Tuesday to see whether structural defects highlighted in a special auditor-general’s report had been dealt with.

However, the site visit revealed that little repair work had been done. Walls had gaping holes, there were exposed electrical cables and plumbing pipes and walls had collapsed.

Scopa chairman Themba Godi said it was clear that the committee was being “deliberately misled” by the officials from the Department of Human Settlements who had confirmed in recent hearings that the problems were being addressed.

He said the matter would be referred to the Speaker of the National Assembly so that the officials would be dealt with at the highest political level.

Human Settlements director-general Itumeleng Kotsoane said in hearings last month that structural defects, which included cracks in the walls, were being attended to.

In a statement released after Scopa’s visit to the site, Kotsoane’s department said the implementing consortiums for the project had been called in to rectify the deficiencies.

“In our opinion, if latent defects have subsequently revealed themselves, then they will have to be addressed by the implementing consortia.”

Further queries were referred to housing agency Thubelisha’s acting chief executive officer, John Duarte, who did not return messages left for him yesterday.

Nombembe said his special audit report had raised issues, but it was up to political leaders to take action. Of the committee’s concerns about the apparent misrepresentation of facts by officials, he said: “This is the kind of action we would expect.”

anel.lewis@inl.co.za

–

One has to wonder whether the officials who misled Parliament earlier this year with a promise that all was well at the N2 Gateway thought that no one would notice.

For years, from the time the first residents moved into the units at the flagship housing project, the people who live there have complained that building methods and standards were below par; they claimed that the materials used in the project were second rate; they said that, in short, the units have been falling apart since they were constructed.

Repeatedly journalists have recorded cracking walls, gaps where wind and rain come in, plumbing problems, ill-fitting timber work and even – in one astonishing shortcut – the fact that a number of units were supplied with the same front door key, leaving security hopelessly compromised.

This week the chairman of Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa), Themba Godi, led a team of MPs to the area to check on the repair work that Housing Director-General Itumeleng Kotsoane told them had been completed last month. They found it had not been done.

Not only that, they found broken pipes, exposed electrical wiring and collapsed walls.

Godi angrily commented that Parliament had been misled “at the expense of the poor”.

This is indeed where the real scandal lies. This multimillion-rand exercise was born because officials realised that despite the tragedy of the fires of 2000 that devastated the shantytown of Joe Slovo, the wreckage held the seeds of opportunity.

The Gateway project was meant to be the example that would change the way the poor in South Africa are housed. A pilot project, it was meant to be replicated across the country setting a new benchmark with the “breaking new ground” philosophy of dignified minimum housing standards.

Unfortunate Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale has inherited this disastrous programme. He has promised to take prompt action when he receives recommendations from Scopa.

If he succeeds in righting these wrongs, he will have earned his stripes in government.

–

THE chairman of Parliament’s standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) wants action against officials who lie to the body.

Themba Godi says lying could turn parliamentary oversight into a charade.

He has written to the chairman of committees and oversight, Obed Bapela, asking that he look at “the provisions of the law” in relation to witnesses providing false information – and says ministers need to be asked what steps they plan to take against lying officials.

“We are greatly worried by this phenomenon where officials under no pressure, and for no justifiable reason, give false information and only admit under intense questioning that they were lying and apologise,” Godi’s letter says.

This week he led his committee on an inspection of homes in the government’s flagship N2 Gateway housing project in Cape Town, where they found that defects had not been fixed as claimed by the director-general of human settlements when he appeared before Scopa last month.

Last week Godi received a letter from arts and culture director-general Themba Waka-she which confirmed that his department’s chief operations officer had also lied to the committee when he appeared before it in August.

Mzukisi Madlavu had told the committee that a criminal charge had been laid against an official. When ordered to provide the case number, however, he could not do so.

Madlavu claimed he had told a junior official to lay the charge, but when asked by the committee to call him, was unable to contact him.

Criminal

In a letter to Godi dated September 3, Wakashe said that since his and Madlavu’s appearance before Scopa on August 7, it “had emerged that the department had not instituted criminal proceedings…”

Wakashe said a criminal charge against the official had been laid on August 18 and that it had been referred to the Pretoria Commercial Crimes Unit for investigation.

