Total Cultural Change: A Change of Views and behavior and The Response To Climate Change

Fr. Damianus Abun, SVD, MBA, Ph.D

Abstract

We have been experiencing climate change. It poses danger to human survival and any species living on the planet. Human interventions are needed. Interventions may not be necessarily legal ones but cultural and ethical ones. Therefore cultural change is necessary. People need to change their behavior, perceptions and values in relation to the environment. New ethical perceptions and ethical behavior toward the environment are necessary in order to save the environment.

Key words: Cultural change, environment, ethical perceptions and behavior, global warming.    

Introduction

Growing concern on the environment is increasing because the world is changing. Thomas L. Friedman (2006) said that the world is getting hot, flat and crowded. The world is flat because of the technology. Technological revolution levels the global economic playing field and enables many people around the world to compete, connect and collaborate. Global/Asian cooperation makes it possible that Asian countries do not need Visa to travel to other Asian countries for a certain period or number of days. This is good not only for travels but also for economy. There is free flow of goods without barriers or fewer tariffs. That’s good news. The world is also crowded because of the world population is growing. According to UN’s projection, that by 2053, there will be nine billion people on the planet. The United Nations Populations Divisions predicted that there will be an increase of 2, 5 billion over the next 43 years passing from the current 6,7 billion to 9,2 billion in 2050. Crowded world make it worse to live when the world is hot because our planet is experiencing a warming trend which is over and above natural and normal variations-that is almost certainly due to human activities associated with large scale of mining and manufacturing. These developments concern us all. Crowded world and the hot world are related, one really affects the other. Crowded world could cause a problem of supply and demand. The world resources are limited while the demand keeps on increasing. Consequently there will be time that the natural resources will run out. Before things happen, the time to act is now. The solution is in our hands. Legal solutions are necessary but what are urgent are cultural and ethical solutions.        

In view of the increasing population, energy shifts, resource consumption and pollution, the creation of a sustainable world will need massive change in human attitudes and actions, in fact a ‘‘new ethic’’ for humankind. In short, it is a cultural change; a change of views and behavior, a conversion. Changing views means people need to see environment in new way which is ethical way. Ethical perception or views on the environment must be developed so that new ethical behavior in dealing with the environment is followed. This will call a collective and individual change.  

UN’s climate change report, based on input from some 1,500 scientists from around the world, contains data about the alarming effect that human-caused carbon emissions are having upon our planet. The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that the report “should jolt people into action.” The time is now not later.

People cannot just ignore with what is happening with the environment. Issues on climate change and global warming is a call for alarm reminding the world to change way of life, or change of culture. The 21st century emerged with a gradually increasing public awareness that the world was entering a troubling age and we had better pay attention if we wanted to be assured of a sustainable future as pointed out by It was pointed out  by Dennis and Donella Meadows (1972) and cited by Thompson (2009)  that there are ‘‘Limits to Growth’’1) and if we were to continue at the then current rate of consumption of the Earth’s resources we would not have a sustainable world in the longer range future. Aurelio Peccei, the founder of the Club of Rome - which commissioned the Meadows’ book - called for a ‘‘New Ethic for Mankind’’ and that is what this present document presents as a new and significant reality.

The Golden Age of Greece, from around 500 to 300 BC, was built on the energy of slaves. We are now in another Golden Age blessed with energy from an abundant supply of oil and natural resources. But this will of course not be so in the longer range future. Warning signs are abundantly apparent. We will need to plan now for a true transition to a new age and a new ethic (Thompson, 2009) in solving these problems.

 

Cultural Change: What is it?

Cultural change is changing cultures or changing the old ways of views, behavior and values. The issue here is change. People need to change because the world is changing. We cannot remain the same again as of yesterday, today and tomorrow. This is a challenge. It creates a new dimension and great uncertainty. However such reason should not dampen our spirit to change. Change is inevitable. It is difficult task, if not impossible because how we change what others think, feel, believe and do. But when we are confronted by two choices, between life and death, then we need to take a stand, we have to change, though it is difficult. We choose life, we change our way of life, despite the odds. 

Before going further, let us understand what culture is from the point of anthropologists.  Here are two good definitions by two people whom we should know. Geert Hofstede as cited by Brown (1995) defined a very common set of models for international cultures, whilst Edgar Schein (1994) is an authority on a several topics and has written one of the best books on organizational culture.

