Asia's anti-corruption agencies a mixed bag
Updated
Malaysia's Anti-Corruption Commission has been in the news for all the wrong reasons recently, with an opposition political aide plunging to his death, after being questioned by commissioners late into the night - and now a lead investigator has been reassigned because of death threats against him. There are many anti-corruption commissions, or similar bodies, across Asia, but if these sorts of things are happening, do they really work?
Presenter: Sen Lam, presenter of Radio Australia's Connect Asia programme
Speakers: Adam Graycar, dean, school of criminal justice, Rutgers State University, New Jersey
- Listen:
- Windows Media
GRAYCAR: Well, sometimes they are part of the solution and sometimes they are part of the problem. What we have in Asia are two highly successful anti-corruption commissions - one in Singapore and one in Hong Kong. And then we have some others that don't work terribly well and we have others that are trying hard to work and have made some progress. So there is the full spectrum.
LAM: Well you mention Singapore and Hong Kong. One might argue that corruption is hardly a problem in either of those two countries. So do you think local political culture has a lot to do with it?
GRAYCAR: Well, if I can just go back. Singapore and Hong Kong did have massive corruption problems 40-50 years ago. But you did say the question of local politics is important and what makes an anti-corruption work best is if it has political will to make it work and if there is strong political support. That's the beginning, there are many other things we need, but that's the beginning.
LAM: So how can they overcome that? I mean, if there is no political will, how does a country start?
GRAYCAR: If there is no political will there is a great deal of difficulty. What often happens then is escalating the issue to a higher level. For example, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption has been signed by many, many countries. And being part of that convention requires a whole set of activities about criminalising corrupt activities, investigating, prosecuting, sanctions if the resources are there. But very significantly, the most important thing about corruption is that we know that countries that are corrupt have poor economic growth, corruption hampers economic performance, it distorts the service structure, it upsets the educational system. There are terrible natural resource development problems where there is corruption and in many cases, countries can do much better if the corruption is limited.
LAM: So as you say, there is an economic dimension to corruption.. is the Philippines, for instance, an example?
GRAYCAR: The Philippines has had an Anti-Corruption Commission that has not been terribly effective. The Philippines is notorious for having had a president who skimmed an enormous amount of money from the national treasury. Corruption was a way of life, there was favouritism, there was nepotism, there was extortion that was just characterised every aspect of economic life. My work has not focused on the Philippines, but the Philippines is not regarded as a country that has a great success in this area, but it might look to other countries. Indonesia, for example, is moving. It has an anti-corruption agency that has been making arrests. It has an enormous way to go. It's trying hard. But of course, Singapore and Hong Kong are such special places - they are so small, everybody knows everybody and they are very prosperous, unlike many other Asian countries.
LAM: And finally, what do you make of the argument that in some countries, what is seen as corruption in the West, is actually an entrenched cultural matter, the local way of doing things?
GRAYCAR: Culture is a very important thing. We have always had corruption, there has always been favouritism and people have always given gifts in many cultures. But as we're moving into a more sophisticated world, as many Asian countries are moving from subsistence agriculture to industry, to information technology, corruption cannot continue to be the main economic driver, because they won't be able to compete internationally if that is so.
