Fr. Damianus Abun, SVD, MBA, Ph.D
Introduction
Getting
things done is a common objective of everyone and wanting to be millionaire
is also a dream of everyone. Such objectives are so appealing to the taste of
everyone up to the point that people do everything by all means to achieve. Working hard and working smart are not only the means when people run after what they want to achieve but it also includes bribery. Nowadays, people are not patient enough to wait the result and have no patience to form a queue and long process could lead people to take short cut. The end justifies the means. Result oriented management can lead employees or anyone to take short cut, as long the result is achieved. Often time the
management is so happy to hear that the objectives of the organization are
attained without bothering themselves to ask on how they achieved such result.
In
terms of closing business transactions, usually bribery is the short cut way to
accomplish the objectives. It is very common that someone who would like to get
the deal sealed would often take the short cut. They offer something that is
appealing to the taste of the other side, be it money or other kind that is
very attractive. Because of the offer, often time, the other party does not
look into the quality of the product or service sold and hastily they let the
deal to be done. It is always done before the deal is sealed.
Many countries have been growingly concerned about their failure to attract important amounts of foreign and local investment due to negative perception about the country from the investors. Corruption, bribery and the lack of transparency in business transactions have added to the multitude of risks to investment and trade in many countries. Many countries’ inability to attract and retain investment has impaired the ability to deal with mounting demographic and economic problems and hampered the fundamental socio-economic development and welfare of the populations.
Bribery and How It Operates
Bribery is nothing new to all of us. It has been the issue that
has been hanging on our head as part of social illness that causes poverty. Bribery
is part of corruption. Prijono Tjiptoherijanto (2009) defined corruption as he
cited from Ofosu Ammah, Sopramanien and Uprety, 1999) as the abuse of public
office for private gain. It “involves behavior on the part of officials in the
public and private sectors, in which they improperly and unlawfully enrich
themselves and/or those close to them, or induce others to do so, by misusing
the position in which they are placed” (ADB, 2000). Therefore, a corruption is a form of seeking personal gain.
Such corruption happens not only in the government but also in private sector. Seeking
personal gain at the expense of others or the public is considered illegal and
immoral. Therefore corruptions in all their forms are unacceptable and have to
be stoped.
Bribery is a crime of giving or taking money or some other
valuable item in order to influence a public official (any governmental
employee) in the performance of his/her duties. Bribery includes paying to get
government contracts (cutting the roads commissioner in for a secret percentage
of the profit), giving a bottle of liquor to a building inspector to ignore a
violation or grant a permit, or selling stock to a Congressman at a cut-rate
price (Gerald N.Hill & Kathleen T.Hill, 2005). The definition has been
expanded to include bribes given to corporate officials to obtain contracts or
other advantages which are against company policy. Definitely bribery is
against laws and company policies and thus it is illegal.
Noonan (1984) defined
bribery as the offering, giving,
receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing
the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal
duties. The expectation of a particular voluntary action in return is
what makes the difference between a bribe and a private demonstration of
goodwill. To offer or provide payment in order to persuade someone with a
responsibility to betray that responsibility is known as seeking Undue Influence
over that person's actions. When someone with power seeks payment in exchange
for certain actions, that person is said to be peddling influence. Regardless of who initiates the deal, either party to an
act of bribery can be found guilty of the crime independently of the other.
From both definitions
bribery is considered as undue influence over the official, whether it is
government or corporate officials to give certain favor to the one who offers
the bribe. It is called undue influence because it affects the decision process
of the officials. The decision process would be shorter and easier and would
not be based on required standard of quality. Standards and procedures,
policies, laws are not being followed.
Bribery is hard to be
detected. It does not require written agreement because it is considered under
the table arrangement or hidden agreement. People are aware of its negative
implication and therefore it has to be done in a way that no paper /documents
to be traced later on in the future if transactions are being questioned.
Mostly are done verbally. In a certain culture, since it is already a common
practice in business transactions, it is already known to the each party in the
transaction on what should be done to accomplish the transaction. It means that
bribery is considered as standard operating procedures (SOP).In some cases;
there is already a certain percentage (10%) once the transaction is closed or
sealed. It is not written but it is a common practice.
Bribery can be done in
many forms such as cash or even personal favor. Usually it is common to be
given in cash. It can be done before or after the transaction is sealed.
Sometimes the amount maybe determined or undetermined or based on the other to
give, how much he/she is willing to give.