Disciplinary steps were also being taken against the official while civil proceedings would be launched to recover money paid to the company of which he was a director. In his letter to Bapela, Godi says Scopa hearings into the effectiveness of the police 10111 call centres and service delivery by police stations had to be abandoned mid-way because of “shallow” and contradictory responses to questions.

He says the same thing happened during hearings into the N2 Gateway project last month, which had to be rescheduled to give officials a chance to prepare properly.

A similar scenario played itself out when Scopa interrogated departments about what action they were taking against officials fingered by the auditor general for their involvement in businesses getting lucrative government tenders worth billions of rands.

Godi says in his letter he wants to know whether government officials are also lying to Parliament’s other committees.

“We would like you to look at the provisions of the law, especially in relation to witnesses providing false information to Parliament.

“There is also the question of the relevant executive (minister) being made aware and demanding to know what action they will take against these officials,” says Godi.

Committee wants answers on N2 Gateway Housing Project

PRESS STATEMENT (by Parliament committee investigating the N2 Gateway Housing Project)

Parliament, 09 September 2009 – Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts was early today shocked to learn that defects in the houses built under the Western Cape N2 Gateway Housing Project had not been fixed as it was earlier reported by the Department of Human Settlements.
The Committee discovered this during its visit to Langa Township, Cape Town, which was aimed at finding out whether the defects reported by the Auditor-General in his report about the project have really been attended to.

The defects identified by the Auditor General were:
*       Cracks in the walls and floors
*       Peeling paint
*       Doors that were not fitted properly
*       Loose fittings and uncovered drain pipes and blocked drains.

During the meeting, in which the report was tabled, the Department of Human Settlements indicated that the defects identified by the Auditor General had been fixed.

Committee members inspected some of the houses and discovered that the report given by the Department was inaccurate. Members found that the defects had not been attended to.

Committee Chairperson Mr Themba Godi said: “What we have been told by the officials during the meeting has not happened, the Committee has been misinformed. Officials reported in the meeting that all the defects had been sorted.”

Members of the Committee were outraged at officials who appeared before the Committee and gave an inaccurate report.

The Committee will finalise its report with recommendations and this will be submitted to the Speaker on the National Assembly.

Issued by the Parliamentary Communication Services on behalf of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts

For inquiries or interviews with the chairperson, please contact:
Yoliswa Landu (Ms)
Tel: 021 403 8203
Cell: 073 738 0182
Email: ylandu@parliament.gov.za

Re the Utegate farce: the Auditor-General reported on Treasury’s role and its senior policy wonk & leak Gollum Grechen, uncovering shortfalls in departmental security procedures. Apparently GG’s failing physical and mental health could have been detected by an expired national security clearance (Verona Burgess, AFR August 07). Designated second-top level as ’secret’, it required the return of a ‘vetting pack’, which GG failed to do for almost a year.

Now, the clever tools of trade used by authors of this ‘pack’, no doubt organisational psychologists, are not to be coughed at, but the thought of a subversive inside agent possiby falsifying his return does exercise the imagination.  This ‘negative vetting’ checks honesty, trustworthiness, maturity, tolerance, loyalty and vulnerabilities in relation to external loyalties, influences and associations; personal relationships and conduct; financial considerations, alcohol and drug usage; criminal history and conduct; security attitudes and violations; and mental health disorders.

Imagine this comprehensive aid to organisational fitness applied to honourable members of our houses of parliament! The colour and character of our legislatures would be irrevocably changed and scary: politicians who are honest, trustworthy, mature and tolerant, not to mention invulnerable to external influences or drug & alcohol usage. The mind boggles!

The A-G’s report also found that Treasury basically mismanaged implementation of the Ozcar $2 billion bail out of car dealers, through poor handling of financial advisers, contracting and documentation. Naturally the government preferred to focus on the opposition and its leader, rather than Treasury’s failings, and the media meekly followed that lead. Let’s hope Treasury secretary Ken Henry applies more diligence to his review of the country’s taxation system.

When faced with political problems associated with the sufficiency economy projects, how woudl the Democrat Party reduce the heat? Blame Thaksin of course. And that seems to be the plan.

In the Bangkok Post (23 August 2009: “Thaksin graft flaws echoed in new plan”) it is reported that Auditor-General, Thaksin foe and supporter of the 2006 coup and the military regime Jaruvan Maintaka is on the job.

