Barclays’ chief executive, Antony Jenkins, has said that it could take up to a decade for the bank to regain public trust in the aftermath of a series of scandals.
Mr Jenkins made the comment in a speech to students at Brooke House Sixth Form College in East London.
In the chat, which was broadcast on this morning's Today programme on BBC Radio 4, Mr Jenkins said: “Trust is a very easy thing to lose, and a very hard thing to win back.
"In my view it will takes several years - probably five to ten - to rebuilt trust in Barclays."
Barclays was the first bank to be implicated in the Libor scandal, in which traders rigged the London inter-banking rate, leading to a £290 million fine in June 2012, and the bank was also involved in the PPI mis-selling scandal.
Mr Jenkins vowed to restore Barclay’s reputation when he was made CEO in August last year, after the Libor scandal brought down his predecessor, Bob Diamond. In February he revealed his plan to overhaul the bank by fundamentally changing the culture under which its traders operate.
He added in his speech that he hoped the future actions of Barclays would help rebuild confidence in the wider banking sector.
Mr Jenkins chose as his theme “the importance of long-term thinking and planning, and proper leadership”.
“Trust is lost in weeks and months, and regained in years and decades,” he said.
"My point is not that short term markets are bad or inaccurate. They serve a very useful purpose. It is susceptible to elevator analysis – this is up this is down. In addition to looking at the short term and what that tells us how do we focus on longer term drivers of the economy."
British economist John Kay told the Today programme, which Mr Jenkins was guest editing, that bankers' now spend more time than religious leaders telling the public that they are ethical, while simultaneously working in an industry that has acted anything but ethically.
“Over the last 20 years banks have systematically destroyed their relationship with their customers,” Mr Kay said, adding that he was not very optimistic that things would improve.
Mr Jenkins responded by saying that that the cure to a rotten culture is proper leadership from the top, but that the process is a slow one.
"In my view leadership sets the culture in big organisations and culture drives organisational performance. If you want a different sort of organisational performance, a more ethical business, you’re going to have to change culture. Culture takes time to change and it comes back to leadership. If you take a long term perspective you’ll build the right culture," he said.
Mr Jenkins added that he was setting a target for Barclays to be more trusted than not by 2018.
It is one of eight commitments Jenkins will make to staff, customers, shareholders and what he calls society in a few months.
Source: Independent
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
South Africans losing trust in political and business ethics
According to research by Transparency International, South Africa is perceived as being more corrupt this year than it was last year.
What is considerably alarming is that 50% of persons interviewed perceived the judiciary as corrupt; 70% perceived parliament as corrupt and a staggering 83% perceived the South African Police Service as corrupt.
In a statement on Tuesday, local civil society organization Corruption Watch (CW) said the perceptions were indicative of a public that was losing trust in political, public, and business leadership.
Source: the Sowetan
Friday, August 3, 2012
Organ Transplant Scandal Shocks Germany
Germany's healthcare system is highly respected around the world, but a growing scandal over organ transplant fraud has sparked a fierce debate over medical ethics in the country. A doctor is suspected of tampering with his patients' records to push them to the top of the transplant list.
Germany is known for top-notch healthcare, but in recent weeks, the country's medical community has been deeply shaken by an organ transplant scandal that is fueling public distrust of doctors and the donor system.
A surgeon identified as Dr. Aiman O. is suspected of fraudulently manipulating dozens of his patients' test results, making them appear sicker than they were to get them liver transplants more quickly -- and possibly putting them ahead of people who more desperately needed them. The case first emerged in late July at the University Medical Center Göttingen, in the northern German state of Lower Saxony, from where the senior physician has been suspended since November for allegedly tampering with some 23 transplant cases. A gastroenterologist suspected of involvement has also been suspended.
This week, the scandal spread to include Dr. O.'s previous job at the University Hospital Regensburg in Bavaria between 2003 and 2008. There he is suspected of manipulating another 23 organ transplant cases. The hospital's surgical director there has also been suspended for possibly failing to properly supervise hospital activities, though he is not suspected of direct involvement.
But indications that the manipulation may have continued at the University Hospital Regensburg even after Dr. O.'s departure emerged on Friday, when daily Süddeutsche Zeitung reported between 2008 and 2009 the number of liver transplants skyrocketed by 40 percent, from 48 to 69.