Or it can be done in the form of personal favor. People usually
volunteer to offer free services to their transaction partners.
Definitely bribery is
creating conflict of interest. The officials make decisions not purely for the
benefits of the organization but for individual interest. In this case, it is
not to the advantage of the organization but individual advantage. We have seen
many cases of poor product performance. The materials or product purchased are
easily damaged. Often time items purchased under bribery do not include
warranty and there may be warranty period but usually it is shorter period
depending on the kind of products.
Bribery
is practiced not only by the government and corporations but also individual
persons just like what Teresa Alho, (2012) reported in his article on “Rooting
out Bribery in Business”. He reported
that even the Oscars are looming and designers
and fashion houses are all vying for the attention of A-list celebrities. The amount of publicity garnered from a celebrity wearing
their gown is almost priceless. The competition is so high that some
designers have resorted to bribing the stars and stylists to use their dresses.
Getting
the business done and the results are delivered is the purpose of bribery. On
the part of the one who is bribed is pure greediness and selfish interest.
He/she wants to have quick cash without going through ordinary procedures and
hard work at the expense of the government or company. Poor service on the part
of government is a result of bribery. Bankruptcies of Private Corporation is a
result of bribery. Bribery does not benefit anyone after all.
The
existence of bribery does not only include poor countries but also rich country
just like Japan, Hongkong and others but the extent of corruption varies from
country to country. It shows that poor countries are still dominant in the top
rank of bribery rank. The richer the county is, the lesser the bribery
practices. Data taken from Transparancy
International Global Corruption Barometer 2007as cited by Prijono Tjiptoherijanto (2009) proves such point.
Respondent who paid a bribe to obtain services in
Selected Asia Pacific Countries, 2007
Ranking Country/Territory Percentage of respondents who
paid a Bribe
Ranking
|
Country/Territory
|
Percentage of respondents who paid a
bribe
|
7
8
18
23
33
40
41
46
49
57
58
|
Japan
Korea South
Hong Kong
Malaysia
India
Indonesia
Phlippines
Pakistan
Cambodia
Singapore
Thailand
|
1%
1%
3%
6%
25%
31%
32%
44%
72%
*
*
|
Source : Transparancy International Global Corruption
Barometer 2007, Percentage
Moral Evaluation of Bribery
It
is not difficult to judge bribery as immoral. The moral question would be: Is
bribery wrong? Definitely it is wrong. Why is it wrong? Bribery is exercising
undue influence over a person to act in favor of the one who is giving the
bribe. The one who is receiving the bribe is acting not based on his free will
but because of external force or external influence. Because of the influence,
the person who is receiving the bribe acts contrary to his reason or knowledge
that bribery is wrong. Despites of her knowledge, he willfully and knowingly
accepts the bribe. The agent or the person ignores his knowledge or reason in
his decision and allow himself/herself to be bribed. External influence cannot
exempt the person from moral blame because he can still refuse.
In
the theory of ethics certain act is considered moral or immoral if the act is
done out free will and knowledge. Reason and free will are the basis for moral
evaluation of a certain act. If those two requirements are removed, then the
act cannot be judged whether it is moral or immoral. In this case, if the act
is done because he wants to do it despite of the fact that he knows that
bribery is wrong but he still does it, then it is immoral. Bribery is immoral.
The
next question is that who is going to be morally responsible? Moral
responsibility concerns the evaluation of human acts or actions which man
performs knowingly and freely. It is essentially concerned with wrongful act.
It assumes that a person who performs an act knows why he acts and freely
commits it; even though he knows his act is wrong. In relation to the acts, the person deserves
blame or punishment. Thus moral
responsibility involves the notion of guilt or innocence. The one who is to be
morally responsible and to be blamed is the person who is receiving the bribe. The
person is not forced to received the bribe, it is always under the gentleman’s
agreement.
Under the Kantian Ethics, moral responsibility is
determined by the goodness of the agent’s motive for acting regardless of the
consequence. Using this theory to evaluate the motive of bribery may be hard to
determine the motive of the doer because it cannot be seen. However, though it
cannot be seen, it can still determine the doer’s motive which is self-interest
because it is done for personal gain. He does it wilfully for his/her own
interest. Using utilitarian ethics makes
it easier to judge. Utilitarian ethics tells us that certain act has to be
evaluated according to its consequence, regardless of the motives. Thus,
certain act is considered to be moral if the act produces happiness of greater
majority. Only the benefit of greater majority is the reason if certain act has
to be pursued or not pursued. Using the argument of Utilitarian Ethics, it is
very clear that bribery is only for personal interest, personal happiness. The
common good is sacrificed, the welfare of other people is denied. Thus, bribery
is morally wrong. Thus a person who is bribed is morally responsible and
blamed.
