The ACC’s investigation report into the overseas employment case in India and Japan makes for some very sad reading.
The former Labour Minister and current Director General taking financial favors from the Indian overseas agent stinks to the high heavens and is a damning indictment of the Labour Ministry.
It is not only a gross conflict of interest but a case of corrupt behavior that must be held to account.
However, the ACC report focuses the bulk of its findings on the ‘Earn and Learn’ case in Japan which has been in the public spotlight for a while.
It must be said that there are even more serious issues that come to light in this program.
The ACC report shows how the DG went out of his way to almost become the official representative of the BEO in the ministry.
The facilitation of an illegal license for BEO, the shielding of BEO from complaints and even issuing veiled threats to complaining students are inexcusable.
The BEO is a private organization and its primary motive will be to make money, but the bigger question must be asked of the DG and other Labour officials on how they could condone this and let this happen.
The BEO program is not a simple case of a private program but, right from the start, it enjoyed overwhelming support from the Labour Ministry, lead by the DG- despite many early issues and controversies.
More questions must be asked on why this was the case.
It also beggars belief that the ministry allowed more students to go to Japan even after major controversies came up, including an ACC case.
Given the size and scope of the case the ACC investigation reports answers some important questions on the issue culpability, but there are new issues being brought up by parents and students which may warrant a look by other relevant agencies beyond ACC.
At the end of the day the Japan case is of desperate youth and their parents being taken advantage off with the active cooperation and even collusion of those who were supposed to prevent this from happening in the first place.
We have a problem when the same people who make the law get to decide whether or not they themselves have broken the law.