"Such an increase is considered unusual," the paper wrote. "Even Germany's largest transplant center only transplants around 100 livers per year."
Medical Ethics Debate
State prosecutors in both Bavaria and Lower Saxony are working together to investigate the cases surrounding the 45-year-old doctor. In the meantime, public debate about medical ethics has been fierce. In this week's edition of SPIEGEL, Günther Kirste, head of the German Organ Transplantation Foundation (DSO), said that over the course of the previous week three families had refused to donate a dead relative's organs "in consideration of the incidents in Göttingen."
The scandal is a serious setback in light of legislation passed earlier this summer to encourage organ donation in the country. The rate of organ donation is relatively low in Germany, which is ranked number 15 out of 24 countries in 2010 figures provided by the DSO, behind Spain, the US and France. Every eight hours a person in Germany reportedly dies needlessly because there are not enough donor organs.
Independent of the organ donation scandal in Göttingen and Regensburg, the first part of the new legislation went into effect on Aug. 1. It includes hiring transplant agents at hospitals to oversee and organize organ donations with patients and their families. New control mechanisms for the donor system, as well as improved rights and health benefits for donors will also be introduced.
The next wave of the new legislation will begin on Nov. 1, after which every German resident will eventually be asked to choose whether they wish to be an organ donor or not.
Source: SPIEGEL
Germany is known for top-notch healthcare, but in recent weeks, the country's medical community has been deeply shaken by an organ transplant scandal that is fueling public distrust of doctors and the donor system.
A surgeon identified as Dr. Aiman O. is suspected of fraudulently manipulating dozens of his patients' test results, making them appear sicker than they were to get them liver transplants more quickly -- and possibly putting them ahead of people who more desperately needed them. The case first emerged in late July at the University Medical Center Göttingen, in the northern German state of Lower Saxony, from where the senior physician has been suspended since November for allegedly tampering with some 23 transplant cases. A gastroenterologist suspected of involvement has also been suspended.
This week, the scandal spread to include Dr. O.'s previous job at the University Hospital Regensburg in Bavaria between 2003 and 2008. There he is suspected of manipulating another 23 organ transplant cases. The hospital's surgical director there has also been suspended for possibly failing to properly supervise hospital activities, though he is not suspected of direct involvement.
But indications that the manipulation may have continued at the University Hospital Regensburg even after Dr. O.'s departure emerged on Friday, when daily Süddeutsche Zeitung reported between 2008 and 2009 the number of liver transplants skyrocketed by 40 percent, from 48 to 69.
"Such an increase is considered unusual," the paper wrote. "Even Germany's largest transplant center only transplants around 100 livers per year."
Medical Ethics Debate
State prosecutors in both Bavaria and Lower Saxony are working together to investigate the cases surrounding the 45-year-old doctor. In the meantime, public debate about medical ethics has been fierce. In this week's edition of SPIEGEL, Günther Kirste, head of the German Organ Transplantation Foundation (DSO), said that over the course of the previous week three families had refused to donate a dead relative's organs "in consideration of the incidents in Göttingen."
The scandal is a serious setback in light of legislation passed earlier this summer to encourage organ donation in the country. The rate of organ donation is relatively low in Germany, which is ranked number 15 out of 24 countries in 2010 figures provided by the DSO, behind Spain, the US and France. Every eight hours a person in Germany reportedly dies needlessly because there are not enough donor organs.
Independent of the organ donation scandal in Göttingen and Regensburg, the first part of the new legislation went into effect on Aug. 1. It includes hiring transplant agents at hospitals to oversee and organize organ donations with patients and their families. New control mechanisms for the donor system, as well as improved rights and health benefits for donors will also be introduced.
The next wave of the new legislation will begin on Nov. 1, after which every German resident will eventually be asked to choose whether they wish to be an organ donor or not.
Source: SPIEGEL
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Public protector: What we need are ethical leaders
There is massive maladministration in South Africa because of unethical leadership, public protector Thuli Madonsela said on Tuesday. "Without an ethical society we cannot expect ethical leadership in government," Madonsela told delegates at a Tomorrow's Leaders Convention in Johannesburg. "The biggest challenge is leading yourself successfully."
