WORLDWIDE, new governments pronounce passionately that combating corruption will be their priority agenda during their tenure. Malaysia is no different. The fight against corruption has been an evolving story since 1957. The first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra was instrumental in the enactment of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961 and the establishment of the Anti-Corruption Agency. In 1998 then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad directed the formation of Integrity Management Committees in government agencies to investigate abuse of power and mismanagement. Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi instituted various measures to eradicate corruption such as the Royal Police Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Police Force in December 2003.The National Integrity Plan was launched in 2006 and the Integrity Institute of Malaysia established. The Anti–Corruption Academy, a regional centre for anti-corruption training became operational in 2005.
Despite all these efforts corruption continues to be described as being pandemic in the country. Party manifestoes for the General Election 2008 therefore gave top priority to fighting corruption. Newly appointed Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng have pronounced their desire to continue the battle against corruption. It is unclear how they will do this. Khalid has stated he would look into a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) for greater transparency in the award of projects. The FOI gives citizens the right of access to bureaucratic documents. This may be helpful but enactment of laws and their implementation are not instantaneous.
Anti-corruption advocates point out that "Prosecution is a blunt tool against corruption." Prevention is better than cure in the battle against corruption as experiences from developed economies such as the UK, Germany and South Korea and developing economies such as Colombia and Indonesia indicate. One anti-corruption tool that is being used extensively in these countries is the Integrity Pact.
The Integrity Pact (IP), a tool developed by Transparency International, is intended to prevent corruption during the award of contracts for major investment projects. The IP, an important tool for integrity in procurement, contains rights and obligations that no party will pay, offer, demand or accept bribes of any kind or collude with competitors to obtain the contract or while carrying it out. Bidders will also disclose commissions paid in relation to the contract. The IP is binding on both contract suppliers and contract bidders. Sanctions and punitive actions as well as future exclusions from contract bidding are some of the actions that can be taken against those who violate the IP. Additionally, adherence to IPs is monitored by non-governmental organisations.
The IPs can be tailored to the needs of federal and state governments and local authorities. In the UK, IPs are being increasingly used in defence agreements and the construction industry. The Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe has adopted the use of IPs in defence contracts. In Germany the IP was successfully used in the expansion of the Berlin-Schonefeld airport. South Korea has significantly reduced corruption through the Korean Pact on Anti-Corruption and Transparency (K-PACT).
The K-PACT’s strategy of involving the public and private sectors, politicians and civil society has improved transparency and built investor confidence.
Colombia has implemented more than 60 IPs in various sectors including telecommunications. In Mexico more than 45 IPs are operational. The biggest infrastructure project of the decade, the El Cajon hydroelectric plant has adopted the IP. An interesting aspect of the Latin American experience of implementing IPs is the role of the Social Witness — an independent and technically competent monitor. The Muncipality of Moron in Argentina has held public hearings for contracts in waste collection services. As a result, Moron spent less on waste collection compared to other municipalities in Buenos Aires.
Closer to home, Solok district in West Sumatra offers some useful lessons in the adoption of IPs at the local level. (I was a member of the evaluation team of IP implementation in Solok in December 2006). In 2003, Gamawan Fauzi, then Regent of Solok district and now Governor of West Sumatra, studied the Korean Pact and introduced a similar pact in Solok. All procurement processes are bound by the IP. Access to public information and community participation has brought several benefits to the district. Project costs were reduced by 30%. Special awards in addition to the salary were given to public officials for efficient implementation of the IP. Defects in projects such as the Kapala Bandan bridge were highlighted as a result of community monitoring. However local contractors were not very happy with the IP implementation. Too much transparency resulted in contracts being given to outsiders resulting in loss of job opportunities for locals! This is an area that will need some attention.
The implementation of IPs is cost effective. It takes about four months for all the processes to be put in place from training of public officials, industry, civil society, procedural changes to the preparation of documents. Both Barisan Nasional (BN) and non-BN led states could make IP implementation their priority in the battle against corruption.
For a start, non-BN MPs should set the example by signing an IP that they will not abuse their power or accept bribes.
Josie Fernandez is affiliated with numerous social interest organisations, including the Integrity Institute of Malaysia.