She says that the Democrat Party government’s suffiiciency economy projects seem to be corrupt, but that this is a “similar pattern of alleged corruption …  in the Thaksin administration’s village development fund.”

Jaruvan doesn’t reveal anything about the Democrat’s scheme that is new, but points to the Thaksin government’s SML scheme that began aalmost a decade ago. Moreover, Jaruvan sees Thaksin acolytes as responsible for the Democrat government’s corruption, alleging that “the conduct of some staff who are closely associated with the old power clique.” The ever vigilent Jaruvan says:  “They used to work on similar schemes. We are collecting information…”.

According to Jaruvan, this siphoning of state budgets goes back  four to five years “as corruption mechanisms were established.” It is the fault of previous regimes!

All of a sudden, Jaruvan “unveiled the findings of the probe into the SML project, which were handed over to the secretary-general to the prime minister in August last year. According to the report, the SML scheme failed to achieve its goals and reap anticipated benefits. The villages did not follow the project’s procedures involving bidding, book-keeping and contract signing.”

PPT has no doubt that there was corruption under previous regimes. In this case – the SML/village fund – the value of the corruption  is said to have “amounted to 16.196 million baht.” If this isn’t mis-reporting, then the amount is remarkably low in a nationwide scheme.

The amounts in the sufficiency economy project are potentially far more, but if official associated with previous governments are blamed, the Democrats may smell sweeter. A neat plan, but can the Democrats and Abhisit deflect the criticisms that seem inevitable?

Several updates below.

PPT readers may recall our earlier post (in Thai here) on corruption in the Office for Sufficiency Economy Community Projects that had been set up by the Democrat Party-led government. Back then we pointed out that there had been a rising tide of media criticism. The story suggested some serious problems for the government and for the Democrat Party especially as Deputy Prime Minister Korbsak Sabhavasu,  in charge of the sufficiency office, seemed to also be involved in nepotism with his brother working as a deputy director in the office.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva acknowledged problems but denied everything related to the Democrat Party and blamed everyone else, including trying to pin responsibility on the Thaksin Shinawatra government that was thrown out in the September 2006 coup. The office was not dealing in small change, with the government has allocated 21 billion baht to the office.

Over the past couple of weeks, Abhisit has maintained his denials. Now, however, the Bangkok Post (19 August 2009: “Korbsak quits sufficiency project”) Korbsak has resigned as “chairman of the sufficiency economy community project.”

This is a major problem for Abhisit, whose denials were strong. Abhisit has now had to shamefacedly confirm that the opposition Puea Thai Party’s allegations that the sufficiency economy community projects were tainted with corruption are correct.In fact, the initial allegations were not from Puea Thai, but originated from within the communities meant to benefiting from the projects and Peua Thai took them up.

Korbsak is due to hold a press conference that might be embarrassing for the government.

So how does Abhisit deal with the fallout? It seems that the best way is to bring in a died-in-the-wool royalist and widely acknowledged rural development champion to sort it out. Mechai Viravaidya is suggested as the new chairman for the project office. Abhisit says: “I agree with Mr Korbsak’s decision to let Mr Mechai oversee the project. Some schemes under the project will have to be halted so Mr Mechai can examine and fine-tune them.”

*On Mechai see his brief entry at Wikipedia and an authorized biography here. His Population and Community Development Association (PDA) is one of the best-known rural development agencies in Thailand and has had lashings of funds from corporations, international agencies and aid organizations galore. Mechai did much when an appointed minister in 1991-92 to promote HIV/AIDS awareness and action, at a critical time in the development of the disease in Thailand.

It is difficult to be critical of a national and international icon. In 1994 Mechai received a Ramon Magsaysay award for Public Service and in 2007 PDA was awarded the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s Gates Award. The U.S.’s PBS calls him a “Global Health Champion” and Time lists him as an “Asian Hero.” Perhaps less illustriously, he is identified by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation as one of “The Leaders.”

Part of the reason he is liked so much internationally is because he is a part of Thailand’s elite that feels comfortable with foreigners and is one of the “interpreters” of Thailand for foreigners who promote the royalist view of politics and society. Mechai is also seen as a model for his engagement in business (see his CV), his promotion of social entrepreneurialism, microfinance, corportae social responsibility and other neoliberal ideas through the PDA’s projects, making PDA an NGO that is easy to deal with as it feels more like a corporation than any kind of “radical” organization.

