Deep injustice here
It's a farce! ("Two BCM Councillors Suspended over Food Voucher Corruption Claims", DD Jan 21.)
How can they even get these sentences of three months leave without pay when other people who commit lesser offences get jail terms?
Bursars at schools have been sentenced to 8-12 years for fraud and theft of school funds, yet these two get a "get out of jail free" card.
I think BCM's human resources department should really look at its policies and procedures when it comes to matters like this.
What image does it give the public of its councillors — how is it possible that they can steal from the poor and get such light sentences?
These two councillors don't have good track records either; they are accused of various other offences also.
Irrespective of who employs you under whatever act, this is a dismissible offence period.
A case of theft should have been opened with the SAPS with a case number assigned to it. — Burton Brown, via e-mail
Raising ethics in government
There are two different things and they must be kept separate in our minds: the doctrine of innocence until proven guilty on the one hand, as against bringing the organisation into disrepute on the other hand.
The latter may not be the consequence of your guilt whatsoever; simply put, your name is for some reason associated with an allegation bad enough to taint your organisation's public record.
The former simply seeks to protect broad liberties while your guilt or innocence is still under question.
It may be risky for an organisation to accord certain responsibilities to people under such a cloud; hence these people may struggle to attain serious appointments until they're cleared.
This doesn't mean they're guilty, just that there's reason to be concerned about public confidence if they are assigned certain responsibilities.
To step aside upon being accused and charged could potentially achieve both the moral recovery and the public humiliation of the accused, as though they're simultaneously guilty and innocent. It's unlikely to achieve only one of the two.
The desire to achieve sound moral standards and ethics for people in government is most important, in fact second to none.
Yet, to achieve that will always be a mammoth task.
— Lulama Taleni, Peelton Location
LETTERS | Deep injustice here
Image: FILE
Deep injustice here
It's a farce! ("Two BCM Councillors Suspended over Food Voucher Corruption Claims", DD Jan 21.)
How can they even get these sentences of three months leave without pay when other people who commit lesser offences get jail terms?
Bursars at schools have been sentenced to 8-12 years for fraud and theft of school funds, yet these two get a "get out of jail free" card.
I think BCM's human resources department should really look at its policies and procedures when it comes to matters like this.
What image does it give the public of its councillors — how is it possible that they can steal from the poor and get such light sentences?
These two councillors don't have good track records either; they are accused of various other offences also.
Irrespective of who employs you under whatever act, this is a dismissible offence period.
A case of theft should have been opened with the SAPS with a case number assigned to it. — Burton Brown, via e-mail
Raising ethics in government
There are two different things and they must be kept separate in our minds: the doctrine of innocence until proven guilty on the one hand, as against bringing the organisation into disrepute on the other hand.
The latter may not be the consequence of your guilt whatsoever; simply put, your name is for some reason associated with an allegation bad enough to taint your organisation's public record.
The former simply seeks to protect broad liberties while your guilt or innocence is still under question.
It may be risky for an organisation to accord certain responsibilities to people under such a cloud; hence these people may struggle to attain serious appointments until they're cleared.
This doesn't mean they're guilty, just that there's reason to be concerned about public confidence if they are assigned certain responsibilities.
To step aside upon being accused and charged could potentially achieve both the moral recovery and the public humiliation of the accused, as though they're simultaneously guilty and innocent. It's unlikely to achieve only one of the two.
The desire to achieve sound moral standards and ethics for people in government is most important, in fact second to none.
Yet, to achieve that will always be a mammoth task.
— Lulama Taleni, Peelton Location
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos