Tra Fas De: Those who want to monitor community funds must monitor the entire system

The fact that people receive social benefits to which they are not entitled must be addressed. There should be no debate about that. But if transparency and oversight of public funds are the starting point, that oversight should not be applied only to citizens who depend on social provisions.

The fact that people receive social benefits to which they are not entitled must be addressed. There should be no debate about that.

But the solution cannot be for the government to make the names of benefit recipients public and then have society help determine who is or is not entitled to that money.

The Minister of Social Affairs has indicated that the records must be cleaned up. The number of people registered for social provisions is now approaching 200,000. According to the minister, names would be made public to enable social oversight.

I consider this a far-reaching measure.

Then apply that principle consistently

Because if the starting point becomes that anyone who may be improperly receiving public funds can be scrutinised by society by name, then that principle must be applied consistently.

Not only to people with a Moni Karta.

Then we must also look at the rest of the government.

Then we want to know who receives allowances to which they may not be entitled. Which committee members are paid and for what? Which expense claims are submitted and how are they checked? Which advisers are paid? Which allowances are granted within ministries and state institutions?

The same question of transparency must then also be asked of institutions and companies in which public funds play a role: the SZF, the SLM, ABS, EBS, SWM, the telecommunications sector and other government and state bodies.

I am not saying that people there are receiving money unlawfully.

It does mean that when oversight of public funds is the principle, that principle cannot stop with one group of citizens.

Why should society be allowed to know that a particular citizen receives a social benefit, but not be given the same degree of openness regarding other payments from public funds?

That is where the problem lies for me.

Right to privacy

Article 17 of the Constitution of Suriname stipulates that everyone has the right to respect for their private life.

Article 8 further stipulates that no one may be discriminated against on the basis of, among other things, economic position, social circumstances or any other status.

That does not automatically mean that every form of disclosure of names is prohibited. But it does mean that the government must be able to explain why publication is necessary, what the legal basis for it is and why less intrusive forms of oversight would not be sufficient.

This is all the more important now, because Suriname is still working on legislation concerning public disclosure and the protection of personal data. The draft law on Privacy and Personal Data Protection is still before De Nationale Assemblée (Suriname’s parliament). Committee meetings on legislation concerning freedom of information were also held in 2026.

Moreover, public disclosure does not automatically mean that everything about every citizen must be made public.

A list of names is not always the same thing

The ministry has previously published lists of names for the distribution of Moni Karta’s. The purpose was for people to see when they had to collect their card.

That is different from publishing names so that others can assess whether someone is, in their view, poor enough, vulnerable enough or needy enough to receive a benefit.

We must be very cautious about that.

A neighbour may know that someone has a car. But do they also know how that car was obtained? Do they know what someone earns? Are they familiar with that person’s medical, financial or family situation? Do they know which decision underlies the granting of a benefit?

Social oversight can therefore also lead to suspicion, shame and public condemnation of people who are simply entitled to their provision.

Combating fraud without public condemnation

Fraud must be combated.

But for that, the government needs instruments: proper registration, periodic re-checking, data matching where legally permitted, internal oversight and investigations into suspicious applications and payments.

There could also possibly be a confidential reporting point where concrete information about possible abuse can be passed on. Call it a tip line if necessary.

If nearly 200,000 registrations are difficult to monitor, that represents a major administrative task.

Then invest in oversight.

But the government’s responsibility to monitor its own system cannot be shifted to society without further safeguards.

And especially not only when it concerns people at the bottom of the social ladder.

Then scrutinise everything

Because if we truly say that public funds must be scrutinised down to the last cent, then I agree with that as a principle of transparency.

But then that scrutiny must be applied broadly.

To social benefits.

To committee payments.

To expense claims.

To allowances.

To state-owned companies and public institutions.

To projects for which millions are allocated.

And also to administrators and officials who are paid from the state treasury.

Then we apply one standard.

What is not desirable is a system in which maximum openness is demanded of the citizen who depends on a social provision, while far less insight is available into other spending of public funds.

That would not be full transparency.

That would be selective transparency.

Anyone who wants to scrutinise public funds must scrutinise the entire system.

Not only the people at the bottom.

For the website, I would possibly highlight the bold sentence on “selective transparency” as a pull quote. The subheadings also make the column more suitable for mobile reading and Google Discover.