of corruption

advertisement
INTEGRITI SEKTOR AWAM: ANCAMAN
RASUAH & CARA MENANGANINYA
Dato’ Akhbar Satar
0172560811
[email protected]
TI definition of corruption
‘Corruption is the abuse of entrusted
power for private gain’
Definition of Bribery
“ Giving or accepting gratification”
( Section 16 & 17 MACC Act 2009)
OFFENCES
BRIBERY
MACC ACT
Giving or accepting Gratification
( Sec 16 & 17)
FALSE CLAIMS
False Claims To deceive Principals
( Sec18)
WITHDRAW OF
TENDER
Corruptly Procuring Withdraw of Tender
( Sec 20)
CONFLICT OF
INTEREST/ABUSE OF
AUTHORITY
Using Office or Position For Gratification
(Sec23)
BRIBING FOREIGN
OFFICIALS
NOT REPORTING
BRIBERY
OTHER ORESCRIBE
OFFENCES
Bribery of Foreign Public Officials
( Sec 22)
Failure To Report Bribery
( Sec 25)
Corruption Offences Under Penal Code;
Custom Act 1967 & Election Offences Act
1954
PENALTY
IMPRISONMENT
FOR A TERM
NOT EXCEEDING
20 YEARS AND FINE
NOT LESS THAN
5 TIMES THE SUM
OR VALUE OF THE
GRATIFICATION
OR RM10,000.00,
WHICHEVER IS
HIGHER
FINE NOT EXCEEDING RM100k
OR IMPRISONMENT NOT
EXCEEDING 10 YEARS OR BOTH
Penalty of Corruption
• Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20
years and
• Fine not less than 5 times the sum or value of
the gratification or RM10,000.00, whichever is
higher fine not exceeding RM100,000.00 or
imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or both
When evaluating one’s goals and objectives,
vital question must be asked:
What is your highest aspiration?
 A: Wealth
 B: Fame
 C: Knowledge
 D: Popularity
 F: Integrity
 If integrity is second to any
of the alternatives, then it is
subject
to
sacrifice
in
situations
where a choice
must be made.
 Such situations will inevitably
occur in every person’s life.
CAUSES OF CORRUPTION:
A CRIMINOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE






Hedonistic
Social Bond
Social Process
Individual vs Systemic
Routine Activity Theory
Fraud Triangle
RED FLAGS

Goes Home late : (first one in, last one out)
RED FLAGS
Employee lifestyle changes: Big Spender- expensive
cars, jewelry, buy or renovate homes, clothes ( 43% ACFE 2012)

RED FLAGS

Financial Problem: these may be an indication of drugs,
alcohol, gambling, or just fear of losing the job (36% ACFE 2012)
RED FLAGS

Too close to the Clients or Vendors
RED FLAGS
 Volunteers for Extra Responsibilities – anager Doing
Subordinate Level Work
RED FLAGS

