Thursday Nov 28, 2024
Thursday Nov 28, 2024
Wednesday, 2 August 2017 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
Around the world, the fight against corruption rages on. Rooting it out when it has burrowed so deep into the system that it has become intrinsic is no mean feat, although successive governments pledge just that. This year, the Corruption Perceptions Index released by Transparency International had alarming news, not just for Sri Lanka, but for the world. Sri Lanka, with a score of 36, lost ground this year, ranking 95th out of 176 countries, compared to 83rd out of 168 in 2015. Sri Lanka isn’t alone, however, as 69% of countries scored below 50 on the 100-point scale, a higher proportion than last year’s two-thirds.
With the problem on this scale, what practical measures can even make a dent in it? Ravindran Devagunam, CEO – International Strategic Cooperation Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Malaysia, weighed in at the National Management Accounting Conference hosted by CMA Sri Lanka recently.
Called to serve his country after 16 years as an expatriate in multiple industries, Devagunam has worked with Booz-Allen & Hamilton, AT Kearney and Deloitte Consulting SEA, and brought that perspective into new his role at the Prime Minister’s Department. Originally slated for a different position, he was requested to take up the unpopular mantle of ‘The (anti) Corruption Guy’ and accepted the challenge.
All success, he claims, has its root in good governance and integrity: “If you do not operate based on good governance and integrity, companies can fail. Catastrophically. And in government, if you do not have integrity and good governance, while you may not see immediate failure, you will see long-term degradation of society, and the loss of competitiveness in the global market.”
He went on to share the story of the establishment of the Malaysian initiatives to fight corruption and streamline the civil service in 2009. The Malaysian Prime Minister’s concept of “people first, performance now” demanded that government service adapt to a more efficient system of delivery.
One of the first steps was the formation of the Performance Management & Delivery Unit, coined into the term ‘PEMANDU’, Malay for ‘driver’. This corporation belonging to the Prime Minister was to drive the change, acting as a catalyst and a bridge between the government and the private sector, as well as between the community and civil service. A global headhunting exercise and hiring and secondment from government-linked companies staffed it, on the premise that the “private sector found it easier to deal with a private sector guy sitting in government to make things happen for them.” The idea was to make corporations and regular citizens more comfortable working with the government. It was an experiment, he explained, but one that worked.
The unit had public engagements for every action item. To fight corruption, it had multiple areas of focus that were endorsed by the opposition, by MPs, and by the public, with key indicators tracked on a daily or weekly basis. A simple application facilitated reporting: A dashboard showing action areas would go live every Friday at 5 p.m. It was accessible to everyone, from Secretaries to the Prime Minister himself. The PM’s response in the form of blog posts uploaded on Saturday, would review, and request updates at the next cabinet session, taking place on Wednesday. Ministries, realising they had to be ready to report, would start working through initiatives that needed correction, even over the weekend.
Every six weeks, a delivery taskforce would be headed by the Deputy PM. Each party was given 25 minutes to present both issues and solutions. All relevant agencies and ministries were expected to be present so the Deputy PM could assign follow-up to the appropriate parties and give them timelines for updates. All this information was captured and reported to the public regularly.
Every six months, key areas left unaddressed would be taken to the PM and relevant ministries. Devagunam explained its effectiveness: “If I have seven or eight items to be presented, the day before, more than 50% will drop because it has been addressed. No one wants to take it to the PM and say, ‘Sorry, sir, I couldn’t get it done.’ Typically, it’s really difficult items that are taken to the PM, addressed, and then reported back to the people.”
Another area in need of action was the Auditor General’s report. The audit used to take place throughout the year, with the Auditor General unable share to share the information with anyone, including the Anti-Corruption Commission, until October. Corrupt individuals, realising that their offenses had been uncovered, but that the information would not get to the Anti-Corruption Commission, had enough time to walk away. To combat this, provisions were made for the Auditor General to share information on a near real-time basis with the Commission. The Auditor General and the Commission working together are now able to deal with perpetrators before tracks can be cleared.
On issuance of the report to parliamentarians, the majority would not read it in its entirety because of its volume. A surface review resulted in more negative talk than positive contribution, and the delay in reporting meant that several highlighted issues had already been addressed.
Three measures were taking to address this:
1.The report was broken down into three sections, each presented at a sitting of Parliament, allowing for detailed perusal.
2.Ministries were invited to contribute rebuttals and reports on action taken. Thus, the focus shifted away from unmitigated problem statements to solutions.
3.All information was shared online in a simple, mobile-friendly dashboard. It identified every item listed by the Auditor General, showing progress with red, green, and yellow indicators.