“Culture is the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members of one human group from those of another. Culture in this sense is a system of collectively held values.” -- Geert Hofstede

“Culture is the deeper level of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization that operate unconsciously and define in a basic ‘taken for granted’ fashion an organization's view of its self and its environment.” -- Edgar Schein

Base on those definitions, culture is playing important role in programming the mind of an individual. Thus the total cultural change is the change of mind, behavior and values of the people who have been formed in a certain pattern of ways of thinking or beliefs, behaving and relating. In this case, it is a call to revisit again our mind, thought, perceptions, and values on certain things and evaluate whether those thought, views, values are not the main cause of problem in society. Old ways have to be changed with the new ways. Thus the culture that damages the relationship, the society, and environment, then it is our moral responsibility to change those old views. However building up new behavior and value systems would be a great challenge. However cultural overhaul is not impossible if the members of society determine to change.  

The challenge would be that, “is it possible to change the culture? It is possible, there is nothing impossible. If the organizational culture can be changed, then society’s culture can be changed too. It is just that people need to feel the urgency to change. In this case, there must be a trigger. In our case, we have global warming or climate change. This is not simple. In this effort, someone or leader of any group should come out to proclaim that urgency and make people feel that the time is now for change. Unless people see the urgency, then they would not change. The UN has already proclaimed the urgency. Now people need to reinvent themselves. Reinventing lies not only in marginally changing the current ways of doing things or behaving, but creating a totally new approaches, new views, new behavior and new world because the world is changing and people need to change. Organizational development expert would argue that a static organizational culture can no longer be effective. Thus managers or leaders must be able to recognize when changes are needed and must possess the necessary skills and competence to implement these changes. The society must try to adapt itself to a dynamic environment by introducing new views, approaches, behavior and values on how to deal with the changing world to become more effective (Harvey, Don & Donald R. Brown, 2001)

The message of change is urgent. The environment is changing not in the right direction but in the wrong direction. Climate change and global warming is an urgent call to intervene on how to prevent a further damage. This time we need to create a winning culture because it is the cultures that brings us forward or bringing us down. In the companies, it is the culture that differentiates excellent companies and low performing companies. Thus to make a better or excellent company, organization cultural change is important. Therefore, what is important here is how to make the changes happen.

Cultural resistance to change is always there. Changing the mind, the behavior, and values of people is not easy. People are not ready to accept new things; they prefer to stay in their comfort zones because of uncertainty of the output what is going to happen. Thus it really takes time for a cultural transformation to take effect. It needs a process to follow. Thus a change agent must identify what particular aspects of culture need to change and explain the need to change. After the identification of the problem and explain the problem and finally inform the people why they need to change or shift their views. Thus information dissemination of new sets of beliefs or views must be disseminated. Media can be the main tools to disseminate new information.       

 

Change our Views and behavior toward the Environment: New Ethics. 

The main question here is how we see the environment. To help us in gaining new ideas on how we see the environment, we can see the statement of Pope Benedict in one of his speech before the youth during a rally near Ancona, on the Adriatic coast in September, 2007.
 

“ Before it is too late, we need to make courageous choices that will create strong   

   alliance between humankind and the environment” (Bricker, 2009). 

From this statement we draw an idea that environment is not a mere object to be exploited but equal alliance. An alliance is equal; one is not greater than the other. Both sides are dependent and there is mutual relationship that benefits both sides. Human needs a healthy environment and environment needs human, not to destroy but to take care.  In other words, environment is part of the network that human being need to develop in order to survive. In this case, we need to develop an ethical relationship, just like ethical relationship between human and human.  
 

Ethics is defined in Webster’s dictionary as: "The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation".  In this case, there are moral standards that we need to apply. There are allowed and not allowed behaviors when we deal with other human and environment. We have a moral duty to do or to protect the environment like what do to other human beings. Moral commands like helping the sick and the poor are also applied to the environment that we should take care and protect the environment. We have no choice, except to implement it.  Such principles of conduct are not only applied to human but also to the environment. The transition from a growth society that the developed countries presently enjoy, to one with a stable world population and economic sustainability, could require the greatest evolutionary change in the history of humankind. The changing conduct and ethical base of the world’s population must indeed change. This is no exaggeration as will be pointed out in the text that follows (Thompson, 2009).

