Editorial | Articles about Cambodia | Khmer

Wednesday, December 04, 2013

Most corrupt in ASEAN

Wed, 4 December 2013
Stuart White
The Phnom Penh Post

Amid a flurry of post-election promises of reform by the government, an index released by Transparency International (TI) yesterday shows that Cambodia’s public sector is perceived to be the most corrupt in ASEAN, and second only to North Korea in all of East Asia.



Since being added to TI’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), the Kingdom’s scores have remained largely stagnant as the country has been outstripped by its regional peers. In 2005, when it joined the survey, Indonesia and Myanmar were behind Cambodia, which was ranked 130th out of 159 nations that year.

But in this year’s index, Cambodia fell to 160th out of 177 nations, with Indonesia and Myanmar holding the 114th and 157th spots, respectively. Laos, which slipped behind Cambodia in 2007, now ranks 140th, and even Bangladesh, which tied for last place in 2005’s index, has climbed to 136th this year.

“While it is encouraging to hear the highest level of Cambodia’s government reiterate their commitment to tackle corruption, corrupt practices will continue and become even more entrenched unless rhetoric is matched by actions,” Sophoan Rath, chairman of TI Cambodia’s board, said in a statement released alongside the index yesterday.

However, that may prove a troublesome prospect if Cambodia’s performance over the past nine years is any indication. In 2005, when the CPI still used a 10-point scale, Cambodia’s score on the index was 2.3. In 2010, the year the Anti-Corruption Unit was formed, Cambodia’s score had actually fallen to 2.1. This year, on the CPI’s 100-point scale – implemented in 2012 – Cambodia scored 20, down two points from last year’s 22.

ACU spokesman Keo Remy declined to comment yesterday on the contents of the 2013 CPI, and referred questions to ACU Chairman Om Yentieng, who could not be reached after repeated attempts.

The drop between 2012 and 2013 can be accounted for by substantial declines in two of the third-party metrics used by Transparency International. The studies, performed by the World Economic Forum and Global Insight, assessed how commonly businesses face corruption in a given country and to what extent it affects their operations.

“Both the World Economic Forum and Global Insight focus on the business environment,” Preap Kol, TI Cambodia’s executive director, told reporters at yesterday’s unveiling of the CPI. “It is seen that the investment climate is not favourable in Cambodia.

“In my personal opinion, in 2013, we had the election, and businesses may have faced some challenges,” he added.

European Chamber of Commerce vice-president Dominique Catry, on the other hand, attributed the lack of progress over the last few years to a lack of motivation on the part of authorities.

“I don’t think there has been any change at all,” Catry said.

“If corruption was more controlled, that could probably attract more foreign investors from countries like the US or from Europe, but I’m not sure it is a concern [among officials] in Cambodia,” he continued.

“They don’t see the advantage in changing the way of operating, so there is no incentive for those people to change their behaviour.”

Though some businesses are able to operate above board, he concluded, those that seek government contracts are especially likely to run into graft-related problems.

TIC board member Ok Serei Sopheak, speaking at the unveiling, also acknowledged the apparent lack of progress.

“We have the feeling that over the past years, it seems like there is no improvement,” he said. “We need to recognise that we are at a level that is not acceptable.

“We need to reflect and clean ourselves, and this is a mirror that allows us to see ourselves,” he added.

While progress was slow, he noted, there was a time when officials enjoyed total impunity when it came to corruption. In recent years, however, the ACU has begun arresting junior officials on corruption charges. In the future, Sopheak continued, even senior officials may find themselves facing prosecution.

“It’s like evolution,” he said.

ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY CHEANG SOKHA

Labels: , ,


» Read more!

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Where is Cambodia’s anti-corruption law?

Delivery of Anti-corruption petition (Photo: AP)
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
By LAO MONG HAY
UPI Asia Online


Column: Rule by Fear


Hong Kong, China — On May 16, 2006, a petition with over 1 million signatures and thumbprints was presented to the National Assembly in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, calling on the assembly to urgently enact an anti-corruption law. The sheer number of people –one out of every 14 Cambodians – who supported the petition campaign with their signature or thumbprint in a period of just over five months, revealed the gravity of corruption in the country and the urgent need for government leaders and lawmakers to take action.

Corruption in Cambodia was already rife, affecting every walk of life, toward the end of the communist regime in the late 1980s. It was and still is prevalent in every public institution everywhere and at every level: in schools, hospitals, fire services, the police, the army, the civil service, the judiciary, the government and the Parliament. It has also ravaged foreign aid given to the country.