Madonsela said the abuse of power and unethical leadership went hand in hand in the public, as well as the private sector. Examples included irregularities in state tender procedures and allegations of corruption within the auction industry. Ethical leadership was vital, especially in Africa, she said. "We need leaders to step up and think out of the box ... We need leaders with new ideas." Titles did not make leaders, she said. "If you lean heavily on a title you are not a leader, it is just a position you hold."
She said there was a link between ethical and sustainable leadership. Madonsela used the example of business leaders offering bribes to get what they wanted. "Sometimes you succeed but eventually you get caught and everything goes down the drain. Hence the link between ethical and sustainable leadership. Ethical leadership is the lifeblood of sustainable leadership in your personal life and in business."
Madonsela said with ethical leadership Africa would live up to the idea of an African renaissance. "We can do it. If you say you do not want maladministration ... then do not engage in it. If you lead yourself successfully ... you will remain ethical," she said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Madonsela said the abuse of power and unethical leadership went hand in hand in the public, as well as the private sector. Examples included irregularities in state tender procedures and allegations of corruption within the auction industry. Ethical leadership was vital, especially in Africa, she said. "We need leaders to step up and think out of the box ... We need leaders with new ideas." Titles did not make leaders, she said. "If you lean heavily on a title you are not a leader, it is just a position you hold."
She said there was a link between ethical and sustainable leadership. Madonsela used the example of business leaders offering bribes to get what they wanted. "Sometimes you succeed but eventually you get caught and everything goes down the drain. Hence the link between ethical and sustainable leadership. Ethical leadership is the lifeblood of sustainable leadership in your personal life and in business."
Madonsela said with ethical leadership Africa would live up to the idea of an African renaissance. "We can do it. If you say you do not want maladministration ... then do not engage in it. If you lead yourself successfully ... you will remain ethical," she said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Zuma simply needs to play by the rules
"We should not have to be dragooned into setting high standards in public life. We should willingly seek maximum openness about what our public representatives do, and receive." These words are as true today as they were in 1996, when senior African National Congress member Kader Asmal said them.
Intrinsically connected with the advent of a democratically elected Parliament was an attempt to build a culture of integrity among elected representatives. A code of ethics was drawn up for MPs and members of the executive to declare their assets. In Parliament, an ethics committee was set up to further increase accountability. The watchwords were transparency, accountability and openness.
The codes of ethics for both MPs and the executive clearly envisage that elected representatives not "expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities and their private interests" or use their public positions for private gain.
In addition, the codes clearly state that interests that must be disclosed include shares, sponsorships, gifts, benefits, foreign travel and land. The code governing the executive clearly states that even liabilities must be disclosed, as well as the interests of spouses and dependent children.
When the codes were put in place, the emphasis was on building a culture of accountability and ensuring elected representatives and officials "did the right thing". The central aim was never really punitive, but preventative.
In 2003, the Institute for Democracy in SA (Idasa) released a report titled Ethics in Post-apartheid SA, outlining the difficulties in the ethics regime and its often patchy implementation. Scrutinising the records of cabinet disclosures at the Union Buildings proved difficult and it was never clear how extensive executive declarations actually were.
Again in 2006 the auditor-general reported that "declarations of interest by ministers, deputy ministers and government employees" was cause for concern. Also, the Public Service Commission found that, on the face of it, 14 out of 20 ministers and most deputy ministers had not disclosed their financial interests, as required in terms of the Executive Members' Ethics Act and pursuant codes.
It is therefore cause for concern that it appears that President Jacob Zuma has not yet disclosed his financial interests as required by law. The usual practice is that the secretary to cabinet monitors disclosure. In terms of the Executive Members Ethics Act as well as the related Executive Ethics Code, members of the cabinet must disclose all financial interests and liabilities as well as those of their spouses and dependent children, within 60 days of assuming office. Zuma is therefore in breach of the law.
The main aim of the legislation is to prevent blatant conflicts of interests which result in personal gain trumping the interests of the country. That the Presidency does not seem concerned about this breach of the rules is not only undesirable but sets an unhealthy precedent. Why should ordinary MPs or ministers disclose their assets if the president has failed to do so?
Despite what appears to be obfuscation by Zuma's advisers, there is no ambiguity about the law - he must disclose. During the trial of Schabir Shaik, the president's former financial adviser, information about Zuma's then chaotic financial affairs came to light.