Preventing Bribery in the Government Service: Administrative, legal, Moral and Judicial Reforms
Since bribery is not moral and is not accepted in
business transaction, thus prevention measures have to be established.
Preventing bribery is better than curing the bribery because if the practice
has become part of the culture of the organization, it will be difficult to
solve or eradicate it. Preventing bribery in my assessment is not only a matter
of writing policies prohibiting bribery but most important is to inculcate
moral values to all employees and management who are working in the
organization or public offices. Such efforts are applied to all offices, government
offices and private corporations.
In a region where bribery in business
transactions does occur, just like elsewhere in the world, preventing and
curbing the occurrence of bribery in connection with the obtaining of a
government procurement contract, a public decision or any other undue advantage
has been widely acknowledged as an important objective for any government and
private corporations. Thus any government in the world must establish policies
prohibiting bribery and punishment given to those violating the policy must be
heavier to discourage behavior of any person who has plan or tendency to accept
bribe.
In relation to the seriousness of the government
in the implementation of the policy, there must political will to run after
those who accept bribes. Unless the government run after the corrupt and put
them behind bars, the corruption and bribery or kickbacks will never be
abolished. In some countries or corporations bribes are flourishing due to the
facts that government or the management is not serious enough in curbing
corruption and bribery. This may be the logical consequence of nepotism,
favoritism and political connections. Rules lose their teeth when it comes to
family, friends and political alliances.
Based on World Bank Survey,( Vinay Bhargava, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan019123.pdf, retrieved March 21,2014 ) corruption
is not just a public sector issue. As a frequent source of bribes for public officials, the
private sector shares responsibility for corruption. For the first time,
in 1999, Transparency International released a Bribe Payers Perception Index.
This index ranks 19 leading exporting countries (mostly developed countries) in
terms of the degree to which their corporations are perceived to be paying
bribes abroad. On a scale of 1 (high) to 10 (negligible), more than half the
countries scored below 7 and about one third scored below 5, indicating
perceptions of widespread bribery by leading exporting countries. The
Philippines was not a part of this survey. This is just an indication that
bribery is a common problem everywhere, not only in the developing countries
but also developed countries but at each different extent.
The same survey
indicated that in the Philippines, several instances of corrupt practices on
the part of private corporations and individuals have been reported in the
media. In a September 1998 SWS survey, asked whether corruption happens in the
private sector as well, 52 percent of the respondents said it did, even without
the involvement of government personnel. Similarly, 66 percent of the
respondents said that when corruption involves a businessperson and a government
official, both parties are guilty. These findings show that, as a major source
of the funds used for corrupt purposes, the private sector has to be mobilized
to combat corruption.
Such survey
indicates an alarming situation that corruption is becoming a culture of the
business transaction whether private or public sector. The challenge here is
how to eradicate cultural practices if it has become mental mind set in the
business transaction. Removing mental mind set is not an easy job. It is easy
to call for total transformation from the pulpit but how it is to be
implemented and to live it is a difficult task. However, it is not impossible,
as long as the government has the political will to pursue cases related to
corruption and the same as private sector, society may become clean.
Though the
Philippines has not established an agency specifically for eradicating corruption,
however its effort in combating corruption reveals that progress has been made in the
last decade largely by reducing opportunities for corruption through policy and
regulatory reforms. This is shown in the improvement of its CPI. Its
progress can be judged from historical scores over a long period of time based on
World Bank Survey report. For the Philippines, Transparency International’s
estimates of
CPI have steadily improved from a low of 1.04 in 1980–85, to 1.96 in
1988–92, 2.77 in 1995, and 3.6 in 1999 (a higher CPI on a scale of 1 to 10 means
a lower perception of corruption). Though encouraging in the sense that progress has
been made, the low score also says there is a long way to go (Vinay Bhargaya, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan019123.pdf, retrieved March 21,2014.).
