Corruption is becoming prevalent all over the world. Corruption hurts economies, people, and governments.
Take it or leave it, corruption is what some religious people should call the "original sin".
This is derived from man's innate propensity to be corrupt, based on the fact that man's natural instinct to survive is essentially a selfish instinct, which often disregards fairness, equity, or equality especially when the environment is harsh, hostile, or life-threatening. And man, by his very nature, has the potential to be selfish, which is the foundation for such social evils like corruption. Regardless, corruption can be and should be eliminated as it destroys societies and humanity.
Corruption is unethical, immoral, and illegal in many societies, religions, and countries. It needs to be stopped. Private organizations, United Nations, and some governments have attempted to stop corruption or at least have tried to prevent it. They have failed, however.
This site is an attempt to expose countries and departments where corruption is taking place.
To fill out an instance of corruption you have experienced yourself or have knowledge of, click the link on the left to share information with the rest of the world.
In addition, if you know of any successful approach that has prevented or reduced corruption, please share it with the rest of the world by clicking the link "Make Suggestions" on the left.
Also, if you know of any published article dealing with corruption and want to share with the rest of the world, click "Share Published Article" on the left.
Also, many government agencies or officials do not care about people and their problems. If you have a problem with any government agency or an official, please report it to us by clicking "File Complaint" link on the left.
By Jerry Pacheco / Business Across the Border ; Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 12:02am
In my last article, I reviewed the findings of the Corruption Perception Index Report 2015 by bizO-Pacheco_Jerry_BizOthe Berlin-based group Transparency International, which ranks nations of the world based on their perceived level of corruption. Determining corruption is not an exact science, but the rankings in the report can help countries determine what they need to do internally to tackle this issue. In my experience, several factors create the proliferation of corruption in a particular city, region, state or country. The first is the existence of desperation. Poorer places generally have citizens and/or officials in dire financial straits that can cause them to turn to corruption such as bribes or misappropriating public monies to make ends meet. This does not mean that all poor places are corrupt or all affluent places are corruption-free ? there are exceptions to every situation. Many poorer and developing countries rank high in their levels of corruption on the Corruption Perception Index Report, and this is not simply a coincidence. Many people in positions of power supplement their income by fostering bribery and extortion. An environment of desperation goes hand in hand with a vicious cycle of having an ingrained culture of corruption. Once corruption becomes an accepted part of society and of doing business, it becomes extremely hard to eradicate. Countries such as Mexico and China have struggled with this issue for years, and there seems to be little progress in changing the perception that they are being proactive in attacking corruption. It seems like every new politician has to make a point that his or her term in office will be marked by ?transparency,? which can be interpreted as a claim that they will not foster corruption. However, a major part of the problem in societies in which corruption exists is the general tolerance of corruption at multiple levels. This is not just a problem at a national level ? it also exists at local levels. El Paso, Texas, has struggled with scandals involving politicians accepting bribes and school officials doctoring reports to make their collective scores higher for reporting purposes. In Albuquerque, a former president pro tempore of the New Mexico Senate was sent to prison after being convicted, along with a former mayor of Albuquerque and other associates, of siphoning off public money from a courthouse construction project. If scandals involving bribes are continuously popping up in a community, it could indicate that corruption is tolerated. This, in turn, encourages future unethical behavior and perpetuates the cycle. In many places, there is a general lack of checks and balances in preventing corruption and prosecuting those who are engaged in this scourge. If very little chance exists that a public official engaging in corruption will get caught, much less prosecuted, continued corruption will likely occur. I have visited certain countries in which the political sector is a ticket to enriching oneself. If a particular political party is controlling a country's economy, this can be akin to the fox guarding the henhouse. In situations such as these, it is highly unlikely that party members will charge their own colleagues and associates, especially if they themselves are engaged in illegal activities. And this does not only occur in developing countries ? there are places in the U.S. and Europe where corruption has enabled dishonest politicians to use the system to make money. A final factor that I see present in societies in which corruption is endemic is a lack of trust by citizens in the system to speak out against and report corruption. If a citizen believes that reporting corrupt or unethical behavior won't matter because the person behaving badly will not be taken to task, corruption will continue. In some cases, reporting corruption could have negative consequences for the person doing the whistle blowing, especially if it involves a person of power who can retaliate. I have a friend from a Latin American country who for many years had his own company and did very well for his family. As he climbed the ranks of power in the commercial sector, he started getting involved in politics. A main focus of his involvement was to speak against government corruption and to call for more accountability in the public sector. Suddenly, the work that his company was performing for the government dried up. He started getting the cold shoulder from former colleagues, and eventually threats against his family. His situation deteriorated to the point that he fled the country to the U.S. in the middle of the night with his family and a few personal effects. His call for action against corruption cost him a heavy price. Every situation is different, but in my experience, the existence of these factors help foster the proliferation of corruption in a particular society. Ingrained corruption cannot usually be eradicated very quickly. The collective mindset of society against corruption in its midst needs to change, and brave citizens need to step forward to take a stand in order for positive change to take place.
