I like to consult contemporary or historical writings for facts about our history. I will retrieve from what I have read in the past the names and/or designations of public officials who were reported to be corrupt and crooked in the Portuguese administration when I have some free time later. But asking to substantiate a factual statement by Roland is not asking to prove a negative. All he has to do is tell us where he got that factual information from. Given the fact that there was no freedom of the press in Goa during the Portuguese rule, most of the claims made by lay people are hearsay, and for the most part, wrong. As for Josebab's understanding below, we know very well that in the post-Portuguese Goa many of the administrative officials who are known to be crooked and corrupt are also Goans, some of whom were educated during the Portuguese rule. My observation has been that corruption and crookedness does not have anything do with education, race or religion.
Cheers, Santosh > On Friday, April 4, 2014 7:09 AM, Jose Colaco <cola...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2014, at 1:12 AM, Santosh Helekar <chimbel...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "How is Roland sure that there were no crooks in Portuguese administration, > and when? What system did not allow it?" > > > COMMENT: > > While Roland does the needful to answer Santoshbab's question, I believe it > would help IF Santoshbab identified at least a couple of the crooks from the > Portuguese administration that he knows of. > > Otherwise, at this moment, it appears as though Roland is being asked to > prove/disprove the negative. > > Such techniques are possibly brilliant in Debates, Political skirmishes and > perhaps in the Court of Public Opinion; NOT in any reasonable court. > > ps: it is my understanding that the Vast Majority of administrators and > policemen in Portuguese Goans were Goans. > > Is the suggestion being made here that A SYSTEM which enabled Goans to live > without locking their front doors, actually allowed Corruption in public > administration to flourish? > > Might be a good idea to prove it. > > jc >