Too Relied on Employee
RED FLAGS
 Volunteers for Extra Responsibilities – anager Doing
Subordinate Level Work
RED FLAGS
 Has Technical Skill to Pull Off the Scheme Secretly
No Vacation & Rejected Promotion
Watch
Out for The Most
Decent staff
Facts & Figures
 Global Integrity
Crisis
Barry Salzberg
 In a survey reported by Forbes.com, 38% of
teens polled feeling that they needed to cheat
in order to get ahead.
 Barry Salzberg, CEO of Deloitte stated
“we in business can no longer assume that
employees come to us equipped with a fully
functioning moral code.”
Asia Pacific:
Integrity Crisis
 The survey showed that 40 % of the
youths in Asia Pacific were willing to
accept bribes if they had the
opportunity.
Mr. Srirak
Regional Director- Asia Pacific
Transparency International – Berlin
November 2013
Integrity Crisis in Malaysia
 The survey conducted by (UKM)
showed that 30.5% of the students
were willing to accept bribes if they
had the power and the opportunity.
UKM- MACC
Asia-Pacific Fraud Survey
Report Series 2013
Likely to take
shortcuts to
meet targets
when economy
times tough
Malaysia: 54%
Indonesia
Bribe Payers
Survey 2012
 3000 executives
 13 sectors
 30 countries
By Sector
35 % : Telecommunications
37 % : Utilities
38 % : Public works contracts
and Construction
50%
Malaysia: Lost
Business Due
to Competitor
paid Bribe
World Economic Forum
Economic loss due to corruption
 Add 10% of total cost in doing business
 Up to 25% to the cost of procurement
contracts in developing countries
The World Bank
Economic loss due to corruption
 Worldwide 2.9 trillion
 Reduce the country’s growth
rate by 2 - 4%
The Association of
Certified Fraud Examiners
( Report to Nation 2012)
 An organization loses 5% of its revenues to
fraud each year
 2011 Gross World Product, this translates to
global fraud loss of more than $3.5 trillion.
Royal Malaysian Police
RM1.1 billion has been lost through
commercial crimes reported so far in
2013, with cheating cases and criminal
breach of trust (CBT) making up the bulk
of losses .
Dato Syed Ismail Syed
Director, Federal Commercial Crime Investigation Department
This is 1 billion
This is 1 trillion
This is also 1 trillion
Worldwide Corruption
is 3.5 Trillion ?
The value of RM 1 billion
With RM 1 billion you can build:
667 kilometer rural roads
35
The value of RM 1 billion
6,667 kilometer
kampung roads
36
The value of RM 1 billion
500 bridges
37
The value of RM 1 billion
With RM 1 billion you can build:
90 primary schools
38
Measuring corruption
THE CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS
INDEX (CPI)
THE CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS
INDEX 2013 IS:
A global (177 countries/territories)
aggregate Index (up to 13 different data sources)
capturing perceptions (experts/business people)
of corruption (abuse of power for private gain)
in the public sector (public officials and institutions)
CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX
The perceived levels of public
sector corruption in 177 countries
/ territories around the world.
GLOBAL
70% of countries
score less than 50
out of 100.
43 is the average
score worldwide.
CPI 2013: THE TOP
Denmark and New Zealand tie for first place with scores of 91, helped by
strong access to information systems and rules governing the behaviour
of those in public positions.
RANK
COUNTRY/TERRITORY
SCORE
1
DENMARK
91
1
NEW ZEALAND
91
3
FINLAND
89
3
SWEDEN
89
5
NORWAY
86
5
SINGAPORE
86
CPI 2013: THE BOTTOM
Afghanistan, North Korea and Somalia once again cling to the bottom
rung of the index. In these countries the lack of leaders who are
accountable and effective public institutions underscore the need to take
a much stronger stance against corruption.
RANK
COUNTRY/TERRITORY
SCORE
173
SOUTH SUDAN
14
174
SUDAN
11
175
AFGHANISTAN
8
175
KOREA (NORTH)
8
175
SOMALIA
8
COUNTRIES WITH SIMILAR SCORES
Country
Ranking
Country
Country Score
47
Hungary, Seychelles
54
49
Costa Rica, Latvia,
Rwanda,
53
52
Mauritius
52
53
Malaysia, Turkey
