An Overview of the effectiveness of NIS in East and South East Asia

The study found that the NIS in Singapore and Hong Kong are the most effective out of the nine societies examined in this report. According to the World Bank’s six governance indicators, Hong Kong and Singapore have the highest average governance scores and they are the two least corrupt Asian societies according to Transparency International’s (TI) 2006 CPI.

The Hong Kong study found that civil society groups like Civic Exchange can operate freely in Hong Kong, thus helping the territory to achieve a more inclusive type of governance.

In contrast, the Singapore NIS study noted the lack of an active civil society and the relative weakness of the media, as well as strong political competition between parties and concluded that, Singapore has succeeded in containing corruption thanks to the political will of the ruling elites and a very sound anti-corruption framework.

At the other end, Cambodia’s average governance score of 20.11 is the lowest among the nine countries. The NIS study of Cambodia found that corruption is ‘so widespread and deep-rooted [that it] will take years of reform and restructuring of [the] existing systems’. Corruption has ‘permeated almost every aspect of Cambodian life’.

In Vietnam, the adoption of the doi moi mixed-market reforms in 1986 led to an escalation of corruption. The Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) identified corruption as a major threat to its survival during the 10th Party Congress in April 2006. Most of the respondents in the 2005 Diagnostic Survey conducted by the Internal Affairs Committee of the Central Committee of the CPV ranked corruption as the most serious problem facing the country.

Despite efforts by the government and civil society corruption remains a serious problem in the Philippines . According to the recent country report, the NIS in the Philippines faces two major problems. Firstly, legislation tends to under-legislate (as in the lack of protection for whistleblowers) or over-legislate (like, for instance, in government regulations). The second problem is ‘more disturbing’: the study found that all the integrity pillars are ‘tainted by internal corruption and are therefore heavily compromised’, ‘unable to perform their functions and operate effectively’.

In 1997, Thailand adopted the ‘People’s Constitution’ along with a series of anti-corruption measures, including the formation of the NCCC in November 1999.

However, the report found that the positive effects of these measures have been eroded in the past five years through the influence exerted by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The NCCC also suffered a serious setback when its nine commissioners resigned in May 2005, having been found guilty by the Supreme Court of abusing their powers in August 2004 when they issued an executive decree to increase their salaries by 45,000 baht (US $1,125). On a positive note, this episode shows that the NCCC members were not above the law and were held accountable for abuse of their powers.

China has shown marked signs of improvement in addressing corruption in the past 10 years.

The regional overview report found the situation in Japan to be unique. There is little or no low-level corruption in the administration, but Japan suffers from a high degree of institutionalised corruption involving political leaders and business interests. The NIS study found that Japan has not demonstrated strong political will in fighting institutionalised corruption and corruption within the private sector. Its government has not assigned this task to any specialised agency. The Japanese government appears to be satisfied with maintaining the status quo.

The South Korean government has demonstrated strong political will in curbing corruption. For example, President Kim Young Sam and President Kim Dae Jung both displayed tremendous political determination through the anti-corruption measures introduced during their respective terms of office. Kim Dae Jung’s comprehensive anti-corruption strategy resulted in the enactment of the Anti-Corruption Act in July 2001 and the creation of the KICAC in January 2002.