And, Mechai has impeccable connections.

Mechai has been one of Thailand’s “elite” of politicians-cum-ministers, seldom holding his positions through election but by appointment. His election success was in the first elected senate. Apart from that he has been, variously, Deputy Minister of Industry (1985-86) and then Cabinet Spokesman (1986-88, for the always unelected General Prem Tinsulanonda), appointed Senator (1987-91), Minister of the Prime Minister’s Office (1991-92, for the twice appointed Anand Punyarachun), Adviser to the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs (1997).

Mechai has strong royal connections. His biography says, simply that he “accompanied Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn on several official foreign trips.” It adds that his “wife Putrie now headed the personal affairs division of King Bhumipol’s private secretary’s office.” Putrie is listed elsewhere as Than Phuying Putrie Viravaidya, His Majesty’s Deputy Principal Private Secretary” and was earlier the Manager of the Royal Projects Division. She is one of the most important figures in the palace. The little comment about accompanying the prince is interesting as there have long been rumors that Mechai has been working with the prince on his image.

Mechai is establishment Thailand.

Update: The Nation (20 August 2009: “Corruption probe will test Abhisit’s integrity”) has an editorial, where the headline speaks for itself. Abhisit is potentially in trouble. However, it seems to PPT that by elevating Mechai one step up the ladder and appointing a Democrat parliamentarian to investigate the alleged corruption the damage control-cover-up is continuing.

Further Update:The Bangkok Post (20 August 2009: “Korbsak quits office post”) reports on Korbsak’s resignation as chairman of the Community Sufficiency Economy Project. Korbsak says he resigned to allow “the government a free hand to investigate alleged irregularities.” He says he is also encouraging his younger brother, Praphote, to quit as deputy director of the Sufficiency Economy Office for Community Development, the office responsible for granting funds to community projects. Praphote is now said to have been the one who screened proposed projects before they were submitted for approval by a subcommittee chaired by his big brother.

Korbsak said that there would be “a fair and transparent investigation by police and the Office of the Auditor-General. He called on Auditor-General Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka yesterday to ask her investigate the alleged irregularities.” Jaruvan is not unblemished herself, is certainly partisan and allegations against “a senior official” being investigated. Korbsak also said that a Crime Suppression Division team had been set up to investigate “possible graft or violations of codes of conduct.” He added that “his Democrat Party’s investigations into the alleged corruption at the agency was expected to be concluded in a few days.”

Abhisit believed that Korbsak’s resignation from the board “should allay fears he would interfere with investigations.” But this is an odd way to investigate. Korbsak and the Democrats have established the parameters and the terms while he and his brother were still in place and with vice chairman Mechai replacing him and the projects will continue, with Abhisit saying: “He [Mr Mechai] will propose the structure of the [project screening] committees and he will have full authority…”. However, for the first time Abhisit said, “the matter might be brought before the National Anti-Corruption Commission for investigation.”

This suggests that the political fallout is already significant as there was lobbying in the Democrat Party to get the failed managers and Korbsak’s brother sacked. A Democrat Party source is said to be concerned that the ” alleged irregularities are threatening the party’s chances in next year’s elections of provincial and district councillors in Bangkok,” and added: “Someone must be held responsible for the damage because of a lack of transparency in the scheme.”

Update (21 August): Prapote, deputy director of the Office of Sufficiency Economy for Community Development and Minister Korbsak’s brother, has resigned from his position.

an emergency effort is needed

It is good news that Tokyo Sexwale and Helen Zille have decided to bury the hatchet on the petty squabbling between the ANC and DA (largely, let it be said, initiated by the ANC) over the N2 Gateway project and land allocation in the province.

The spat has hampered housing delivery in the province. We are now told “the three spheres of government are to sit around one table to decide on the future of the project.” (“Sexwale, Zille and city to decide on N2 Gateway,” August 10).

But Sexwale, Zille, Dan Plato and their officials would be making a big mistake if they believed the future could be settled without involving beneficiary communities, through their representative committees, at the decision-making table.

Unlike his predecessor as housing minister, Sexwale has at least already gone on walkabouts in N2 Gateway Phase 1 and the Joe Slovo informal settlement. But walk-abouts are not the same as meaningful involvement in decision-making.

In the past “consultation” or “negotiation” meant for officials merely informing beneficiaries of dogmatically set plans without any intention of altering them.