The Star online,April 26, 2016
JAKARTA: An Indonesian minister has suggested an unusual reason for the scourge of corruption in the graft-ridden country -- men are just trying to please their greedy wives. Indonesia has struggled against graft for years, with the country’s vast bureaucracy crippled by corruption and leading public figures, from ministers to senior judges, jailed for accepting kickbacks. But rather than taking aim at the grasping officials themselves, Religious Affairs Minister Lukman Hakim Saifuddin suggested it was greedy wives who were fuelling corruption. The wives of the elite in Indonesia are well-known for their love of expensive designer clothes and handbags. “Corruption is often motivated by many things,” he was cited as saying in Kompas newspaper, referring to “extraordinary demands” from family members that pushed people to behave unusually. “My message is not to demand too many material things that are out of the ordinary, that would be an outstanding contribution by women,” he added. His comments were not warmly received, with housewife Viona Syavita saying it was unfair to point the finger solely at women. “Don’t just blame wives, that is really too much,” Syavita said. Saifuddin’s predecessor as religious affairs minister, Suryadharma Ali, was jailed for six years for corruption earlier this year. One accusation against him was that he helped relatives skip the long waiting list to go on the pilgrimage to the Muslim holy city of Mecca. Indonesia was ranked 88th out of 168 countries and territories in NGO Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index last year. A number one ranking represents the least corrupt. - AFP
Opinion » Comment May 6, 2016
The Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), the key legislation which defines what constitutes corruption and prescribes penalties for corruption-related offences, is set to be amended by Parliament. The proposed Bill, now before a select committee of the Rajya Sabha, includes several contentious amendments that are likely to have far-reaching ramifications. They require considerable deliberation. First, the proposed amendments make all actual and potential bribe-givers offenders under the PCA. How fair is it to criminalise all bribe giving in a country like ours, where people are forced to pay bribes even to get their basic entitlements like rations, pensions, education and health facilities? The PCA already criminalises those who abet corruption. While it is desirable to treat giving bribes aimed at receiving illegitimate gains as an offence, people, especially the poor and the marginalised, are often forced to pay bribes to get what is legitimately theirs. If they are also prosecuted, it would be a double wrong. Disincentivising reporting Imagine a poor man who rushes his young daughter to hospital after she has got badly burnt, and finds the doctor demanding a bribe to treat her. What options does he have? If he doesn’t pay the bribe, he risks losing his daughter’s life. On the other hand, if he pays it (clearly under duress), the proposed amendments to the PCA make him as guilty as the receiver — he could be in prison for up to seven years! Forcing people into this dilemma would only further the culture of impunity by disincentivising reporting of corruption by bribe-givers. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the PCA are, practically and morally, a retrograde step. The government would be well advised to reconsider this and offer immunity to at least three types of bribe-givers. First, those who are coerced to pay a bribe to obtain their legal entitlements; second, those who voluntarily come forward to complain and bear witness against corrupt public officials; and third, those who are willing to turn approvers. For the second and third categories though, immunity should be provided only from criminal liability — bribe-givers must be made to return any benefit they secured as a result of the bribe. Providing immunity to these categories of bribe-givers would encourage them to complain about corruption and ensure that corruption is not a low-risk, high-return activity. Rather than criminalising bribe-givers who are forced to pay bribes to get their legal entitlements, the objective of combating coercive corruption would be more effectively achieved if the government puts in place a comprehensive grievance redress mechanism. Currently, if anyone files a complaint regarding denial of their entitlements, the complainant almost never gets redress nor is any penal action initiated against the guilty. This can be remedied by the enactment of the grievance redress bill, which was introduced in the Parliament in 2011 and had support across party lines, but unfortunately lapsed with the dissolution of the last Lok Sabha. Approval for investigation The second prickly issue is the need to seek prior approval for investigation into certain cases of corruption. The amendments state that complaints regarding corruption that relate to decisions taken or recommendations made by public servants in the discharge of their official duty, shall not be investigated without the prior approval of the Lokpal or Lokayuktas, as the case maybe. Such complaints shall be forwarded to, and deemed to be complaints made to the Lokpal or Lokayuktas. The Minister concerned clarified in the Rajya Sabha that the objective of these amendments is to safeguard public servants who are in decision-making positions, so that they may take decisions without fear of harassment. He said that the amendments were meant to replace Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, which was struck down by the Supreme Court. Section 6A mandated prior sanctions for investigation for officials of the rank of joint secretary and above, as they are in decision-making positions. However, these amendments will potentially lead to great confusion and unending litigation. How will the police, without investigation, unambiguously determine whether the alleged act of corruption is relatable to a decision taken or recommendation made by a public servant? To avoid confusion, the proposed amendments must either be dropped or state that complaints about all offences under the PCA shall be dealt with by the Lokpal at the Central level and Lokayuktas at the State level, for all categories of public servants covered in the respective laws. Existing instruments Finally, despite widespread public opinion against the necessity to seek the government’s permission before prosecuting a public servant for corruption, the amendments seek to strengthen this provision by increasing the cover to even retired public officials. Unfortunately, experience in India has shown that the requirement for seeking prior sanction from the government for prosecution is a critical bottleneck and results not only in huge delays but also in the accused often never being prosecuted. The PCA must insulate prosecuting agencies from government influence. The Lokpal law has vested the power of granting sanction for prosecution in the Lokpal. The proposed amendments must appropriately reflect this. Wherever the procedure for granting prosecution is defined in the Lokpal or Lokayukta laws, it should be applicable. For all other cases, including where no Lokpal or Lokayukta has been set up, an independent committee should be tasked with the responsibility of giving prior approval for prosecution. If the Modi government is serious about tackling corruption, it should, in addition to re-introducing the grievance redress bill, immediately operationalise the Lokpal Act and the Whistle Blowers Protection Act which were passed by Parliament more than two years ago. These laws, together with the PCA, form the necessary anti-corruption statutory framework.
|St. Vincent & the Grenadines||100|