Recently there have been reports of one of Zuma's wives benefiting from a catering contract in KwaZulu-Natal and questions were raised regarding the allocation of the contract . It thus becomes a source of discomfort when the president appears casual about disclosure, when the rules state clearly that this ought to have happened .
If elected representatives do not follow the rules of disclosure of financial interests, the public's right to know is blunted. Zuma has made much about the need for a "moral code" and a discussion about morality. It is probably undesirable for him to try to initiate this type of discussion. All citizens really expect of their elected representatives is to provide leadership and to adhere to the rules of the game. If Zuma wants to provide more leadership, the ethics disclosure forms would be a place to start.
Intrinsically connected with the advent of a democratically elected Parliament was an attempt to build a culture of integrity among elected representatives. A code of ethics was drawn up for MPs and members of the executive to declare their assets. In Parliament, an ethics committee was set up to further increase accountability. The watchwords were transparency, accountability and openness.
The codes of ethics for both MPs and the executive clearly envisage that elected representatives not "expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities and their private interests" or use their public positions for private gain.
In addition, the codes clearly state that interests that must be disclosed include shares, sponsorships, gifts, benefits, foreign travel and land. The code governing the executive clearly states that even liabilities must be disclosed, as well as the interests of spouses and dependent children.
When the codes were put in place, the emphasis was on building a culture of accountability and ensuring elected representatives and officials "did the right thing". The central aim was never really punitive, but preventative.
In 2003, the Institute for Democracy in SA (Idasa) released a report titled Ethics in Post-apartheid SA, outlining the difficulties in the ethics regime and its often patchy implementation. Scrutinising the records of cabinet disclosures at the Union Buildings proved difficult and it was never clear how extensive executive declarations actually were.
Again in 2006 the auditor-general reported that "declarations of interest by ministers, deputy ministers and government employees" was cause for concern. Also, the Public Service Commission found that, on the face of it, 14 out of 20 ministers and most deputy ministers had not disclosed their financial interests, as required in terms of the Executive Members' Ethics Act and pursuant codes.
It is therefore cause for concern that it appears that President Jacob Zuma has not yet disclosed his financial interests as required by law. The usual practice is that the secretary to cabinet monitors disclosure. In terms of the Executive Members Ethics Act as well as the related Executive Ethics Code, members of the cabinet must disclose all financial interests and liabilities as well as those of their spouses and dependent children, within 60 days of assuming office. Zuma is therefore in breach of the law.
The main aim of the legislation is to prevent blatant conflicts of interests which result in personal gain trumping the interests of the country. That the Presidency does not seem concerned about this breach of the rules is not only undesirable but sets an unhealthy precedent. Why should ordinary MPs or ministers disclose their assets if the president has failed to do so?
Despite what appears to be obfuscation by Zuma's advisers, there is no ambiguity about the law - he must disclose. During the trial of Schabir Shaik, the president's former financial adviser, information about Zuma's then chaotic financial affairs came to light.
Recently there have been reports of one of Zuma's wives benefiting from a catering contract in KwaZulu-Natal and questions were raised regarding the allocation of the contract . It thus becomes a source of discomfort when the president appears casual about disclosure, when the rules state clearly that this ought to have happened .
If elected representatives do not follow the rules of disclosure of financial interests, the public's right to know is blunted. Zuma has made much about the need for a "moral code" and a discussion about morality. It is probably undesirable for him to try to initiate this type of discussion. All citizens really expect of their elected representatives is to provide leadership and to adhere to the rules of the game. If Zuma wants to provide more leadership, the ethics disclosure forms would be a place to start.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
To declare or not to declare?
PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma is expected to issue a statement tomorrow regarding the controversy over the declaration of his interests. “By Wednesday morning, a statement will be issued on behalf of the president in relation to exactly what the position would be,” said Michael Hulley, one of the lawyers working “generally” on the matter. This followed a report, and confirmation by Zuma’s office, that he did not declare his interests after taking office last year.
The opposition DA, who believe this violated Section 5 of the Executive Ethics Code, said they would ask the Public Protector to investigate.
Zuma’s spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said Zuma had been waiting for clarification from his legal team, as there had been a difference of opinion in his office on whether he had to declare his interests or not. “People should also appreciate that while the president has been waiting for clarification from the legal team, he has also instructed that a submission be prepared for purposes of declaration in the event that it was found that he has to declare,” Magwenya said.