Changing conduct and wear a new ethical conduct is a call to all people to have a new view of environment and a new kind of relationship. What is that new view on environment? Anything that surrounds us whether they are trees or animals are independent subject, they are no longer object to be used by human beings. Thus the new relationship between human and environment is no longer between subject and object but it is a subject to subject because of equal importance. Both have mutual relationship and interdependence. Both sides need each other. Mutual relationship is not applied to subject and object but only subject to subject. In the language of Marthin Buber, interpersonal relationship (I- Thou/You) must be applied in which one is treated as independent subject, not an object to be manipulated (I-It) (Maurice S. Friedman, 1955) Dwelling in this concept, consequently human should treat the environment as the extension of himself or herself. He or she herself as part of the environment and destroying the environment means destroying himself or herself. In this case, respect for oneself is equal to respect to the environment.
 

New kind of relationship will always depend on the way how we see the environment. How I treat the tree depending on how I see the tree. In the olden time, people do not just cut down the big trees because they are afraid and they believe that big trees are the house of the spirit. If they force to cut it, something might happen to them, they get sick in return. Enforcing such idea into the modern mind might be funny for some but if we see in the different perspective, such idea enforce harmony with the environment. Human needs to build a harmony with the environment because damaging the environment can cause harm to the humans. Destroying the environment is destroying the harmony. The idea of Baruch Spinoza may support the argument. He equated God and nature. He disagrees that God alone is perfect and the natural order less than perfect. Spinoza equates reality with perfection. Since it is true that nothing in nature could be otherwise than it is, and all things in nature are a part of God and follow necessarily from his nature, God would not be complete without the whole natural order. Spinoza equated God (infinite substance) with Nature, consistent with Einstein's belief in an impersonal deity. Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings (Nabor Nery, 2007).” Dwelling on this idea, humans need to see themselves as a part of a bigger whole, they are part of a bigger reality which is God and that God reveals himself in the harmony of nature. Building a harmonious relationship with others with the nature is the same with building relationship with God. Destroying nature meaning we are destroying God and in return we are punished through environmental disaster.      
 

Consistent with the above idea, then respect for the environment is not only because of its instrumental value but because of its intrinsic value and its divine intrinsic value. Instrumental value is based on the use of the object for human purpose. In this regard, we protect the environment because it is important for future generation. We protect the plants because it can be used for research and medicine. In other words, if the object, the plants or animal are not useful for human needs or endanger human life, then they can be destroyed. That is an old view of the environment. While intrinsic value and divine intrinsic is the value of thing in itself which is created /given by God, it does not depend on its usefulness to human purpose or needs. We believe that all objects in the nature have its own value in itself and have its own purpose in itself. And something that has value in itself, we have a moral responsibility to respect and to protect (Stanford Encyclopedia, 2002). It is our moral mandate to protect the environment because of its independent value, its own dignity and its usefulness for human needs and future generation. This is a new view of the environment.   
 

 Natural resources have its limits and if there is no intervention in the process, then it will reach to the point that natural resources will be emptied in the future and everything will completely stop. To explain the situation, we can borrow the Queuing theory. Queuing Theory says that a small restriction in supply cannot just slow the process by a small percentage, but that it comes to a complete stop. For example, a busy highway is loaded to capacity but flowing rapidly. Then some car or truck slows down to look at an accident at the side of the road. No obstruction is in the way of the flow, but it has been slowed by a very small percentage and the whole system comes to a dead stop. Similarly, the housewife stocks up on sugar when it is announced that sugar will be rationed. Result: no more sugar on the shelves and the system shuts down. When such a phenomenon occurs to supplying a large city, it may well shut down. A power blackout is an example of such an overloaded system and consequent shutdown. Now, all this is to give a glimpse of what could happen as resources worldwide get in short supply. The urgency is apparent and must be dealt with well before it happens (Thompson, 2009). The answer here is not only through legal solutions in which laws must be established to protect the environment but human behavior, ethical behavior. 
 