What needs to happen is that the past needs to be rectified and the future of N2 Gateway planned with the beneficiaries rather than over their heads.

There is a crisis in housing nationally and in the Western Cape. In Cape Town alone, there is a backlog of 400 000 houses, which is increasing by 18-20 000 a year, with only 8-9 000 houses built a year.

On that basis, the housing backlog will never disappear. It is time for some bold and imaginative thinking.

Let us recall that the Auditor-General’s special report on N2 Gateway found:

• Parliament still has not passed the legislation underlying the project, though it was started in 2004;
• The business plan for the project was not finalised before the start and was not available for audit;
• Sufficient land was not secured before the start;
• There was non-compliance with the prescribed requirement of listing the proposed beneficiaries in the final business plan;
• Documentation was not consistent on qualifying criteria for proposed beneficiaries, especially the monthly household income requirement;
• Affordable housing was not provided in Phase 1 for the target market identified (Joe Slovo informal settlement residents);
• There was considerable “fruitless and wasteful expenditure” on the project – Parliament’s Scopa estimates up to R2 billion;
• The initial building consortium (Cyberia Technologies) was sixth on the tender evaluation list, its appointment was not properly authorised and it had no contract;
• Thubelisha Homes was appointed in 2006 to replace Cyberia without proper tender procedures or a contract. (Thubelisha has since gone bankrupt, replaced by the National Housing Agency).

Deficiencies in construction of the Phase 1 flats mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report include:

• The certificate of completion for the building contract issued by the principal agent was issued erroneously;
• Compliance with registration and inspection procedures identified in various regulations could not be verified;
• Instances were identified where “as built” specifications did not comply with minimum specifications for social housing;
• There were deviations from contract specifications;
• The large public stormwater canal constituted a foul health hazard; and
• Site inspections revealed numerous cracks in the walls and floors, peeling paint, doors that were not fitted properly, loose fittings, uncovered drain pipes and blocked drains.

This amounts to a morass of officially committed illegality. The beneficiaries have borne the consequences and need redress.

For example, residents in Phase 1 have held a rent boycott for two years because of the defective housing and higher rates than they had been told to expect.

They are being asked to pay exorbitant rentals to make up for the cost overruns and corruption in the construction of the flats.

This is unfair. Recent Thubelisha head Prince Xanthi Sigcau has claimed that residents in the area were aware of the rentals when they moved in. But they moved in during a period of the transition in management from Cyberia to Thubelisha – well before Sigcau appeared on the scene.

The residents claim Cyberia announced a rental rise from R350-R500 to R650-R1 050 without explanation and pressured them to sign contracts without even reading them.

Phase 1 residents should have their rentals reduced to a mutually agreeable, affordable level.

There are reports that the management of Phase 1 is to be given to the Cape Town Community Housing Company (CTCHC), which since 1999 has been embroiled in complaints, about defective housing quality and exorbitant rentals, from tenants in nine villages.

Moreover, why must CTCHC, with its appalling record, manage these flats? Why can’t the tenants assume co-operative management?

In addition, why can’t some arrangement be made to transpose rents to reasonable bond payments, so that residents can eventually own their homes rather than rent for life?

These ideas have been considered by the representative committee.

They are the sort of ideas that Sexwale, Zille, Plato and their officials could consider implementing.

The same applies to the residents of the Joe Slovo informal settlement, still under threat of forced removal to Delft, from which barely 12 percent of them will be able to return on the existing N2 Gateway plans.

They are victims of the incompetence of Thubelisha.

The Breaking New Ground housing policy, conceived in 2004, was supposed to break with apartheid-style city planning (blacks to the periphery) and practise upgrading in situ. Both provisions are being violated in the case of the residents of Joe Slovo.

Two things need to be considered here – firstly, finding land in Langa, where they can be placed temporarily rather than in Delft (originally, in 2004/5 sites were identified in Langa/Epping but business owners threatened court action.

These owners could be persuaded otherwise by Sexwale and Zille.

Secondly. higher-density housing – even if this involves, as Plato has suggested, buildings that rise over several storeys.

Medium-density housing is being considered in other townships.

Both ideas have been considered by the representative committee in Joe Slovo, and they need to be brought into the planning process.