In the early 1990s when the communist regime ended, the public called on the government to tackle the problem. In the mid-1990s, civil society began to organize seminars to highlight the issue and urge the government to enact an anti-corruption law. Many national seminars were held, at times presided over by prime ministers or their colleagues, not to mention many smaller meetings.

There were study tours for concerned senior government officials and lawmakers to countries in the region, including Singapore and Hong Kong, both of which are renowned for their effective anti-corruption laws and agencies. In 1998, the newly elected government promised to fight corruption and enact a law against it.

For their part, international donors began to feel the gravity of corruption and its negative impact on the aid they had given to Cambodia, to the tune of some US$500 million a year since the early 1990s. In 2002, together with the Cambodian government, they made the fight against corruption and the enactment of an anti-corruption law one of the benchmarks for the flow of aid.

Under such pressure the government finally submitted to the National Assembly an anti-corruption bill – which had been drafted and redrafted many times, well before the adoption of the U.N. Convention against Corruption in 2003.

Shortly after, this bill was withdrawn, to be redrafted again to bring it up to the convention’s standards. Meanwhile, deadlines set for the enactment of that law have repeatedly passed and the final draft has not yet seen the light of day.

In parallel with the pressure on the government to enact an anti-corruption law, successive studies were undertaken to look into corruption in Cambodia. A 2004 study conducted by the U.S. Agency for International Development in Cambodia showed that corruption cost the government between US$300 million and $500 million in revenue every year, an enormous sum for a poor country.

Another survey conducted two years later by the Economic Institute of Cambodia in Phnom Penh showed that in 2005 the private sector paid “unofficial fees”—that is, bribes – to public officials amounting to US$330 million, an amount it said was “2.5 times higher than that of official payment” and “represented also about 50 percent of the total government budget revenue in 2005.”

A more recent survey conducted by Transparency International showed that 72 percent of Cambodians reported paying a bribe to receive a public service in 2007, a percentage which was then the highest in the Asia-Pacific region and second only to Cameroon (79 percent) internationally. The same survey also showed that the judiciary and the police were viewed as the most corrupt institutions in the country. It should be added that in 2007 Cambodia ranked 162 out 179 countries in the TI Corruption Perceptions Index.

Corruption has affected not only the Cambodian people but also foreign donors on whom Cambodia very much depends. In 1999 there was a corruption scandal at the Cambodian Mine Action Center, an internationally funded government landmine clearance organization. That scandal led to the suspension of foreign aid to CMAC for some time.

In 2003, the World Bank discovered the misuse of funds in a project to demobilize 30,000 soldiers, and forced the Cambodian government to repay the missing money. In 2004, the World Food Program found that US$1.2 million of its aid had gone missing, and forced the Cambodian government to make up for it. In 2006, the World Bank discovered fraud and corruption in three of the projects it was funding. It suspended its funding for these three projects and requested the Cambodian government to make prompt repayment of the missing funds.

In early 2007, within six months after its creation, the internationally funded Khmer Rouge Tribunal encountered allegations of corruption in its human resource management. These allegations led to the introduction of corrective measures for better management.

These are a few of the cases known to the public and acknowledged by the government. Yet in all corruption cases very few, if any, suspected government officials have been brought to justice and made accountable for their corruption. Generally, they have simply been disciplined and removed from office and then, when their cases are no longer in the public mind, they have been reappointed to other, sometimes higher, positions.

Enacting an anti-corruption law and setting up an anti-corruption body may not end what is a common practice in Cambodia. It is nevertheless a significant step toward that end. The Cambodian government must not let its officials indulge in corruption with impunity. It must not continue to break its promises to its people and its foreign donors. It must heed the petition presented to the National Assembly and submit the long promised anti-corruption bill for adoption without further delay.
--
(Lao Mong Hay is a senior researcher at the Asian Human Rights Commission in Hong Kong. He was previously director of the Khmer Institute of Democracy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and a visiting professor at the University of Toronto in 2003. In 1997, he received an award from Human Rights Watch and the Nansen Medal in 2000 from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.)

Labels: ,


» Read more!
October 1997
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
July 2014
September 2014
January 2015
February 2015
September 2015
October 2015
August 2016
September 2016
March 2018

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]

Powered by Blogger


 Home   |   About Us   |   Submit URL or Your Company Address First Launched: 08/15/95 - Copyright © 2010 Cambodian Information Center. All rights reserved.