Recent
development indicates that Philippines are moving forward toward eradicating
corruption. Though no specific agency is assigned to do such job, however,
civil society and media has been so brave in revealing corruption in the
government. The issue of pork barrel of several senators and congressmen has
been brought to open by the media and individuals who are determined to
eradicate corruption in government. However, it remains to be seen on the part
of the government if they have the political will to investigate until its
final judgment. Cases related to corruption have been filed but the verdict of
those cases is remained to be seen. In this case commitment by the political
leadership is crucial. Besides, it is time for the Philippines to introduce
reforms in combating corruption such as a comprehensive
strategy to combat corruption, and independent anti corruption agency. Singapore.
Malaysia, Indonesia and also Thailand have independent agency handling
corruption. Other
reforms in combating corruption may include efforts in improving corporate
governance and public sector reforms. In terms of good governance, it may
include as transparency, accountability, participation in decision making and
in relation to public sector reforms may include administrative reforms,
decentralization and civil society participation in decision making.
Indonesia’s
effort in combating corruption has been a long history since 1957 when it was called Order to fight corruption (Military
Commander). Such effort did not produce much result, then in 1967 Presidential
Decree to fight corruption through prevention and repression (Corruption
Eradication Team) was declared. However, despite of the new measures, the
result did not show any improvement. Corruption continued to grow and led the
government to issue Presidential decree in 1970 to access corruption and its
solution (Commission of Four). Since those efforts did not discourage people
from doing corruption, then in 1977 President formed a team called Disciplinary
Team to take disciplinary action in operations & administration. After long
years, it seemed efforts did not reduce corruption level. Desperate of the
situation, in 1987 Ministry of Finance order for a special operation on
corruption in taxation (Special Re-Audit on Tax Return). Then later in 1999,
the government implemented Asset examination and disclosure law for public
officials (Public Official Wealth Examiner). The corruption had rooted deep and
it seemed to be hard to eradicate, thus in 1999 Government ordered to
investigate complex corruption (Corruption Eradication Joint Team). Despite of
many efforts, corruption still existed which the government needed to establish KPK (2003). It is a special
commission on anti corruption. It is an independent body from legislative and
judicial branches of government. Since then Indonesia
has implemented a series of measures designed to combat corruption. The
corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was formed in 2003 to coordinate and supervise anti-corruption
efforts, while focusing on eliminating and preventing corruption and conducting
a system review. It undertakes this mission on the assumption that a
comprehensive, systematic and long term approach is needed to achieve a
corruption-free Indonesia, which must by definition include the holistic
participation of all stakeholders. As such, its aim is to become a driver of
change in cultivating a culture of anti-corruption in Indonesian society, government,
and the business world. Its activities include coordination, supervision,
investigation, prosecution, prevention, and system review (Prijono
Tjiptoherijanto, 2009).
Despite a lot of
efforts have been done, Indonesia has not shown much improvement in eradicating
corruption as pointed out by the recent findings of Transparency
International’s annual Corruption
Perceptions Index
. CPI ranks 174 countries and territories according to their level of
corruption as perceived by surveys of both domestic and foreign observers. The
2012 index found that Indonesia was perceived as more corrupt than a year
earlier, dropping from 100th to 118th place (a lower ranking indicates greater
corruption), despite high-profile efforts to address the problem. In its
interview, last 2013 with the Indonesians and it was reported in Global
Corruption Barometer, majority of Indonesians reported that corruption had
“increased a lot” in the last year, with vast majorities describing the police
(91 percent), legislature (89 percent), judiciary (86 percent), political
parties (86 percent), and public officials and civil servants (79 percent) as
corrupt. More than a third of Indonesians reported that they or someone in
their household had paid a bribe in the last 12 months, including two thirds of
those who had contact with the judiciary and three quarters of those who had
contact with the police. On the latter metric, Indonesia is on par with the
likes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, and Sierra Leone (Gregory B. Poling,
Blake
Day, 2013). Where have they gone wrong?
Despite the reforms that were introduced, however corruption is still on the
rise. Corruption has gone to different sectors of government. Indonesia need stronger
measures and practices to be enforced and must be taken to eliminate entrenched
interests and processes that support abuses. Strong political will is needed
which lies on the hand of the President. Is it possible to learn from Malaysia
and Singapore?