50
55
Georgia, Lesotho
49
114
Egypt
32
175
Afghanistan
8
CPI 2001 - 2013 : MALAYSIA
Year
Ranking
Score
No: of Countries
Year
2012
54
49
2013
53
50
176
177
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
Ranking
36
33
37
39
39
44
43
47
56
56
60
Score
5.0
4.9
5.2
5.0
5.1
5.0
5.1
5.1
4.5
4.4
4.3
No: of
Countries
91
102
133
145
158
163
179
180
180
178
183
SCORES OF ASEAN COUNTRIES
Rank
ASEAN
Position
(177)
CPI Score
GDP per
capita
1
Singapore
5
86
$51,709
2
Brunei
38
60
$41,127
3
Malaysia
53
50
$10,381
4
Philippines
94
36
$2,587
5
Thailand
102
35
$5,480
6
Indonesia
114
32
$3,557
7
Vietnam
116
31
$1,596
8
Laos
140
26
$1,399
9
Myanmar
157
21
10
Cambodia
160
20
-
$946
CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX
COUNTRY/
RANK
TERRITORY SCORE
1
Denmark
91
1
New Zealand
91
3
Finland
89
3
Sweden
89
5
Norway
86
5
Singapore
86
7
Switzerland
85
8
Netherlands
83
9
Australia
81
9
Canada
81
11
Luxembourg
80
12
Germany
78
12
Iceland
78
United
14
Kingdom
76
15
Barbados
75
15
Belgium
75
15
Hong Kong
75
18
Japan
74
19
Uruguay
73
United States
19
of America
73
21
Ireland
72
22
The Bahamas
71
22
Chile
71
22
France
71
22
Saint Lucia
71
26
26
28
28
30
31
31
33
33
33
36
36
38
38
40
41
41
43
43
45
46
47
47
49
49
Austria
United Arab
Emirates
Estonia
Qatar
Botswana
Bhutan
Cyprus
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Saint Vincent
and the
Grenadines
Israel
Taiwan
Brunei
Poland
Spain
Cape Verde
Dominica
Lithuania
Slovenia
Malta
South Korea
Hungary
Seychelles
Costa Rica
Latvia
69
69
68
68
64
63
63
62
62
62
61
61
60
60
59
58
58
57
57
56
55
54
54
53
53
COUNTRY/
RANK
TERRITORY SCORE
49
Rwanda
53
52
Mauritius
52
53
Malaysia
50
53
Turkey
50
55
Georgia
49
55
Lesotho
49
57
Bahrain
48
57
Croatia
48
57
Czech Republic 48
57
Namibia
48
61
Oman
47
61
Slovakia
47
63
Cuba
46
63
Ghana
46
63
Saudi Arabia
46
66
Jordan
45
Macedonia
67
FYR
44
67
Montenegro
44
69
Italy
43
69
Kuwait
43
69
Romania
43
Bosnia and
72
Herzegovina
42
72
Brazil
42
Sao Tome and
72
Principe
42
72
72
77
77
77
80
80
82
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
91
91
91
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
Serbia
South Africa
Bulgaria
Senegal
Tunisia
China
Greece
Swaziland
Burkina Faso
El Salvador
Jamaica
Liberia
Mongolia
Peru
Trinidad and
Tobago
Zambia
Malawi
Morocco
Sri Lanka
Algeria
Armenia
Benin
Colombia
Djibouti
India
Philippines
Suriname
42
42
41
41
41
40
40
39
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
37
37
37
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX
COUNTRY/
RANK
TERRITORY SCORE
102 Ecuador
35
102 Moldova
35
102 Panama
35
102 Thailand
35
106 Argentina
34
106 Bolivia
34
106 Gabon
34
106 Mexico
34
106 Niger
34
111 Ethiopia
33
111 Kosovo
33
United Republic
111 of Tanzania
33
114 Egypt
32
114 Indonesia
32
116 Albania
31
116 Nepal
31
116 Vietnam
31
119 Mauritania
30
119 Mozambique
30
119 Sierra Leone
30
119 East Timor
30
123 Belarus
29
Dominican
123 Republic
29
123 Guatemala
29
123
127
127
127
127
127
127
127
127
127
136
136
136
136
140
140
140
140
144
144
144
144
144
144
Togo
Azerbaijan
Comoros
Gambia
Lebanon
Madagascar
Mali
Nicaragua
Pakistan
Russia
Bangladesh
Ivory Coast
Guyana
Kenya
Honduras
Kazakhstan
Laos
Uganda
Cameroon
Central African
Republic
Iran
Nigeria
Papua New
Guinea
Ukraine
29
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
27
27
27
27
26
26
26
26
25
25
25
25
25
25
COUNTRY/
RANK
TERRITORY SCORE
150 Guinea
24
150 Kyrgyzstan
24
150 Paraguay
24
153 Angola
23
Republic of
154 Congo
22
Democratic
Republic of the
154 Congo
22
154 Tajikistan
22
157 Burundi
21
157 Myanmar
21
157 Zimbabwe
21
160 Cambodia
20
160 Eritrea
20
160 Venezuela
20
163 Chad
19
Equatorial
163 Guinea
19
163
163
167
168
168
Guinea Bissau
Haiti
Yemen
Syria
Turkmenistan
19
19
18
17
17
168
171
172
173
174
175
175
175
Uzbekistan
Iraq
Libya
South Sudan
Sudan
Afghanistan
North Korea
Somalia
17
16
15
14
11
8
8
8
CPI 2013 vs GDP Per Capita 2012
120,000
Norway
100,000
2012 GDP PER CAPITA ($US)
$99,558
80,000
Australia
Sweden