This transparency increased accountability to the public, Devagunam elaborated, saying, “When we first introduced this, there were a lot of red flags, but today you will find less because the pressure from the public has increased. Everyone is going online to see which government department has not addressed issues in a timely fashion.”It also provided a basis for the government rebuttals of undeserved criticism: “It has given government the tool (with which) to go back to naysayers to say ‘Here’s what we’ve actually done.’ Yes, there are lapses. Every government finds a lot of issues when the report comes out. But what we’ve done is to tell the public that we address 80 or 90%. The 10% is being addressed, so there’s full disclosure of what we’re doing.” 96.6% of issues highlighted in the Auditor General’s report in 2015 were resolved in 2016.
Previously, civil servants were not trained or encouraged to speak to the media. But with the new system, a town hall meeting with the media would be called within 48 hours of the tabling of the Auditor General’s report. Led by the Chief Secretary himself, every Secretary General would be called upon to answer the tough questions asked by the media. Devagunam revealed the difficulties involved: “This is tough, because our civil servants don’t really like the limelight; they always want the politicians to go and front it. But we said ‘this is not a politician’s game. This is governance. This is government’. You do not get the politician to answer these detailed questions, you get government, civil servants to answer them.”
This initiative, Devagunam revealed, was not easy to implement, as it went against Malaysian culture to shame anyone. However, after six months, and with the Prime Minister and Attorney General’s intervention, this database of individuals convicted of corruption-related offenses was made available on the website of Ant-Corruption Commission. Today, with 456 offenders named, it is even used by the US Consulate to vet individuals applying for visas to US.
Getting access to information about corruption can be difficult, especially if individuals fear reprisals for reporting it. To prevent repercussions from their disclosure, 467 whistle-blowers have been awarded protection since 2011.
To alleviate corruption in government procurement, all contractors are expected to sign a pact with the Ministry of Finance, which holds the organisation’s Board of Directors and Chairman responsible for any corrupt activity. Their performance is tracked online, and citizens can find out which companies are getting contracts regularly, and on what basis. From 2011 to 2014, 574,592 Integrity Pacts were signed.
This could not be enforced on private sector organisations that are not suppliers, however, so a voluntary pledge was introduced. The Corporate Integrity Pledge, now being introduced by the Securities Commission and Stock Exchange, encourages listed companies and SMEs as well to publicly declare their stance against corruption. The Anti-Corruption Commission, with the assistance of the Big Four and other accounting firms, then audits them to ensure that they comply with integrity measures. 898 companies have signed the pledge, and can be found online. This measure has attracted FDI by reassuring investors.
In 2007, a survey asked university students whether giving or receiving bribes was acceptable. 80% responded that both were. These students later moved into civil service or the private sector, where they continued to act on those beliefs. To counter this, a new syllabus was introduced in schools, educating students on the importance of integrity.
Integrity systems were introduced in the police force too. Psychometric testing was also begun, with every recruit going through a test based on integrity measures.
The police force was known for accepting bribes to not issue tickets or summonses. This was addressed by counting the number of summonses issued per hour on duty, tracked via the badge number on the tickets. PEMANDU would verify the numbers at the National Police Headquarters, and update them on the system. The number of summonses issued increased, because the police force knew it was being tracked and was determined to prove that there was no corruption.
When economic transformation was initiated, the single largest spend was on the MRT - 26 billion Ringgit. Because of this the team committed to improving procurement standards. The Anti-Corruption Commission and the Auditor General were brought in, along with Transparency International as an independent external party, and instated as an oversight committee on every procurement taking place for the MRT. A digital platform was established to provide a seamless handling of procurement, on which 291 direct negotiation contracts have been published since 2013. These controls had the effect of helping civil servants make decisions faster, as they had the assurance that their choices were being carefully scrutinised, Devagunam stated.
By accepting Transparency International’s measure of corruption as their own KPI, Malaysia found that fighting corruption and talking about it increased the appearance of it. Devagunam recalls that the index started slipping, despite the fact that more was being done to fight corruption: “It took a while for index to go up, for people to realise there was real work being done… Talking to some of the international agencies, they said, ‘You know what, you guys are just beating on the sandbox, increasing the cloud and the perception that there’s more corruption than there is’.”
In response to comments from those who criticise government initiatives but do not engage at grassroots levels themselves, he noted, “The more transparency you provide, the more naked you look. (But) it’s better because it provides for total transparency. It leaves no room for naysayers to put you down. The best thing the government can do is show their integrity by providing transparency. Digitisation is a great help in this day and age, as it helps to show what exactly you’re doing… and citizens can go online to see what you’re doing, where you’re doing it and test it for themselves.”
