5 ms·
If the public official had been on the board of a private company, would that have been okay? The article seems to suggest that 'state-owned' is a key factor i
by robonerd 4y ago
If the public official had been on the board of a private company, would that have been okay? The article seems to suggest that 'state-owned' is a key factor in this scenario. That's a bit of a head scratcher to me, but I definitely don't know much about Peruvian politics.
Also, a bit concerning:
> On April 28, Mr. Muñoz released phone recordings which allegedly show unknown third parties requesting he pay USD $80,000 to reverse the JNE decision. “I was asked for money. They told me, ‘If you give an amount of money, we will reverse the ruling.’ I told them that I am an honest person,” he said on the television program Al Estilo Juliana.
- stuaxo 4y agoIn the UK most of the Tory MPs at least are on the boards of private companies. (I can't talk for the Tory supporters but those of us who aren't find it pretty corrupt).
- nickff 4y agoI can't speak for Tories (or other people in the UK), but there may be a difference between government legislators and government executives. Executives have certain obligations, and being an executive in two (potentially conflicting) organizations may be more 'hazardous' or 'conflicting' than being a legislator in the government and an executive in a private capacity. As an example, it seems common for many city councilors to run businesses, but it could be seen as more problematic for a mayor to do so.
- k_sze 4y agoThat's what I don't understand as well. Where is the conflict of interest in the case of the mayor of Lima? Why is there such a rule against that?