Which corruption must we fight?

I concluded the last article with a proverb saying: “What does the naked takes from an apron.” This is a reasonable saying because it can apply to the relationship between governmental supervisory bodies, including the National Anti-Corruption Commission and employees.
Continuing this kind of passive control, that is to ambush any mistake, will make developing supervision a weak job. The best example for this is the large number of past and future civil and security supervisory bodies to control the work of government institutions with no avail.
Now, projects are either stalled or stumbling; and corruption is still growing. I don't here mean corruption in the sense of bribery. I mean the malfunction of benefiting from development projects that cost the national treasury with billions of dollars.
My last two articles explain the suffering government institutions face with the words of those who are working in it. This leads me to mention the main idea of these articles: How can we make the National Anti-Corruption Commission relates to all those concerned, and enable it to work effectively to uproot corruption, not just fighting it?
My vision in this regard is to transform the commission from a supervisory body to a reform one. Reform means, in this context, knowing the reasons of corruption, address it, and introduce advice to decision makers.
What we are witnessing today, dispatching controllers and delegates to every possible project here and there, inflating the staff with engineers and other employees. This will only leads to a more bureaucratic institution with no genuine goal to fight corruption.
At this stage, in particular, the commission does not need to look for all stalled projects, or to control the attendance of employees at their work. There is no need for the body to waste time finding out what or how many cars employees used. What it badly needs is to diagnose the reasons behind corruption and provide an effective remedy. The commission is capable to address malfunction and improve the performance of any government institute, thereby restore its image and the employees’ confidence as well. The mechanism of corruption is widespread in all public and private sectors, even in civil society organizations.
I have written before about administrative, financial and functional imbalances and work mechanisms in all sectors, in government institutions in particular.
Perhaps the article, entitled “Government job and the Bermuda Triangle,” is a good example in this regard to symbolize the unproductive government official depicted by a famous saying: “Do not act so as not to err and then be held responsible.”
The thing that reinforces the administrative flabbiness is the fear of many officials to confront corruption and corrupters. They don’t want to be subject to harassment, complaints and allegations, especially in this uncontrollable media era of Twitter, Facebook and other media with people who fight every warrior of corruption and his family with rumors and accusations in order to disqualify the administrator and limit his ability to perform the work as it should be done.
The commission has the ability to study know and address all this within the content of a developmental reform program.
All that is mentioned in the three articles are just ideas, but my hope is that they find the listening ears of those who are capable to implement reforms, so that every Saudi citizen will be a good productive person in all sectors.

(This is the third and final part of the article)

— Courtesy of Al-Eqtisadiah newspaper