25th February

It’s No Secret

The article has argued against the client privacy rules of Swiss Banks that has made them safe heaven for thousands of swindlers, politicians, tax law breakers as well as terrorists. 

Recently UBS was forced to reveal some of the data about their clients who were allegedly involved in tax evasion crimes in US. While one side of political spectrum opposes such move as it attacks the great Swiss national tradition of banking secrecy, the other side of the political spectrum supports it as a move to greater transparency. Since ages, Swiss Banks have maintained their tradition of client secrecy which has been their USP. However, privacy only holds good till it’s about legitimate money. Besides good account holders, Swiss Banks are becoming safe heaven for people involved in high amount of tax evasion, smuggling as well as terrorists. Recently a UBS banker confessed to have helped in clients’ tax evasion and diamond smuggling. Osama Bin Laden’s money for 9/11 attacks was also parked in Swiss Banks as the investigations have revealed.

The current economic crisis demands greater transparency and reforms in not only the financial services domain but everywhere. The time is to create responsible and responsive institutions. Swiss Banks, by their stubborn client secrecy policy, is in fact helping bad guys. Banks should maintain client secrecy as required by professional norms but also help regulatory authorities and criminal investigators when needed.

None Of The Above

The article talks about the paradigm shift that would be brought in the Indian political system if the “right to case negative vote” becomes reality. 

Last year there were e-mails circulating all over internet regarding the Article 49(O) which essentially said that a voter has the right to refuse to vote after identifying and registering himself. However, this was a self-defeating rule since nobody would bother to go all the way to poll-booth, stand in a queue, undergo the entire procedure and then declare not to vote when he has the option to sit in his house and not go to poll-booth at all. Right to negative vote is different since it allows voter to declare that none of the candidates deserves his vote. SC has decided that the issue should be taken up to the five-judge constitution bench. EC has already given its nod to the rule. The rule is revolutionary since huge number of negative votes would show the protest of voters over the quality of candidates standing up the election. Many candidates in the elections have huge number of corruption charges and criminal offenses which cannot be tolerated. 

Not surprisingly, political parties have protested against this rule. But the point is that if the rule shakes up all the political parties, then it would have served its purpose.