Malaysia also acknowledges that corruption is
on the rise. However, Malaysia government has introduced reform including the
establishment of MACC or Malaysia Anti Corruption Council. The ruling government
under the Barisan Nasional coalition has promised to fight corruption and Prime
Minister Najib has made it a cornerstone policy. At least on paper, the
government has taken several important steps towards increasing transparency
and oversight. One of the first major moves made Prime Minister Najib when he
was first elected was to establish the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Council (MACC)
to combat corruption and increase transparency. The MACC was seen as an
improvement over its predecessors, but critics charge that it is still failing
to do its job (Brian, 2014). Government’s effort in curbing corruption seems
lacking of political will in persecuting former prime minister and other
officials. Many charges against
well-connected officials have been dropped. Such situation indicates the
weakness of political will of the government to run after the corrupt officials.
Even
though Malaysia has not gone far yet, however its effort in curbing corruption
has brought output. Its corruption perception index has improved as indicated
in the report that Malaysia has improved its standing in the 2013 Corruption
Perception Index, from country ranking of 54th position in 2012 to 53 out of
177 countries. Malaysia’s CPI score is 50/100 compared to 2012 of 49/100. Malaysia’s position continues to be in the mid-range average,
indicating that while many steps have been implemented under the GTP/NKRA
initiatives, the level of corruption experienced in Malaysia has not
significantly decreased (http://www.malaysiascorruptionperceptionindex.com) .
Singapore
has started cleaning their country from corruption since 1952 when the CIPB was established.
However the fight against corruption was not easy then. There were a lot of
challenges and problems in carrying out its mission to eradicate corruption due
to some reasons. Corruption was more or less a way of life in the 1940s and
early 1950s. Prior to 1952, all corruption cases were investigated by a small
unit in the Singapore Police Force known as the Anti-Corruption Branch. Another
problem was the lack of public support. Members of the public did not
co-operate with the CPIB as they were skeptical of its effectiveness and were
fearful of reprisals. Then later in 1960 the Prevention of Corruption Act was
enacted and through this law the Singapore Corrupt Practices Investigation
Bureau (CPIB) was empowered. The CPIB officers were given more investigative
powers to make the fight against corruption easier. The purpose was
to provide more effectual prevention of corruption. It is an independent body
and it is directly under directly under the Prime Minister’s Office so as to block any undue
interference from any quarters and to ensure that CPIB does not favour any
particular department or agency. The CIPB is solely responsible for the
investigation of corruption-related offences
involving bribery in Singapore. Under the wings of the Prime Minister’s Office,
CPIB is truly able to operate without fear or favour and regardless of colour,
creed or station in life.
By 1992, CPIB’s
independence of action was guaranteed by the constitution. It was this
independence that enabled CPIB to take action against ministers and
high-ranking civil servants all this while. Administrative reforms were
undertaken within CPIB in three broad areas to bring about organizational
excellence as part of the on-going civil service-wide reforms initiated in May
1995 under the broad umbrella of “Public Service in the 21st Century” (PS 21). As a result of the work of CIPB,
Singapore become less corrupt country as it shown its consistent ranking in the
Corruption Perception Index (CPI)
CPI Ranking For Singapore
Year
|
Ranking
|
No of
Countries
|
2013
|
5th
|
177
|
2012
|
5th
|
176
|
2011
|
5th
|
183
|
2010
|
5th
|
178
|
2009
|
5th
|
180
|
2008
|
5th
|
180
|
2007
|
5th
|
180
|
2006
|
5th
|
163
|
2005
|
5th
|
159
|
2004
|
5th
|
146
|
2003
|
5th
|
133
|
2002
|
5th
|
102
|
Taken from
Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, available at http://app.cpib.gov.sg/cpib_new/user/default.aspx?pgID=21&action=clear
Lesson from
Singapore is clear that no room for corruption and it is done through
administrative, legal, and judicial reforms. On the top that is the political will
of the Prime Minister to execute the law without preferences.