The failures of N2 Gateway are largely of an ANC government (the DA was excluded from N2 Gateway shortly after taking office in the City of Cape Town). But both the DA and the ANC need to reconsider their housing policies.

The occupation of N2 Gateway housing by Delft back yarders in December 2007 and the recent occupations of vacant municipal land in Macassar, Kraaifontein and elsewhere by equally desperate back yarders stems from the housing crisis in the city – with the backlog increasing every year.

The city is again threatening to evict Delft back yarders from the shacks they have built on Symphony Way, just as it tore down the shacks of the Macassar occupants – an illegal act, covered up by the city applying resources superior to those of the residents.

The Delft back yarders are all eligible for N2 Gateway houses, but when they submitted their applications Thubelisha lost them.

They engaged in a protest at a handover of N2 Gateway homes and Sigcau promised to deliver new forms but never did so. Now the city wants to condemn them to the prison-like temporary relocation area in Blikkiesdorp.

The ANC may be imagining, in vain, that all informal settlements can be eliminated by 2014. It is equally foolish for the DA to try to implement a policy of zero tolerance for land occupations.

Until sufficient housing can be provided, space must be allowed for the swelling urban population to build shacks on vacant land.

It is incumbent on public bodies to provide such space. Otherwise the city will face overcrowding, resulting in more crime, drug abuse, and the abuse of women and children – all of which are against the policies of the DA and ANC.

And while Sexwale, Zille, Plato and their officials are reconsidering housing policy – in conjunction with the beneficiaries of N2 Gateway and others – they might consider something else. 475 000 jobs have been lost this year due to the recession, adding to the more than 30 percent unemployment rate (including those discouraged from seeking work.)

Why not organise, through an expanded public works programme, emergency training for the unemployed (many have inadequate homes) men and women in bricklaying, carpentry, plumbing and so on so that they can be employed to build the much-needed houses?

Cosatu should put its weight behind such a plan.

The current housing budget is only 1.5 percent of GDP as opposed to the developing country norm of 5-6 percent.

With an emergency effort, spearheaded by the presidency, resourced through the treasury (Zuma has promised R2.4bn to retrain the retrenched), and motivated by the beneficiaries, the nationally needed 2.2m houses could be built quickly.

# Legassick is Emeritus Professor at the University of the Western Cape and is active in the field of housing.

Lyn Provost has been named today as the new Controller and Auditor General, according to Speaker Lockwood Smith “all political parties had agreed to the appointment of Ms Provost”

 A Press Release from the Officers of Parliament Committee is here.

Lyn Provost is currently a Deputy Police Commissioner – Resource Management.

Police Commissioner Howard Broad says – “Police congratulate Lyn Provost on the recommendation and wish her well as Controller and Auditor-General”

The following is from the Office of the Controller and Auditor General website…….

————————————————————————————————————————————–

Role and functions of the Auditor-General

The Controller and Auditor-General (the Auditor-General) is an Officer of Parliament. His mandate and responsibilities are set out in the Public Audit Act 2001.

The Auditor-General is independent of executive government and Parliament in discharging the functions of the statutory office, but is answerable to Parliament for his stewardship of the public resources entrusted to him.

Parliament seeks independent assurance that public sector organisations are operating, and accounting for their performance, in accordance with Parliament’s intentions. There is also a need for independent assurance of local government. Local authorities are accountable to the public for the activities they fund through locally raised revenue. As an Officer of Parliament, the Auditor-General provides this independent assurance to both Parliament and the public.

This independent assurance is provided through the reporting requirements set out under the Public Audit Act 2001 and other statutory requirements:

• annual audits and other audits of public entities;
• exercise of the Controller function including the appropriation audit;
• performance audits and other studies;
• responding to enquiries from ratepayers, taxpayers, and members of Parliament; and
• approvals under the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968.

Annual audits, other audits of public entities, and the exercise of the Controller function are statutory requirements. The remainder are discretionary. To help us to perform this statutory reporting effectively, we also carry out a range of other services including:

• advice to Parliament;
• advice to and liaison with public entities;
• working with the accounting and auditing profession;
• international liaison and involvement.

——————————————————————————————————————————————-

The position of the Auditor General is an important role that provides reports on the financial situation of government organisations. It provides a strong independent voice and exists as one of the checks and balances in our government.

Ms. Provost replaces Kevin Brady in the position.