Having accepted that we have to deal with corruption in Bhutanese society we have known that it will always trigger thorny discussions. The underlying issue is often not who is guilty but who is innocent? But, as long as it keeps coming up, and as long we keep debating the debates, we are on the right path.

We have to continue questioning, even more seriously, the clarity of understanding of corruption, the quality of discussions, and the adequacy of action taken. The real issue is not just the ethics within society but our society itself.

The National Assembly discussions on corruption left the increasingly inquisitive Bhutanese audience generally a little dissatisfied. This leaves us questioning both the issue of corruption and our commitment to transparency.

It is true that our Assembly members sometimes tend to zoom in on specific issues and become involved in personalised attacks. Their questioning of government decisions may sometimes be a little too pointed.

But we have to accept that this will be the nature of political debate in the future. We hope that the Anti Corruption Commission, parliament, and society will be able to hold a broader discussion on corruption, not just on the action of the bureaucracy, or any other sections of society, but on trends in society as a whole.

There is also concern in society today that tackling corruption could be opening cans of worms that we do not want to deal with. But, while the standards, trends, and rules keep changing according to the needs of the times, anti corruption action will be relevant as long it deals with issues and activities that have an impact today and in the future.

The premise of current political changes is that there will be open debate as political power is devolved to the people. The Assembly, and in future the parliament, will have to deal with issues that are raised, if only to place them in the right context. Maintaining a silence on any issue will only raise doubts and misunderstanding.

At the critical stage of democratisation the government cannot afford to send a wrong message to the people. If some people are punished and some excused there must be explanations. All branches of the government will have to cooperate and appear to be cooperating with the Anti Corruption Commission.

The reassuring development is that the Anti Corruption Commission does report to the National Assembly and that it has stirred interest if not true debate. As long as corruption remains an issue that is debatable we have hope. If we reach a stage where the people believe that it is not even worth talking about we are lost. And we know that such a stage is possible.

In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous

-- Kuensel