Thailand has its
own history in running after corruption. Prior to 1975, Thailand’s bribery and
corruption-related offences were set forth in the Criminal Code. In 1975,
the Counter Corruption Act was introduced and the Office of the National
Anti-Corruption Commission (“ONAC”) established. Given ONAC’s limited jurisdictional
reach, however, it was largely ineffectual in combating corruption. Because of
its ineffectiveness, Thailand tried to improve and revised some parts of their
constitution. Some changes were made. Thailand included in its constitution the
check and balance to address corruption issues, by improving transparency and
holding civil servants accountable for misconduct. The new Constitution also
established a foundation for the enactment of significant new legislation,
including the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, and the creation of an
independent counter-corruption agency, the National Counter Corruption
Commission (“NCCC”), the predecessor to today’s primary counter-corruption
agency, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (“NACC”) (Kyle
Wombolt / Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, 2013)
Just like many
other Asian countries, Thailand has not brought much improvement along its
effort in eradicating corruption as reported by certain survey. The survey was conducted among leading private companies by the Thai
Institute of Directors during March-April 2013. The survey indicated that 93
per cent of 1,066 respondents viewed that the corruption level in Thailand is
seriously high, while three-fourths or 75 per cent viewed that corruption
continues to be practiced in the country. It is reported that corruption was
mostly conducted in three forms -- exploiting political positions to benefit
one's own group of people, bribing with gifts or money, and corruption at
policy level. Since its efforts in eradicating corruption has not brought much
improvement, it follows that their rank in International Corruption Perception
Index dropped as indicated by the report of Transparency International that
Thailand ranked 88 in 2012 out of 176 countries as compared to 80 out 0f 182 in
2011( Bangkok Pundit,2012).
Based on the
report of International Corruption Perception Index last 2013, the only Asian
countries that are belonged to top 20 are Singapore (5th), Hon Kong
(15th) and Japan (18th) while other Asian countries,
those mentioned in this paper are still struggling to improve its perception
index and it may take another decades to be included in the top 20 countries
like the three Asian countries. Such ranking concludes that the richer the
country is, the better it is in terms of its ranking perception index and the
poorer the country is the lower it is in terms of perception index, and thus it
further concludes that poverty is caused by corruption.
Lesson that we
learn from Singapore is that they have a policy of “zero tolerance” on bribery
and government commitment to run after the corrupt politicians and public
officials who are corrupt. Unless other Asian countries follow the example of
Singapore, then they will be always at the bottom of corruption perception
index and the economy will never get any better.
Political will
on the part of the government is a prerequisite to clean the government from
any corrupt practices. Criminalization on corruption is also suggested. Laws on
corrupt practices should be criminalized to discourage public officials to
accept bribe or kickbacks.
Countries that I
have mentioned above have implemented administrative, legal and judicial
reforms. However, moral reforms have not been part of their agenda. Political
will in running after the corrupt officials is a must to prevent corruption.
However efforts must go beyond political will and that is moral reforms. Part
of the moral reforms is that the government should have ethical code of conduct
in running the office in which bribery should be considered serious misconduct
and it should be punished with greater punishment. Those ethical codes must be
explained or disseminated to employees for them to be guided.
Preventing Bribery in the Private Organization: Administrative Reforms and Leading by Example
Bribery is not only happening in the government office but also in the private corporations. Just like in the government, administrative, judicial and legal aspects have to be reformed and enforced, the same rules applied to the private corporation. Private corporations should have strong policies against bribery and any kind of corruption. Beyond that the commitment of management to implement policies without discrimination is a requirement. Often time employees are not afraid to accept bribe because they see that management is weak in implementing rules and policies. Even though there are already existing policies prohibiting bribery but employees or management keep on doing it because they know that no one has been punished for violating the policies.
Leading by
example is much more important than writing many policies on prohibiting
bribery. After 18 years working in the educational institutions and handling
finances, I have made my policy, not written policy but the policy on
integrity. Unless the employees see that the management accept bribe, they will
follow the policy on “no bribe”. When
the employees see that you do not mess around with policies and finances, they
will follow the policy. Walk the talk management and leadership is more
effective than making many policies.
Beyond writing
ethical code is ethical leadership. Leadership is playing critical role in
eradicating corruption. Their roles are not just their power to persecute those
who violate the law but their power to influence which can be done only through
examples. Leading by example is more powerful than words. If the employees are
not seeing their boss accept bribes, then they will never do it. If the
employees see that their boss has never been squandering the assets of the
organization, then they will never squander it too. If they see the chief
executive is doing it, then it will encourage down the line. Thus curbing
corruption is calling individual transformation.
Besides, related
to ethical issues, there must be no compromise in punishing employees who are
violating ethical code of the organization. Punishment must be applied to all
equally without discrimination, employees and management. Determination in
pursuing clean organization is a must. Zero tolerance on moral issues give a
strong signal to employees that the management mean business. This is to
discourage employees and management who have plans or tendency to accept
bribes.