New ethic is needed to prevent further damage of the environment. We need to change our behavior in dealing with the environment by adopting new understanding of the universe that we are not the master of the universe but we are steward to cultivate and to take care of the earth. Genesis 2:15 clearly said that the Lord God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and care for it. Thus the order to subdue the earth (Genesis, 1:28) is not everything, there is a limit. The earth and everything in it is the source of food for human kind, not only for the present human kind but future human kind. Emptying everything would mean killing the future generation which is immoral. The current crises need response from all of us.         

Collective and Personal response to climate change

Days are getting warmer and warmer and we keep on complaining why it is getting warmer and warmer. The climate has changed. It means that if there is no intervention to prevent further damage, then there will time that everything will be gone, the planet would be simply a desert and no human species would live on it and everything would be dead. All of us do not want these catastrophic consequences. Thus, instead of complaining, it is time to get action collectively and individually to prevent further damage in the environment. Climate change affects everyone, rich and poor. 

Nowadays we are facing two crises: first there is a limited supply of fossil fuels. The consumption has been growing every year and definitely the earth’s resource will start to dwindle. Such situation will cause price instability. When the supply continues to be limited, the price will continue to rise. The second crisis is that when the atmosphere reach its limit to absorb carbon without causing rapid increase of energy in the atmosphere and oceans. These two crises are threatening. They are posing a massive challenge to human survival and to modern civilization (McNerney, 2012). The solution is not impossible.

As a consequence of the limited resources is war. I am reminded again by jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) that that in the pure state of human nature, man is a being in constant state of war against all others. Human beings are motivated by self-interest. This war will be caused by limited resource available in the nature. Countries will look for more resources outside of their own territory to support their industry survival and of their people. One in front of us is China. Its population and its industry are bigger than the supply and the resources are getting limited and as a consequence they are desperate to look for more natural resources outside their own territory. Other Asian countries are under threat because China is desperate looking for more natural resources to support their industries and the survival of their people. Islands that are claimed by other countries would be claimed by China. Military power would come into play. However, war may not be our concern here but our concern would be how we are going to prevent the environment disaster as the consequence of the use of the fossil fuel.    

In terms of war as one of the consequences of limited energy can be prevented but climate change as a consequence of human behavior toward environment and the use of fossil fuel cannot be prevented unless humans change their behavior or lifestyle. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, which concludes the warming of the climate system, is unequivocal, human influence on the climate system is clear, and limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.  This declaration comes as no surprise to anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention of what is happening in the climate change. However, it seems that first declaration was not successful enough to encourage everyone to get involved in preventing climate change. The first IPCC report, issued in 1990, came to virtually the same conclusion, while in the interim a great deal of energy and greenhouse gas emissions have gone into debates over how many degrees the planet will warm and how many inches the seas will rise, while efforts to substantially and sustainably reduce greenhouse gas emissions have languished (Jim Baird, 2014). This time the declaration is to reiterate again the concern over climate change. Would it be good to ignore? The answer is not. The time is near and transformation is needed. How are we going to get involved?

The current economy functions more like a knockout Monopoly tournament, where the objective of the game is to bankrupt everyone else, than an instrument of rational capital allocation. It is motivated by greed and self-interest. Only few are rich and majority of the world population are poor and almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population. It is ridiculous. One might legitimately ask, to what end? It would be one thing if that one percent was marshalling their wealth on behalf of mankind but for the most part they are not. They are more likely to be found trying to summit the Forbes Billionaires list –likely as not through the acquisition of shares in fossil fuel companies - than tackling climate change and when the latter becomes a life threatening situation things are likely to get very ugly.  

English law recognizes the defense of necessity. When one is genuinely at risk of immediate harm or danger and there is a situation of overwhelming urgency then a person has the right to respond in an otherwise unlawful manner. Climate change will soon cross that threshold and some might say, as in the case of Typhoon Yolanda, at least thousands of people dead in the Philippines alone, it already has.

We know who the actors in environmental problems are; they are the capitalists or the one percent of the world total world population. They are the developed countries that had amassed the resources of the world for their economy. Logically they should be the one to solve the climate change problem. Unfortunately they are the ones who are crying around the world to solve environmental problems. Why other people should be bothered? The consequence of what they have been doing is all human kind, though the benefits are theirs. We are not also staying away and pointing fingers to them because we all are dying, rich and poor.    

As our world slowly and belatedly makes the complex transition from fossil fuels to renewable-energy sources, leading climate-change scientists give us a mere five years to radically change how we power our industrial civilization without causing runaway global warning.

We may get confused on what to do in this situation. However, staying without doing anything is to allow the deterioration of the environment. Some proposal can be forwarded:

Collectively All citizens must become global warming activism. This is an invitation that all citizens must support for policies designed to reduce the risk of global warming. In this case all citizens must participate together with the environmental group to propose activities and recommend to the policy makers to write laws to protect the environment. Substantively, global warming policy will only succeed if citizens support these policies in a variety of political venues, and are also willing to implement these policies by engaging in recommended environmental behaviors (Mark Lubell Æ Sammy Zahran Æ Arnold Vedlitz, 2007). The unity principle plays a key role by linking individual and group actions to make a great impact. If the individual believes that group unity is necessary for success, then the individual expected value of collective action is conditional on the behavior of the other group members.

Individually There must be a change in individual behavior. Each individual should not stay idle and doing nothing. Engaging in personal environmental behaviors that influence global warming is a must. Individual must make a difference in adapting behaviors that help preventing climate change. Behaviors that damage the environment must not be continued. Definitely views or philosophies that are not supporting for the reduction of global warming must be changed. In the individual level, it is a total transformation. All citizens need to wear new ethics, new behavior and new relationship with the environment. Everyone should see the environment, the livings things and non living things as subject, not as an object. They are all good and have value in themselves even though they may not be useful for humans. Everything that has value in themselves, humans have moral responsibility to respect, not to destroy.

Adopting new behavior is necessary. Green behaviors are the immediate answer on the personal level. Everyone should consider behavior that would not contribute to the pollution and the damage of the environment. It is the imperative to drastically reduce our own and our family’s carbon-dioxide footprint. This is something people can do regardless of the slow response by many business and political leaders to the serious planetary changes expected as climate change speeds up.

In the coming decades, energy production will need to be more localized, gasoline usage will shrink — perhaps as much due to the peak-oil phenomenon as to climate change mandates — and air travel will decline. People will need to work toward producing more of the energy and goods they need closer to home. Recycling will become even more important than it is today — as will using the collected recyclables as a feedstock for local industries. The amount of energy consumed by transporting current volumes of world trade is simply not sustainable.

Reducing their consumption accordingly, others of us have already been voluntarily simplifying our lives and our consumption patterns in order to reach a more sustainable level of usage of the planet’s resources (forests, minerals, fossil fuels, agriculture, water, etc.). Our greediness to consume and to use many things contributes to the damage of the environment. Life style has to be scrutinized if that life style contributes to the climate change.   

Collective and individual respond to climate change must be immediate and it does not need to be expensive. According to UN report on Climate Change conducted by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that catastrophic climate change can be averted without sacrificing living standards. The report concludes that the transformation required to a world of clean energy is eminently affordable. The cheapest and least risky route to dealing with global warming is to abandon all dirty fossil fuels in coming decades (IPCC, April 14, 2014). This requires a shift in mind set of countries and people who are used to use fossil fuels to a renewable energy. Such report dismisses the earlier speculations that slashing carbon emission would cost much to the economy. According to the report diverting hundreds of billions of dollars from fossil fuels into renewable energy and cutting energy waste would shave just 0.06% off expected annual economic growth rates of 1.3%-3%, the IPCC report concluded. The report is a wakeup call. The action must be now. The more we wait, the more it will cost and the more difficult it will become. This is not only a call to the countries, companies but also to individual persons to shift life style by reducing the use fossil fuels or not depending on fossil fuel. It means that people need not to use private cars for travel and for their daily kitchen operation.   

 

Conclusion

Solving environmental problems is more complex. It is not just the absence of laws that protect the environment but it is more than that. Human behaviors are influenced by their minds or their beliefs and their values. Those beliefs and values are formed by the existing culture in which they live. Thus solving environmental problem is a cultural issue. In this case, total cultural change is necessary. This is not an easy job but it is not an impossible one. Culture can be changed even though is considered to be hard. We need to reexamine our own beliefs and values and ask ourselves whether those beliefs and values are helping us to protect the environment.

If the old view, we look at the environment as an object to be manipulated or to be subdued but the new view is that environment is a subject. It is an alliance of human being. As a subject, it is equal with human beings. Thus our relationship with the environment is subject to subject. We need to respect one another.

Respecting the environment is not just because of its instrumental value or because of its usefulness but because it has its intrinsic value. It has intrinsic value in itself. And something that has intrinsic value in itself, then we have the moral duty to respect.

Global warming is our issue at hand as a result of environmental problem. These environmental problems are caused by the wrong belief, and wrong values of human. Thus the answer to solve environmental problem is to change our attitude or our beliefs and values.

Who are responsible for solving such problem? It is a huge problem. The world has been asking the industrial countries or developed countries like USA, UK, Germany and other European countries to take the lead in solving the problems but little move to be seen. These countries were the first one to destroy the environment because of their industries. Waiting for them to solve the problem might be too late. It is time for us to go hand in hand collectively and individually in our way to contribute what we can do to solve environmental problem.                

 

 

References

Baird, Jim. 2014. The Burning Question: Who is Up to the Climate Challenge? http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/337696/burning-question-who-climate-challenge. Retrieved, April 10, 2014

Brown, A., Organizational Culture, Pitman, London, 1995

Bricker, Woodeene Koenig. 2012. Ten Commandments for the Environment. Paulines Publishing House: Manila.

 

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2002, 2008. Environmental Ethics. http://www.stanfordencyclopedia.com. Retrieved, April 2, 2014.

Friedman, L. Thomas. 2006. Hot, Flat and Crowded: Why we Need a Green Revolution. FSC: USA.

 

Gleick, James, Chaos - Making a New Science, Penguin Group, New York, N.Y., 1987 (see formula on Page 70 of "Chaos")

Harvey, Don & Donald R. Brown, 2001. An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

IPCC. 2014. IPCC climate change report: averting catastrophe is eminently affordable. http://www.edie.net/news/6/IPCC-climate-change-report--averting-catastrophe-is-eminently-affordable/ Retrieved, April 15, 2014.

Mark Lubell, Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2007.  Collective Action and Citizen Responses to Global Warming. http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lubell/Research/GlobalWarming.pdf. Retrieved, April 10, 2014      

McNerney, Jerry & Cheek, Martin. 2012. Clean Energy Nation. AMACOM: New York.

Maurice S. Friedman. 1955. Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue by Maurice S. Friedman. The University of Chicago Press

Meadows, Dennis and Donella, Limits to Growth Potomac Associates, Washington, D.C., 1972

 

Schein, E., Organizational Culture and Leadership, (Jossey-Bass Psychology Series, 1994

Thompson, G. Fred. 2009. A New Ethic For Humankind: Searching for solutions

in a troubled world. Futurescan Consulting:  Ottawa, Canada.

 Waterlow, Charlotte, The Hinge of History The One World Trust, Great Britain, 1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bodie, CaliforniaAbout 75 miles from Lake Tahoe, in Bodie, is where you'll find one of America's most perfectly preserved ghost towns. Established in 1876, the former mining town was one of the area's most heavily populated – and bibulous; as many as 65 saloons lined the streets of Bodie, offering its 10,000 residents an abundance of choices when it came to parking on a barstool. (Rumor even has it that there was a red light district.) The picture is taken from yahoo.com

The story reminds us that natural resources have a limit. Once the resources are gone, then we do not have anything to rely on and we abandon the place. In a bigger scope, I wonder, what happen if all natural resources of the world are gone, where human beings will go? Will they abandon the earth and transfer to another planet?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral Evaluation of Bribery and Preventing Bribery: Asia’s Struggles

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.

 Everyone knows that bribery is not benefiting the organization but individual interest.  Therefore, it is considered unethical or immoral. Using position for individual interest and destroying the common good is not only illegal but unethical or immoral. The reason why I am writing this article is that I have been encountering such practices in my own organization. Therefore, this article will explain what bribery is and why it is immoral and how to stop bribery.  

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

are weighted and calculated for respondents who cants in contact with services

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 (5^th), Hon Kong (15^th) and Japan (18^th) 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.