Cooperative Societies: Cheating in Exams

The results of the supervisory job exams in cooperative societies sparked a wave of complaints, criticism, and doubts about their fairness, after 397 candidates out of 1,746 passed, representing a success rate of approximately 22.7%. The Minister of Social Affairs, Dr. Amthal Al-Huwail, intervened and formed a committee to investigate the complaints and observations. The committee concluded by recommending that the exams be retaken after technical issues were identified, in order to ensure fairness and equal opportunity. However, a shocking irony emerged during the retakes: according to reports in the local press, strict inspection procedures uncovered dozens of ultra-small electronic earpieces that some candidates had attempted to smuggle into the exam halls for cheating purposes. What a regrettable irony. While the discourse centered on ensuring fairness for candidates, some were attempting to violate that fairness and infringe upon the rights of their peers! Cheating is an infringement on the rights of those who deserve the positions. Imagine if one of these cheaters had succeeded, obtaining a supervisory job at the expense of a citizen who passed the exam through his own effort and competence. Is this not a blatant violation of others’ rights? More alarmingly, we are talking about supervisory positions in cooperative societies that manage funds, facilities, and services affecting the lives of thousands of citizens and members. Published figures indicate that the 397 successful candidates competed for only 70 positions across 59 cooperative societies. How can we entrust someone who attempts to reach a position through cheating with the management of funds, employees, and decision-making? How can we expect such a person to adhere to regulations, governance, and accountability when he is willing to circumvent the very first test of his integrity? The attempt to cheat in order to secure a supervisory job is not merely a transient violation; it is a behavior that raises serious questions about honesty and responsibility, and undermines the principle of equal opportunity that should underpin the recruitment process.

Success rate is not a measure of fairness. A low success rate does not necessarily indicate flaws in the exams or injustice toward candidates. Supervisory positions require specific knowledge, skills, and competencies, not merely university degrees. For comparison, in the second phase of the Kuwaitization of supervisory jobs project, 147 candidates out of 809 passed, with a success rate of 18.2%, competing for 48 positions. These figures do not prove that the exams are perfect, but they do confirm that low success rates are not an isolated phenomenon limited to the most recent exam. Fairness does not mean that everyone passes; rather, it means equal opportunity and success for those who qualify according to clear and fair criteria.

In public administration literature, the merit economy considers the cooperative societies sector a cornerstone of food and consumer security, managing assets worth billions of dinars. Handing over these sensitive positions to individuals who have internalized a culture of circumvention and flouting the law clearly means reproducing fragile management and entrenching bureaucracy that repels talent. Development studies indicate that the decline in governance indicators in service institutions always begins with the erosion of selection standards. When degrees and positions become obtainable through deception, institutions lose their immunity against financial and administrative waste. Conversely, successful international experiences, such as those in Singapore or institutional models in Scandinavian countries, demonstrate that the strictness and technical security of centralized exams constitute the first line of defense for sustainable development. “It is impossible to build a knowledge-based economy or a productive society on fragile foundations built on forgery and cheating. The integrity of selection is the true mirror of the extent to which the state respects its laws.”

How long will cheating continue in our society? This issue transcends the boundaries of cooperative societies, touching upon the system of values and professional behaviors in our community.

Cheating does not only harm by allowing an undeserving individual to obtain a position; it also squanders the opportunities of diligent candidates, undermines trust in qualifications, and paves the way for the incompetent to assume responsibilities. Therefore, addressing this phenomenon should not be limited to detection and monitoring agencies; it requires accountability and deterrent penalties in accordance with the law, as well as fostering a culture of integrity and merit from the earliest educational stages, alongside ensuring the transparency of examinations and the right to appeal. While tightening oversight and uncovering cheating attempts deserve commendation, true success lies in entrenching the principle that positions are responsibilities earned through competence and integrity, not spoils seized through deception. A society that tolerates cheating to attain positions should not later be surprised by declining competence or integrity in their exercise. The most pressing question remains: How long will we continue to combat the consequences of cheating, rather than addressing its root causes and uprooting its culture at its foundation?