A preamble signed by Zuma when he was acting president in 2000 reads: “In terms of section 2 (1) of the Executive Members’ Ethics Act, 1998 (Act No. 82 of 1998), I hereby, after consultation with Parliament, publish the Executive Ethics Code with which Members of the Cabinet, Deputy Ministers and Members of Provincial Executive Councils must comply in performing their official responsibilities.”
Source: The Sowetan
The opposition DA, who believe this violated Section 5 of the Executive Ethics Code, said they would ask the Public Protector to investigate.
Zuma’s spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said Zuma had been waiting for clarification from his legal team, as there had been a difference of opinion in his office on whether he had to declare his interests or not. “People should also appreciate that while the president has been waiting for clarification from the legal team, he has also instructed that a submission be prepared for purposes of declaration in the event that it was found that he has to declare,” Magwenya said.
A preamble signed by Zuma when he was acting president in 2000 reads: “In terms of section 2 (1) of the Executive Members’ Ethics Act, 1998 (Act No. 82 of 1998), I hereby, after consultation with Parliament, publish the Executive Ethics Code with which Members of the Cabinet, Deputy Ministers and Members of Provincial Executive Councils must comply in performing their official responsibilities.”
Source: The Sowetan
Monday, August 24, 2009
Conflicts of interests: Collette Schulz-Herzenberg
ENDLESS media accounts of conflict -of-interest situations among public officials reveal two broad failures of SA’s integrity management system. First, in the unregulated grey zones numerous opportunities for unethical conduct remain. Second, where regulations do exist they are often ineffective.
The first trend is seen with great regularity in media reports, where conflicts of interest are confused or equated with actual corrupt or unethical behaviour. In reality, conflicts of interest should be understood as a situation, not an action. Public officials may find themselves in a conflict situation without behaving corruptly. In other words, a conflict of interest does not refer to actual wrongdoing, but rather to the potential to engage in wrongdoing. Responsible reporting is mindful of the differences between noncompliance on the one hand and a genuine conflict of interests on the other. Similarly, when a potential conflict arises and comes to the public’s attention, it is an encouraging sign that ethics mechanisms are working. After all, conflicts of interest are an inevitable consequence of the fact that people occupy more than one social role. Attention should rather focus on those individuals who knowingly decline to remove themselves from a dubious conflict situation.
The other trend is found among politicians, who tend to adopt a narrow interpretation of what constitutes conflicts of interest. There is general agreement that bribes, kickbacks and extortion all involve a conflict of interest. Yet, the abuse of influence, such as nepotism, favouritism and misuse of state or public property, also constitute a conflict of interest — but those who hold positions of power are less accepting of these aspects. The ensuing confusion continues to hold up regulatory efforts, and the fight against corruption in the public sector. Until we reach a broad consensus about what should constitute minimum standards of ethical conduct for public officials, a number of activities that are ethically dubious will remain legal.
While the media and journalists play a vital role in holding elected members accountable, they face the same “access to information” constraints as that of the public. There are large- scale differences across government institutions in the ability of citizens to access disclosure records. It seems that mandating public disclosure by law is no guarantee that the public can access this information. Often, requests for information are met with resistance. Even when access is granted, records are not always up to date. Secret disclosure does little for accountability and the detection of conflicts of interest. A far greater commitment on the part of the government to transparency and access is necessary if the credibility of the disclosure regime is to be enhanced.
Source: Business Day
The first trend is seen with great regularity in media reports, where conflicts of interest are confused or equated with actual corrupt or unethical behaviour. In reality, conflicts of interest should be understood as a situation, not an action. Public officials may find themselves in a conflict situation without behaving corruptly. In other words, a conflict of interest does not refer to actual wrongdoing, but rather to the potential to engage in wrongdoing. Responsible reporting is mindful of the differences between noncompliance on the one hand and a genuine conflict of interests on the other. Similarly, when a potential conflict arises and comes to the public’s attention, it is an encouraging sign that ethics mechanisms are working. After all, conflicts of interest are an inevitable consequence of the fact that people occupy more than one social role. Attention should rather focus on those individuals who knowingly decline to remove themselves from a dubious conflict situation.
