Presentation by Datuk Paul Low at Conference Held in Conjunction with Sarawak Integrity Dy on 27 October 2010
The first half of the presentation will be a briefing on the Corruption Perception Index 2010.
Transparency International (TI)’s annual Corruption Perception Index (CPI) has consistently showed that there is direct correlation between the level of corruption and the economic development of a nation. The nations with a good CPI score (less corrupt) are developed nations with a high standard of living such as New Zealand, Denmark, Singapore, Sweden and Switzerland (top five in the 2009 CPI ranking). In contrast, the countries that have a low score (more corrupt) are low income nations. This tells us that Malaysia’s quest for a high income economy will fail if corruption persists. A high income economy can only be achieved where there are efficient delivery systems, where the institutions are capable of managing its resources professionally with integrity and minimal waste. A strong political will is necessary for reforms and changes to curb abuses.
The Federal government has set as one of its NKRAs, the target for improving the CPI for Malaysia from 4.5 to 4.9. Perception is how people view something from what they see or understand and this view is shaped by long or many similar past experiences. Such perceptions when reinforced will become strongly held beliefs. The challenge is that we are unable to process new information, without the inherent bias of our previous knowledge. Unfortunately, the current administration did not benefit from a legacy of good governance. People’s perceptions once formed, may take considerable time and effort to change. Unless radical transformation is achieved and society is experiencing these beneficial changes, the CPI may not improve quickly. This makes the NKRA on corruption the most difficult to achieve compared with the other areas. The problem in the government’s quest in instilling integrity in its administration is that there are too many inconsistencies and shortcomings in the implementation. For example, on one hand the administration has put in place an open tender system, while on the other, many mega projects are awarded by private negotiation. On one hand the administration wants to be transparent on the other it is slow in amending the Official Secrets Act to make information of public interest more accessible. While it is commendable that the federal government has directed the use of TI’s integrity pact in its procurement, the use of such integrity tools has yet to be implemented. Effective enforcement is seen as also to be lacking in view of the high number of acquittals and also the “big fishes” are not prosecuted. These give rise to a major credibility gap and hence the public’s wall of cynicism and scepticism is continually reinforced.
The responsibility for maintaining the national integrity system rests with not just one or two parties but must involve the whole society, namely, the political institutions, the civil servants, the enforcement agencies, the private sector and the members of the public. How well we carry this responsibility depends on the moral conscience of society. Sadly, the moral conscience has for a long period of time been depraved by greed, gross materialism and the acquisition of power through the use of money. It is a good moral conscience that urges a person to do good and be righteous in his choices but today, I am sad to say that our moral conscience has decayed. Corruption (as defined by the abuse of entrusted power for person gain) is rampant. Our awareness of the need to do what is righteous becomes clouded by self interest at the expense of the interest of the society. We disregard the need for check and balances and accountability and worst, the abusers start to think that they are entitled to receive a fair share of the spoils. Corruption has become institutionalised and considered to be less than amounting to a crime but a mere allocation of entitlements. The use of support letters giving instructions to favour a party in the award of a project is an indicator of such a lack of good moral conscience.
In the Rukun Negara we have affirmed our belief in God but where is our reverence for Him if we choose to commit a corrupt act? Do we in our conscience have a fear of Him? Do we see God as our witness every time we commit such an act? These are soul-searching questions every one of us has to ask. Our belief in God will guide our attitude towards integrity, good stewardship and governance. Without a change in our hearts and minds, and each of us personally upholding the principles of integrity and righteousness, no preventive measures or laws enacted can effectively prevent corruption. Therefore, the responsibility for the maintenance of national integrity starts with each one of us individually.
Finally, combating corruption must also involve private sector participation. While abuses in the market through anti- competitive behaviour will fall under the recently enacted Competition Act, good governance in the corporate sector will require each corporate entity to instil a culture of integrity and have its own integrated corporate integrity system in place to promote good stewardship, accountability and prevention of corruption and fraud. Such a system needs a strong and effective governance infrastructure, the use of integrity tools and ensuring compliance and lastly, the relevant capacity building through training and equipping and collaboration with business partners. This will reduce systemic risks and opportunities for corruption and fraud.
The best competitive advantage that a state can offer is a corruption-free environment. The existence of corruption increases the risk for investors and especially for foreign investors where their country has strict enforcement against bribery (including acts committed in a foreign country), the sanctions on such practices are very severe and fines imposed can amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. There are already 36 industrialised countries that have signed the OECD anti-bribery convention which forbids bribery of foreign officials. Therefore, it is prudent for Sarawak to heed of these concerns by investors.
Issued by :
Datuk Paul Low Seng Kuan
President
Transparency International – Malaysia
