Dear Editor,
Since from my childhood I always heard of corruptions in every field of my paths. There are many commissions and committees are formed to curtail the corruptions in our state as well as to reform or Protestant the systems of the government administrate but some how it has shown reformed, not maximum. Therefore it is very much necessary to make a Corruption free or may say minimise the corruptions we have to firstly work from the ground level then only it will be change otherwise there is no possible of stoping of corruptions. since above mentioned topic here I like to put a points that if we want to minimise the corruptions we need to stop corruption systems in this two departments where they are Educations & Recruitment’s department. If the quality education is observed, definitely students will get jobs but aftermaths the recruitment department not good definitely they will not recruit the talented or merit students. Therefore these two departments must walk parallel to each other.So I urged all the leaders, general public and bureaucracy as well as technocrats to stop doing Corruptions in two departments for betterment of our state because if we take care of this departments then automatically remaining other departments will be clean from Corruptions or say minimise from the corruptions otherwise the Corruption is perhaps the biggest political and economic challenge of the twenty-first century. It stands at the core of, or closely by to, endemic poverty, political instability, organized crime, international terrorism, civic disaffection, economic decline, and a number of other issues damaging the quality of government and the quality of life of billions of people around the globe. Long gone is the time when it could be swept away as an issue solely affecting poor and underdeveloped people , or when it was proposed to be functional to certain types of bureaucracies affected by pervasive red tape. Now it is finally recognized for, what it is the cancer of society. Some of conditions of Corruption as below :-
1. Corruption perception:
In the first scenario, a corrupt activity involving one or more members of the ruling elite (the authorities) is perceived by domestic and/or government actors outside the public sphere (the environment, from now on); this situation is commonly referred to as a corruption scandal. Such output produced by the authorities is incompatible with the expectations of the citizens, and thus triggers the voicing of demands for anticorruption actions and a reduction of support for the government, causing stress to the system.
2. Corruption in processes:
The second scenario shares with the previous one the implicit initial stage of a corrupt activity being undertaken by the authorities; however, in contrast to it being directly perceived by the environment, as in the cases of a corruption scandal, it is only perceived through its detrimental effects on the circumstances surrounding the individuals in the environment. These circumstances usually belong to the economic sphere, but they can take other forms. After the material circumstances in the environment are damaged by the incidence of corruption, the environment reacts in the usual pattern of withdrawal of support for the authorities and increase in demands.
3. Corruption intolerance:
The third scenario describes not a situation where corruption is directly perceived or indirectly suffered, but a shift of paradigm to one in which corruption is addressed by the environment before it occurs and the general environmental shift towards more stringent rules and procedures to prevent and dissuade the engagement of public actors in malfeasance. Although the development of the corruptions is gradual and has moments of higher and lower intensity, the general pattern is one where the environment experiences an evident decrease in the levels of corruption it is willing to tolerate, and as a result it tries to affect the implementation of Systems in domestic settings through different forms of influence and pressure. This influence and pressure are what we have been calling demands. When the authorities in turn fail to meet these demands through their engagement in appropriate anticorruption activities, support decreases and the system is again said to be under stress.
4. Prolonged stress:
Finally, the pattern of corruption in systemic terms can further reduce support through the system’s prolonged exposure to stress under any or all of the previous scenarios. In such a scenario, what takes place is not only a reduction in the level of support for the authorities, but also for the political regime in general. The level of stress exerted over the system, in this sense, affects not only the possibilities of a particular set of authorities to remain in power, but furthermore erodes the public support for the system of government, its institutions, and the legal structure of the state and the country.
Therefore is very much sensible for all of us to take care of this two departments.
Sincerely,
Toko Takar
Member of APSSB
(ICJR)