The other trend is found among politicians, who tend to adopt a narrow interpretation of what constitutes conflicts of interest. There is general agreement that bribes, kickbacks and extortion all involve a conflict of interest. Yet, the abuse of influence, such as nepotism, favouritism and misuse of state or public property, also constitute a conflict of interest — but those who hold positions of power are less accepting of these aspects. The ensuing confusion continues to hold up regulatory efforts, and the fight against corruption in the public sector. Until we reach a broad consensus about what should constitute minimum standards of ethical conduct for public officials, a number of activities that are ethically dubious will remain legal.
While the media and journalists play a vital role in holding elected members accountable, they face the same “access to information” constraints as that of the public. There are large- scale differences across government institutions in the ability of citizens to access disclosure records. It seems that mandating public disclosure by law is no guarantee that the public can access this information. Often, requests for information are met with resistance. Even when access is granted, records are not always up to date. Secret disclosure does little for accountability and the detection of conflicts of interest. A far greater commitment on the part of the government to transparency and access is necessary if the credibility of the disclosure regime is to be enhanced.
Source: Business Day
Friday, July 3, 2009
Palin's resignation shocks Alaska, nation
Gov. Sarah Palin stunned Alaska and the nation Friday by abruptly announcing her resignation from office. Palin, the governor of Alaska for two and a half years, said she will step down in three weeks and hand power over to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell. Palin made the announcement at a hastily called press conference held at her Wasilla home as the holiday weekend began. She complained about ethics complaints lodged against her, said the media isn't reporting her accomplishments, and struck conservative political themes like smaller government, resource development and national security. Her statements sparked an immediate national debate over whether this kills any chance Palin had ever winning national office, or frees her up to concentrate on national politics.
Palin, 45, said she decided first not to run for re-election next fall when her term is up, then figured in that case she'd just leave now. Palin said she didn't want to be a "lame duck," a political phrase for officeholders who have signaled they are leaving office and therefore lose clout to push their political agenda. Palin said that instead, she'll work for the Alaska's interests without the title. "Many just accept that lame duck status and they hit the road, they draw a paycheck. They kind of milk it. And I'm not going to put Alaskans through that. I promised efficiencies and effectiveness," she said. But Palin could have waited until next year to announce she wasn't running for re-election, said Valdez Republican state Rep. John Harris, who plans to run for governor now that Palin isn't. The deadline for her to decide wasn't until next June, after the next legislative session is over. Harris called her decision "strange."
Palin's explanation makes no sense, agreed state Rep. Mike Hawker, a leading critic of her. "That isn't a reason. Seated governors just don't resign in the last year of their term no matter how successful or for that matter unsuccessful they've been. Right now there are a lot more questions than answers. And until the governor chooses to reveal more of her motive here, it's just one of those questions we will never know the answer to," said Hawker, a Republican from Anchorage. Hawker noted that Palin's decision to quit "gives her unfettered ability to pursue her economic interests, whether it be a book deal or speeches, that type of thing, without being cluttered by state ethics law."
Source: Anchorage Daily News
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Ministers want to revisit ethics code
Cabinet ministers want clearer guidelines on handling gifts following the outcry over contractors giving Transport Minister S'bu Ndebele a top-of-the-range Mercedes-Benz, the government said on Wednesday.
Government spokesperson Themba Maseko said ministers raised the issue at the first meeting of President Jacob Zuma's new Cabinet and commended Ndebele for returning the car, but mooted revisiting the executive code of ethics. "Cabinet raised the issue ... Maybe we need to look at the ethics handbook to make sure there is proper guidance," he said.
"Ministers will always be given gifts, and as the new Cabinet we should discuss how these things are handled."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Government spokesperson Themba Maseko said ministers raised the issue at the first meeting of President Jacob Zuma's new Cabinet and commended Ndebele for returning the car, but mooted revisiting the executive code of ethics. "Cabinet raised the issue ... Maybe we need to look at the ethics handbook to make sure there is proper guidance," he said.
"Ministers will always be given gifts, and as the new Cabinet we should discuss how these things are handled."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Wednesday, October 28, 1998
EXECUTIVE MEMBERS’ ETHICS ACT 82 OF 1998
To provide for a code of ethics governing the conduct of members of the Cabinet, Deputy Ministers and members of provincial Executive Councils; and to provide for matters connected therewith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)