Conclusion
Corruption has
become a culture and it has entered in private and public organization.
Corruption has caused poverty and poor services in private and public
organization. The effects of such practices are devastating. Thus it is not
only an economic issue but it is a moral issue. The solution to such problem is
not only administrative, legal and judicial reforms but moral reforms. The fact
is that administrative, judicial and legal reforms have been made but the corruption
still exists, thus it means that political will must be accompanied by moral reforms.
It needs moral reforms which are an individual call for everyone who is working
in private and public organization. Individual reputation and
company/government reputation or good name has to become values of everyone
working in government or in any organization. People should have sense of honor
to themselves, to the company in which they are working and to the government
where they do business as pointed out by Matt
Ellis as cited by Thomas R. Fox (2012) in his article, “Ethics Matters” He argued that reputation matters. Ellis based his statement
based on the survey conducted by Germany’s Humboldt-Viadrina School of
Governance, which sought to assess how incentives and sanctions affect a
company’s willingness to take seriously ethical
behavior.
Ellis reported that the survey found that in Latin America, more people than in any other region rated reputational considerations as the most important factor to motivate businesses
to counter corruption, which was a higher
percentage than any other geographic region reviewed.
Asia is political will and
ethical problem. The policy of Singapore of “zero tolerance of corruption” is
not only a sign of political will but it is also a moral will to eradicate
corruption. Thus, unless other Asian countries follow the lead of Singapore,
then Asia will be still behind even up to several decades ahead. The challenge
is on the leadership. Unless the leader is clean then down the line is not clean
too.
References:
Bangkok,
Pundit. 2012. Transparency International: Thailand
ranked 88th out of 176 in corruption index. http://asiancorrespondent.com/93078/transparency-international-thailand-placed-88th-out-of-176-countries-in-corruption-index/ Retrieved, March, 26, 2014
Vinay Bhargava, Country
Director, Philippines, The World Ban. Combating Corruption in the Philippine http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan019123.pdf, retrieved, March 21, 2014.
Brian. 2014. Malaysia In Focus: Bribery And Corruption On
The Rise? http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/01/malaysia-bribery-corruption/. Retrieved, March 20, 2014.
George, B. Poling & Blake, Day. 2013. Corruption
in Indonesia and the 2014 Elections. http://csis.org/publication/corruption-indonesia-and-2014-elections. Retrieved, March, 24, 2014.
Kyle Wombolt & Herbert Smith Freehills LLP. 2013. Thailand
Chapter - Bribery & Corruption. http://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/Business%20Crime/global-legal-insights---bribery-and-corruption-1st-ed/thailand.
Retrieved, March 26, 2014.
Prijono Tjiptoherijanto, Professor of Economics, University of
Indonesia. 2009. Corruption Prevention In
Indonesia. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNPAN/UNPAN037358.pdf. Retrieved, March 21, 2014.
Rob, Truckle. 2012. Corporate
Bribery. http://corruptionbribery.com/2012/03/20/corporate-bribery/
Date retrieved, March 6, 2014.
Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. 2005. Bribery. http://legal
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bribery. Accessed March, 17, 2014.
Noonan, John Thomas.
1984. Bribes. New York: Macmillan.
Ofusu-Amaah; R. Soopramanien; and K. Uprety; 1999; Combating
Corruption : A Comparative Review of Selected Legal Aspects of State Practice
and Major International Initiatives. International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development; World bank, Washington, D.C, U.S.A.
Thomas R. Fox, 2012. Ethics Matters. http://corruptionbribery.com/2012/03/15/ethics-matters/. Retrieved
March 12, 2014.
Teresa Alho, 2012. Rooting out bribery in business, http://corruptionbribery.com/2012/02/29/rooting-out-bribery-in-business/.
Retrieved, March 9, 2014.
Thomas, R. Fox. 2012. Ethics Matter. http://corruptionbribery.com/2012/02/29/rooting-out-bribery-in-business/.
Retrived, March 15, 2014.
Chua Cher Yak, Director,
Singapore Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). Singapore’s
three-pronged program to combat corruption: enforcement, legislation and adjudication.
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan047818.pdf. Retrieved,
March 23, 2014.
Transparecy
International Malaysia. http://transparency.org.my/what-we-do/indexes/corruption-perceptions-index/tis-2013-corruption-perceptions-index-cpi-results/ Retrieved, March 25, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment