Corruption and Experiences of Different Countries

    Corruption and Experiences of  Different Countries

    The experiences of a number of countries pertaining to corruption are reviewed in this sub-section. Cross-country survey covers nature, scope, type of corruption as well as the measures taken to curb corruption and outcome of such efforts. But it needs to be stated that not all aspects of corruption have been covered in the countries concerned due mostly to the non-availability of information.

     In the Philippines the network of corruption in the public sector is rather extensive and covers petty fixers, workers at lower levels of the organizational hierarchy to mid-level officials taking undue advantage of their positions, and extending to the elite whose profit from corruption transactions with government runs into millions of pesos but whose powerful positions render them almost untouchable by the law enforcement agencies (Alfiler, 1979). Six types of corruption in the public sector of the Philippines have been identified (Carino and Guzman, 1979). These are: tong, lagay or arreglo, retainer, favor, individualized and systematic corruption. Anti-graft and investigatory agencies appointed by a number of Philipino Presidents failed to effectively check corruption due to organizational instability, frequent changes in leadership, political pressure in employee recruitment, public apathy and strained relations with other branches and agencies of the government (Alfiler, 1979).

     In Uganda corruption is the outcome of self-aggrandizement, of unrealistically low remuneration for public servants and a closed political system (Ouma, 1991). Corruption has resulted in the loss of badly needed revenue and skilled manpower, distorted priorities of public policy and shifted scarce resources away from the public interest (Ouma, 1991). Naturally, distrust among different segment of the society has increased and despondency of the people-at-large has been excerbated.

     In Ghana the way corruption has been institutionalized in the government is fascinating. In one ministry bribe money is divided in the following manner: 50% to the minister, 20% to the junior ministers, 10% to go-between, 10% to the secretary of the political party in power and the rest to an open cash fund kept by the minister for expenses like paying informers within the ministry, providing gifts to individual visitors and maintaining attractive women around the office (Vine, 1975). The causes for such widespread political corruption are: traditional contexts and effects of colonialism; the new men who inherited political leadership after independence; and bureaucratic transition from a colonial to an indigenous administrative system. Political corruption took its toll in the form of waste of resources, instability and reduction in the capacity of government (Vine, 1975).

     It is now commonly agreed that corruption has vitiated India’s public life like a cancer spreading over a human body. All sectors, be they administrative or political or economic, have come under the ever-increasing onslaught of corruption. There are many reasons as to why this has happened. Political actors of all shades including ministers, legislators, office-bearers of political parties, and other political office-holders are involved in corruption (Padhay, 1986). Members of the public bureaucracy are no less corrupt. Measures taken to combat corruption like setting up of inquiry commissions have failed. These commissions' findings have not been taken seriously by successive governments and consequently their recommendations have gathered dust. At the same time, some of the commissions were created with a mala-fide and political intent. Corruption control is possible only with the adoption and implementation of four national agenda. They are: reforming the political process, restructuring and reorienting the government machinery, empowering the citizens and creating sustained public pressure for change (Guhan and Paul, 1997). Under each a number of appropriate and timely recommendations are made to cleanse the widespread corruption that exists in India at all levels touching almost each and every governmental institutions and their functionaries.

     Singapore and Hong Kong are two countries whose success in effectively tackling corruption in the public service is well-known.

     When the People's Action Party (PAP) came to power in June 1959 it found a colonial corrupt bureaucracy in place. The PAP, which is still in power, realized something had to be done to minimize corruption in the Singapore Civil Service (SCS). Over a period of time the PAP government introduced a number of measures to curb corruption.

     The then existing Prevention of Corruption Ordinance was amended and replaced with the Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA) to curb opportunities for corruption and to increase the penalty for corrupt behaviour (Quah, 1995:148). At the same time additional powers were given to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau by POCA. It is obvious that Singapore's anti-corruption strategy has been effective because it is designed to remove two major causes of corruption - the incentives and opportunities (Quah, 1989).

     Corruption in Hong Kong public service had been well-entrenched. Public officials were known to make money utilizing their positions. But the situation changed drastically with the arrival of a new Governor, Sir Murray MacLehose, in 1973. He estabilished an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). The ICAC under the leadership of a distinguished former public official was given a wide array of powers. The ICAC had the power to arrest people on suspicion, search and seize without a warrant, require information, freeze assets and property and prevent people from leaving the colony (Caiden, 1991b:249). The Commission was assisted in its operations by five advisory committees on Corruption, Operations Review, Prevention, Community Relations and Complaints, drawn from cross-section of the population and reported directly to the Governor (Caiden, 1991b:249). The ICAC was organized into three areas: (a) an operations department to investigate, arrest and help prosecute suspects; (b) a corruption prevention department to restructure government organizations to reduce opportunities for corruption; and (c) a community relations department to change people’s attitudes toward corruption (Caiden, 1991b:249).