Corruption: Shooting for solutions

M. L. Tan

There has been a flurry of anti-corruption activities in the region, such as Indonesian prosecutors filing charges last week against former president Suharto for misusing some US$570 million from charitable organizations.

It’s time we look at what other countries are doing about corruption and see what lessons we might be able to pick up. To show they mean business, Chinese officials have been going after the big fish. Last week a deputy chairman of China’s National People’s Congress was sentenced to death for accepting some US$5 million in bribes. He can appeal but is likely to lose. A few weeks earlier, a deputy governor was executed almost immediately after losing his appeal, also on a corruption case. China’s death penalty is swift and simple with one bullet in the head, the cost of the bullet charged back to the convict’s family.

I’m sure such reports make Filipinos wish we could do something similar. I’m all in favor of going after the big fish but not with using the death penalty. I’m opposed not because we’d wipe out much of our government bureaucracy but because the death penalty just doesn’t work, against corruption (or other crimes). For a few years now, Vietnam has been implementing a similar strategy of executing high-ranking corrupt officials but corruption continues unabated. In these countries, the widespread use of the death penalty has cheapened life. I’ve seen photographs of convicts about to be executed and their faces show no fear or remorse, only bitter defiance.

But the other reason the death penalty does not deter corruption is that despite convictions and executions of high officials, people in the street know these are all token. Corruption exists in China at even higher levels than those of governors and members of Congress and these scoundrels remain untouched.

People need to see consistency in the application of anti-corruption measures, and never mind the death penalty. For corrupt politicians, there are fates worse than death. It’d be interesting to see what happens in Thailand, where a conviction on corruption charges will now mean, in addition to imprisonment and a fine, a ban on running for public office for five years.

Singapore and Hong Kong were able to curb corruption with independent anti-graft bodies and stricter anti-corruption laws but we’ve already taken that route, with dismal results. Our anti-graft bodies – each president creates a new one – lack independence, and become part of the already bloated and corrupt bureaucracy.

As for using anti-corruption laws, the Philippines can be a negative model, since we’re so good at passing laws and at failing to implement them. We’ve gotten to the point where even anti-corruption laws are used to coddle the corrupt or, worse, to go after the innocent. People working in government know all too well how corruption charges are often used for personal and political vendetta, and how the powerful can drag the investigation proceedings to harass an employee who won’t toe the line. The system therefore works against the innocent while the real crooks run scot-free.

It’s no wonder that when Erap announced he was creating a new presidential commisison against graft and corruption, civilian groups ranging from the conservative Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption to the left group Karapatan all protested, saying such a body would only be used to protect the corrupt and to harass political enemies.

It’s also often pointed out that graft and corruption are results of low government pay. Singapore’s generous pay for civil servants is cited as a major reason why corruption has been stamped out. Singapore’s prime minister now gets an equivalent of US$1.1 million a yea – that’s P48 million – while their most junior minister gets paid US$550,000 a year or P24 million. Compare that amount to the P192,000 annual salary of a Filipino department secretary.

Yet I truly wonder if we’d have cleaner officials just by increasing their salaries. Their basic pay may be low but they already have many perks including huge allowances for representation, for staff, even for research (used mainly to print glossy self-promoting newsletters).

Certainly, government pay needs to be increased, especially for the rank and file, but there's much more to corruption than low pay. From our neighbors, we see the need for independent watchdog bodies, including the media, and for a justice system that can carry a corruption case through the investigation, conviction and implementation of the penalty.

Finally, we have to resolve the discrepancy between rhetoric and reality. The most corrupt officials are also often the most moralistic. We don’t need preachers. We need role models, which is why I found last Sunday’s Inquirer feature on Trade Secretary Mar Roxas so refreshing – he rides the MRT (which reminds me of how, in the Netherlands, high ranking ministers are known to bike to work!), wears a $30 watch and uses an P18 pen.

We can be so vocal in speaking out against corruption and yet act in ways that completely contradict the rhetoric. The grim fact remains that while other countries now convict and execute corrupt officials, including high-ranking ones, here in the Philippines, we elect such known felons into public office. That alone goes a long way toward explaining why we are perceived to be among the most corrupt countries in the region.