What are the indicators of good governance?Most of us will agree that
the first indicator is the elimination of corruption in all wings of
government.The UN Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific(UNESCAP) has observed that good
governance has eight major characteristics as follows.
1.Participation.
2.Rule of law.
3.Transparency.
4.Responsiveness.
5.Consensus Orientation .
6.Equity and Inclusiveness.
7.Effectiveness and Efficiency .
8.Accountability.
The Lord Nolan Committee on Standards in Public life in the United Kingdom made its recommendations in 1995 and these were commended by the Supreme Court of India in the judgement in the case Vineet Narain v. Union of India .The Committee enunciated the following seven principles of public life :
1.Selflessness.
2.Integrity.
3.Objectivity.
4,Accountability.
5.Openness.
6.Honesty.
7.Leadership.
Every holder of public office is expected to have theses qualities.But despite commendation from the Supreme Court of India , corruption seems to be on increase in India.It has been pointed out that low risk of detection and punishment of acts of corruption in Asia is one of the major causes for rampant corruption ."A civil servant committing corrupt offence in Hong Kong was 35 times more likely to be detected and punished than his counterpart in the Phillipines." writes S T Quah in "Curbing Asian Corruption:An Impossible Dream".
Transparency international's 2010 report ranks Hong Kong at 13, with a score of 8.4 out of 10, above all other Asian Countries but Singapore.
The book "Corruption and Human Rights in India . . Comparative Perspectives on Transparency and Good Governance" by C.Raj Kumar , published by Oxford University Press , in 2011 highlights , among other things , the case of Hong Kong in achieving ultimate success against corruption.While one may not agree with the legal approach , suggested by the author , to fight corruption, I am impressed by his very thorough and useful comparative references and analysis of the steps taken by other countries to win the war against corruption .
The Independent Commission Against Corruption(ICAC) of the Hong Kong(website www.icac.org.hk) was set up in 1974.It is now 37 years old and has turned Hong Kong from a highly corrupt city to one of the cleanest cities in the world.How was this miracle achieved? Are there lessons to be learned for India?
Ever since its inception ,the ICAC has adopted three pronged approach in fighting corruption, namely operations,Corruption Prevention and Community Relations .Accordingly , it has three departments , Operations Department, Corruption Prevention Department and Community Relations Department.
Operations Department:
It is the investigative arm of the ICAC and is the largest department within the Commission.The elements of its strategy include proactive investigation ,effective use of advanced technology including IT, mutual assistance and international liaison.For proactive investigation , following means are deployed:
1.Maintaining extensive contacts in the public and private sectors.
2.Using information technology to obtain and analyse criminal intelligence.
3.Deploying informants and undercover agents .
Mutual assistance is achieved through constitution of operational liaison groups of the ICAC with police force , customs and excise, immigration services and other departments.
International liaison is achieved through exchange of information , visits and training with foreign countries.
For advanced technology and specialisation , suspects'interviews are tape recorded and video recorded..Electronic data is collected , analysed and presented as admissible evidence in the courts.Specialised financial skills are imparted to trail corrupt payments.
Every complaint is treated in the strictest confidence.It is an offence to warn a suspect directly or indirectly that he or she has come under investigation.
Operations Review Committee is the sole authority to terminate an investigation , in case there is insufficient evidence for prosecution .The authority to prosecute rests with the Secretary for Justice.
Corruption Prevention Department:
The department has three types of groups:
1.Assignment groups for government departments and public bodies.
2.Advisory services group for private sector and public bodies .
3.Management group for administrative support for Advisory Committee, strategy setting, knowledge management and trend analysis.
This department examines , and secure revision of the practices and procedures of government departments and public bodies if these are found conducive to corruption .Advises free of cost , on request private organisations and individuals on how to prevent corruption .The department reports to the Corruption Prevention Advisory Committee that monitors its work .The department also provides advice on formulation of policies, drafting of legislative proposals, and awarding of major tenders.It also holds workshops and conferences for the staff of public sector organisations for prevention of corruption .
The department , through various Assignment Groups, conducts studies of major public functions in Government departments and public bodies such as :
1.Law enforcement.
2.Licensing and regulatory system.
3.Procurement.
4.Contract administration.
5.Staff management.
6.Public works .
7.Civil service integrity.
8.Disciplined services.
9.Education , health and welfare.
10.Elections.
11.Municipal services.
12.Purchasing and tendering .
13.Construction and capital works.
14.Planning , environment and lands.
15.Service contracts.
16.Public private partnerships.
Advisory services group of the Department , for private sector and public bodies covers:
1.Banking and securities.
2.Building management.
3.Insurance and mandatory provident fund .
4.Real estate agents .
Community Relation Department:
This department educates the public and enlists its support in the fight against corruption.It is done through mass media programmes , talks , seminars, integrity promotion projects within public bodies.It also maintains liaison with business organisations and professional bodies to promote business ethics and corruption prevention .
There are a few lessons to be learnt by us in India , from the ICAC model of Hong Kong .