60,000
Denmark
Singapore
$56,210
Brunei
New Zealand
Australia
40,000
Hong Kong
20,000
Malaysia
0
0
Thailand
Philippines
Laos Vietnam
South Sudan
Indonesia
Cambidia
Sudan
Afrghanistan
10
20
30
40
$10,381
50
60
$620
-20,000
CPI 2013 SCORE
70
80
90
100
Malaysian Corruption Barometer 2014
Survey of general public:
 General perceptions of Corruption
 Perceptions of Corruption in Public Sector and of Government
Officials
 Perception of Government Effectiveness in Fighting Corruption
 Perceived Corruption of Key Institutions
 Personal Experiences of Bribery
 Willingness to Report an Incident &
Channels of Reporting
 Citizens’ Willingness To Fight Corruption
MCB 2014
TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL MALAYSIA
51
PERCEPTION OF CORRUPTION TREND IN
THE PAST 2 YEARS
 28 % of Malaysians feel that level of
corruption has increased (2013: 39%)
 Relative to GCB 2013, the perception had
IMPROVED significantly.
PERCEPTION OF CORRUPTION IN PUBLIC SECTOR
 24% of Malaysians feel that corruption
of public sector is not a problem.
(2013:42%)
 Relative to GCB 2013, the perception of
level of corruption for Public Sector
IMPROVED.
Incidence Of Bribery Been Asked For In The Past
Have you ever been asked to pay a bribe in the past, from any institution?
45% of respondents have been
asked to pay a bribe at one
point in time in the past
PERCEIVED CORRUPTION OF KEY INSTITUTIONS
Q6. To what extent do you see the following institutions/organizations in Malaysia to be affected by corruption?
Please answer on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means not at all corrupt and 5 means extremely corrupt.
Top 2 Box %
‘Extremely corrupt’
& ‘Corrupt’
Lower perception of corruption in MCB 2014
Top 2 Box %
‘Extremely corrupt’
& ‘Corrupt’
WILLINGNESS TO REPORT AN INCIDENT
 51% of respondents are willing to report
an incident of corruption.(2013: 79%)
 Relative to GCB 2013, the respondents are
willing to report an incident of corruption has
DECREASE.
WHY NOT WILLING TO REPORT AN INCIDENT ?
PERCEPTION OF GOVERNMENT EFFECTIVENESS
IN FIGHTING CORRUPTION
 28% of Malaysians feel that Malaysia’s
efforts in curbing corruption are
ineffective. (
2013: 31%)
Malaysian Government’s Effectiveness in Fighting
Corruption: 2006 to 2014
Government’s KPI
70%
53%
48%
45%
49%
31%
28%
28%
Source: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2006 to 2013. Percentages are weighted.
GCB 2014
TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL MALAYSIA
59
Areas of Negligence in An
Organization
Recruitment
Training: basic
& in service
courses
Ethics Policies
and Procedures
Tone at the top
Ethical Work
Behaviors
Ethics Policies & Procedures
Absense of
Internal control
Unusual
transactions
Inadequate
separation of
duties
Missing or Altered
Document
Misleading or
False information
Requires Proper
Authorization
Tone at
the top
ERIC CHIA – CORRUPTION CASE
The wheelchair-bound Chia, upon his acquittal, told the press then
that vindication
had come too late.
He said he had lost his family and was estranged from
his son and daughter because of the shame.
He said that at the height of his career, he had many friends but
because of the case he had lost many of them as well.
“Once when I put my hands on the table, there were 200 other
hands of my friends on that same table. But now there are not
enough hands,” he said in June last year.
“They have run away.
Some of them think I am a
“crook.”
Finally: Your Personal Manifesto
•
•
•
•
Never do anything you cannot defend
Never compromise your integrity
Never sign anything you don’t understand
If you don’t understand
– Get it in writing
– Take it home and ask your kids
 Lose your wealth and
you have lost nothing
 Lose your health and
you have lost something
 Lose your integrity and
you have lost everything
TERIMA KASIH
[email protected]
HP: 0172560811
Download
Related flashcards

Types of organization

17 cards

Liberalism

24 cards

Liberalism

46 cards

Liberal parties

74 cards

Create Flashcards