The annual Corruption Perception Index (CPI) published by Transparency International, has shown countries such as New Zealand, the Scandinavian nations, Singapore and Switzerland whose high scores are consistent every year, placing them at ranks where they are perceived to deal with lesser corruption incidences.
In contrast, several African, South East Asian and Latin American countries are at the helm of scoring very lowly on the CPI barometer, and are perceived to be somewhat highly corrupted countries.
Yet, the violators of the Foreign Corruption Practices Act of the US are companies that successfully established their business in countries that are perceived to be clean. Many of these companies have operations in different parts of the world, including exciting new marketplaces of emerging countries that are shy of advancement in laws, let alone regulatory enforcement. In this latter environment, it is foretelling of a systemic corruption culture amongst government officials in positions to make decisions that few such companies had thrown caution to the wind and surrendered to the system to obtain business opportunities. Considering these elements, the US’ Department of Justice meted out harsh penalties and clawed back the profits that were directly earned from illicit dealings. These penalties sum up to billions of dollars. Will other corporations regardless of where their jurisdictions are, learn from these FCPA violation predecessors?
In regions where legislations like anti-money laundering, corporate accountability, anti-trust, anti-competition, anti-profiteering, racketeering, serious fraud office, accurate financial reporting & disclosure transparency, anti-corruption and whistleblower protection proliferate and when effectively enforced, makes it possible for corporations to renegade illegal practices within the countries or regions where they operate out of. Again, the key to effective enforcement is in the provisions of the laws – it is unlawful per se not to report misdemeanours when the laws provide so.
The concept of speaking up against corruption is not new but it is sometimes unable to outlast the machinery employed by the perpetrators or their protectors to oppress those who voice out. The indifference that develops as a result of it can often go on for some time before the next courage to speak up against injustice (or is that outrage?) is mustered up again. The Malaysian society at large is respectably learned, stands for democracy and is maturing towards calling out corruption when they see it. Together with initiatives from the government to counter corruption (finally) as well as general public engagement by anti-graft watchdogs, Malaysians are ready to denounce corruption like it is a pandemic and know that in solidarity they have the power to weed it out. For these concerted efforts, Malaysia has been propelled up several spots as less corrupt on the 2019 CPI from the 2018 CPI. If Malaysia keeps up with this vision, the country may one day be able to rid itself off of what is distinctively a `cultural entitlement’.
Speaking up against corruption should not be limited to rendering out corrupt politicians (at least in the case of Malaysia). Employed individuals have to be cognizant of their company's affairs, if they so much as play a role in bribery in order to win business deals for their employers, not only are they guilty of the misconduct themselves but their employers are vicariously liable for their actions too. The lesson to be learnt is that one should not be afraid of the law as if it is a deterrent – anyone could be watching what we’re doing and is at liberty to haul us in to face the law. This ought to put us in our place.
For old guards who believe that bribery is a norm in our country, I urge them to move past that realm and get on with the program like the rest of the world. Crime does not pay.
Post Tags: Transparency International, CPI _edited.jpg)
Comentarios