1.The ICAC is a single agency responsible in Hong Kong for eliminating corruption in government departments and public bodies .In India , we have too many agencies , with a diffused sense of responsibility .At the state level , we have anti-corruption wing under the home department .We have vigilance organisation under Vigilance department .We have State Vigilance Commission , which is nearly defunct .We have Lokayukta under a separate Act .Similarly, at the Union level , we have CVC and CBI .It seems that a single agency/Commission against corruption , totally independent from the executive branch of the Government , is a better and more effective organisation for India and its States.
2.The department of operations under ICAC in Hong Kong , meant to investigate allegations or complaints of corruption , is separate from police and law enforcement agencies."In India,the pool of officers who are drawn for anti corruption work are people who, either before or after their tenure in this work, will be engaged in policing .It is important to develop a dedicated civil service mechanism with officers who will be trained and vested with the responsibility of fighting corruption.This is critical for the success of the institution ."
3.The Right to Information Act , 2005 enhances transparency and accountability in the government departments and public bodies in India , but it can , at times obstruct investigation into serious cases of corruption .In Hong Kong , the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance makes it an offence for anyone to warn a suspect directly and indirectly that he has come under investigation .In fact, section 30 of the Ordinance prohibits unauthorised disclosure of investigation details.Any premature disclosure of information jeopardises the investigation and affects the reputation of the person who is the subject of complaint.India needs to make similar statutory provisions.
4.To reduce the opportunities for corruption in Government departments and public bodies and to advise private sector organisations on corruption prevention , the independent Commission against corruption must have a Corruption Prevention Department, like in Hong Kong.
5.Community education and community relations department has an essential role in the independent Commission against corruption in Hong Kong .We need to have similar department in India.
1.Participation.
2.Rule of law.
3.Transparency.
4.Responsiveness.
5.Consensus Orientation .
6.Equity and Inclusiveness.
7.Effectiveness and Efficiency .
8.Accountability.
The Lord Nolan Committee on Standards in Public life in the United Kingdom made its recommendations in 1995 and these were commended by the Supreme Court of India in the judgement in the case Vineet Narain v. Union of India .The Committee enunciated the following seven principles of public life :
1.Selflessness.
2.Integrity.
3.Objectivity.
4,Accountability.
5.Openness.
6.Honesty.
7.Leadership.
Every holder of public office is expected to have theses qualities.But despite commendation from the Supreme Court of India , corruption seems to be on increase in India.It has been pointed out that low risk of detection and punishment of acts of corruption in Asia is one of the major causes for rampant corruption ."A civil servant committing corrupt offence in Hong Kong was 35 times more likely to be detected and punished than his counterpart in the Phillipines." writes S T Quah in "Curbing Asian Corruption:An Impossible Dream".
Transparency international's 2010 report ranks Hong Kong at 13, with a score of 8.4 out of 10, above all other Asian Countries but Singapore.
The book "Corruption and Human Rights in India . . Comparative Perspectives on Transparency and Good Governance" by C.Raj Kumar , published by Oxford University Press , in 2011 highlights , among other things , the case of Hong Kong in achieving ultimate success against corruption.While one may not agree with the legal approach , suggested by the author , to fight corruption, I am impressed by his very thorough and useful comparative references and analysis of the steps taken by other countries to win the war against corruption .
The Independent Commission Against Corruption(ICAC) of the Hong Kong(website www.icac.org.hk) was set up in 1974.It is now 37 years old and has turned Hong Kong from a highly corrupt city to one of the cleanest cities in the world.How was this miracle achieved? Are there lessons to be learned for India?
Ever since its inception ,the ICAC has adopted three pronged approach in fighting corruption, namely operations,Corruption Prevention and Community Relations .Accordingly , it has three departments , Operations Department, Corruption Prevention Department and Community Relations Department.
Operations Department:
It is the investigative arm of the ICAC and is the largest department within the Commission.The elements of its strategy include proactive investigation ,effective use of advanced technology including IT, mutual assistance and international liaison.For proactive investigation , following means are deployed:
1.Maintaining extensive contacts in the public and private sectors.
2.Using information technology to obtain and analyse criminal intelligence.
3.Deploying informants and undercover agents .
Mutual assistance is achieved through constitution of operational liaison groups of the ICAC with police force , customs and excise, immigration services and other departments.
International liaison is achieved through exchange of information , visits and training with foreign countries.
For advanced technology and specialisation , suspects'interviews are tape recorded and video recorded..Electronic data is collected , analysed and presented as admissible evidence in the courts.Specialised financial skills are imparted to trail corrupt payments.
Every complaint is treated in the strictest confidence.It is an offence to warn a suspect directly or indirectly that he or she has come under investigation.
Operations Review Committee is the sole authority to terminate an investigation , in case there is insufficient evidence for prosecution .The authority to prosecute rests with the Secretary for Justice.
Corruption Prevention Department:
The department has three types of groups:
1.Assignment groups for government departments and public bodies.
2.Advisory services group for private sector and public bodies .
3.Management group for administrative support for Advisory Committee, strategy setting, knowledge management and trend analysis.
This department examines , and secure revision of the practices and procedures of government departments and public bodies if these are found conducive to corruption .Advises free of cost , on request private organisations and individuals on how to prevent corruption .The department reports to the Corruption Prevention Advisory Committee that monitors its work .The department also provides advice on formulation of policies, drafting of legislative proposals, and awarding of major tenders.It also holds workshops and conferences for the staff of public sector organisations for prevention of corruption .
The department , through various Assignment Groups, conducts studies of major public functions in Government departments and public bodies such as :
1.Law enforcement.
2.Licensing and regulatory system.
3.Procurement.
4.Contract administration.
5.Staff management.
6.Public works .
7.Civil service integrity.
8.Disciplined services.
9.Education , health and welfare.
10.Elections.
11.Municipal services.
12.Purchasing and tendering .
13.Construction and capital works.
14.Planning , environment and lands.
15.Service contracts.
16.Public private partnerships.
Advisory services group of the Department , for private sector and public bodies covers:
1.Banking and securities.
2.Building management.
3.Insurance and mandatory provident fund .
4.Real estate agents .
Community Relation Department:
This department educates the public and enlists its support in the fight against corruption.It is done through mass media programmes , talks , seminars, integrity promotion projects within public bodies.It also maintains liaison with business organisations and professional bodies to promote business ethics and corruption prevention .
There are a few lessons to be learnt by us in India , from the ICAC model of Hong Kong .
1.The ICAC is a single agency responsible in Hong Kong for eliminating corruption in government departments and public bodies .In India , we have too many agencies , with a diffused sense of responsibility .At the state level , we have anti-corruption wing under the home department .We have vigilance organisation under Vigilance department .We have State Vigilance Commission , which is nearly defunct .We have Lokayukta under a separate Act .Similarly, at the Union level , we have CVC and CBI .It seems that a single agency/Commission against corruption , totally independent from the executive branch of the Government , is a better and more effective organisation for India and its States.
2.The department of operations under ICAC in Hong Kong , meant to investigate allegations or complaints of corruption , is separate from police and law enforcement agencies."In India,the pool of officers who are drawn for anti corruption work are people who, either before or after their tenure in this work, will be engaged in policing .It is important to develop a dedicated civil service mechanism with officers who will be trained and vested with the responsibility of fighting corruption.This is critical for the success of the institution ."
3.The Right to Information Act , 2005 enhances transparency and accountability in the government departments and public bodies in India , but it can , at times obstruct investigation into serious cases of corruption .In Hong Kong , the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance makes it an offence for anyone to warn a suspect directly and indirectly that he has come under investigation .In fact, section 30 of the Ordinance prohibits unauthorised disclosure of investigation details.Any premature disclosure of information jeopardises the investigation and affects the reputation of the person who is the subject of complaint.India needs to make similar statutory provisions.
4.To reduce the opportunities for corruption in Government departments and public bodies and to advise private sector organisations on corruption prevention , the independent Commission against corruption must have a Corruption Prevention Department, like in Hong Kong.
5.Community education and community relations department has an essential role in the independent Commission against corruption in Hong Kong .We need to have similar department in India.
2 comments:
Hong Kong is unique because before 1997 it was under British administration and since 1997 it has existed as a Special Administrative Region of China under the "One Country, Two Systems" principle. There has been a transition period in which Hong Kong has gradually normalised its relations with the mainland so it has become much more like Shanghai, for example. I would liken this normalising process to the repeal of the Prohibition Law in the USA in 1933. As it says on Wikipedia, "Effective enforcement of the alcohol ban during the Prohibition Era proved to be very difficult and led to widespread flouting of the law," and "the ban resulted in the growth of vast criminal organizations, including the modern American Mafia". The repeal of the law removed these pressures so there was big reduction of crime (which happened 'naturally', i.e. without any further major intervention from the government). In my view a similar process has taken place in Hong Kong following the 1997 handover and the gradual relaxation of barriers since then. Given the huge difference in 1997 between Hong Kong (a tiny highly-developed city island) and the rest of China (a huge under-developed largely-rural mainland) it is this process of normalisation that will have had the biggest effect, by far, on governance indicators such as corruption. Hong Kong's transition occurred in the middle of ICAC's 38-year tenure, so I don't think that ICAC can take much of the credit for the reported reduction of corruption there. Singapore might be a more instructive model?
Thank you for your well considered comment.It will also be a good idea to examine why the level of corruption in Mainland China is much higher than that in Hong Kong .You have very well pointed out that Hong Kong's transition occurred in the middle of ICAC's 38-year tenure.But I still think that a part of credit needs to be given to the structure ,staffing, anti-corruption strategies and accountability systems built within ICAC, in Hong Kong .I agree that it would also be worth while to study the model adopted in Singapore.Thank you for suggesting it.I will study it.
Post a Comment