As discussed in my last article, corruption is economically costly and detrimental to economic growth. I also noted that corruption is present almost everywhere. But it is important to distinguish this universal persistence of corruption is due to human nature and not because corruption cannot be eliminated or at least reduced. This distinction alludes to the institutional context of a corrupt government and/or society. In other words, a corrupt society is governed by forces that tend to keep it corrupt. For example, few successes resulted from ongoing programmes of anti-corruption[1].

Recall that corruption is highly politicised. It is on this basis that most anticorruption initiatives failed because they are of non-political nature. This argument can be explained by institutional norms of a country where institutions can include the government, professional associations, public opinion and the media. Institutional norms can penetrate the social context and become so intractable and taken for granted we are not always conscious of conforming to them[2].

Norms are what people regard as normal behaviour and they resonate with us through conformance, understanding and accepting them as our way of life, e.g., we are used to remarks ‘tidak apa’ (whatever goes) and ‘biasa’ (as usual). Our social norms are established in the context of our environment through leaders in the country, the media, laws (e.g., ISA, fines, penalties), the government, and cultural customs and traditions. Examples abound about how the government imposes censorship of the press and media, and even to the extent of barring the media from the parliament – in an effort of restricting freedom of information and modelling conformity through draconian measures. Thus, institutional norms can be become a mode of social organisation permeating our conscious and subconscious levels.

But how would norms relate to corruption and why our institutions are important in fighting corruption? To answer these questions, we could ask ourselves whether some corrupt practices in Malaysia are considered acceptable. Have you bribed someone without feeling any guilt? Haven’t we heard of many corrupt practices to the extent that we view them as part of our politics and/or cultural norms?

It is possible to view corruption as norms of governance in a country’s institutional context. This bodes for the fundamental of corruption that it exists through a monopoly control over certain public resources with restrained countervailing actions. It is small wonder that most anticorruption strategies initiated by the government fail to work when replicated from one country to another, and when the diagnosis fails to account for the real cause of corruption within the system. In spite of growing investments in combating corruption, there is little evidence from the World Bank’s anti-corruption programmes that demonstrated and measured successes¹.

Technically, if corruption is the exception to the norm, it is known as universalism. But where corruption is the norm it is particularism[3]. This categorisation would clearly operate on a continuum of the extent of corruption in a particular country. While corruption can be found almost everywhere, corruption in a universalism society amount to individual corrupt practices (as opposed to residing in the institution). Particularism treats corruption as a mode of social organisation as illustrated in the earlier examples.

Are we living in a society and country in which corruption is normal? Are certain groups of people or the government monopolizing the powers of domination and sources of income? I assume most would agree that corruption is pervasive in Malaysia and thus if a corrupt act is detected, it is less likely to be reported to the authorities or to the press. There is no incentive to report corruption especially when the enforcement agencies tend to pursue whistleblowers, delay investigation and complicate prosecution. Not to mention, any allegation against powerful groups would be non-conforming to the norm and thereby threatening to the people.

As corruption becomes institutionalised, the fight against corruption would implicate the whole network of government offices and related institutions. This partly explains why it is impossible to bring charges and convict authorities involved in siphoning and mishandling of the state and public funds, e.g., the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal. Despite such an enormous sum of funds involved in the cost of the PKFZ, the Transport Ministry and the Anti-Corruption Agency is still unable to openly investigate and resolve this glaring embezzlement of the public funds. Not surprisingly, corruption on a large scale remains unabated when the very predators of corruption control the government and in some cases the anticorruption instruments themselves. The political forces in the institution would perpetuate corruption and prevent anti-corruption strategies from effective functioning.

Thus, one could argue that the state of corruption in Malaysia is at the gravest level of concern. If corrupt practices are regarded as norms and allowed to continue, corruption would not only affect us but also future generations in terms of economic development and standards of living. The telltale sign of how the negative effects of continued corrupt practices in the institution are beginning to emerge and affect ordinary citizens. For example, the recent petrol price hike of 41 percent is closely linked to the management of our national petroleum company, Petronas. Nepotism, bribery and patronage are under threat in the face of growing revelation from the opposition as well as increasing economic uncertainties. As a result, the bureaucracy of corrupt practices becomes desperate and brutal by inflicting the costs of inefficient resource allocation to the public.

If one needs more convincing arguments that corruption in Malaysia is indeed institutionalised, let’s look at some established indicators³ of particularism by answering the following questions.

I believe that any ordinary folk can ask around to find the above answers and understand if corruption is the norm or the exception in our country. It is no mystery that few would dare to question and attack the roots of corruption embedded in the institution as a mode of social organisation. We constantly see headlines of the ACA pursuing private corruption cases involving individuals rather than the government and its constituencies.

However, it would be unfair to argue that the current government is responsible for the roots of corruption in institutions. Recall that corruption is self-perpetuating and the forces within the institution would strengthen corrupt practices. In other words, the legitimacy of party members and components in the ruling party may hinge on a pledge of loyalty and acceptance of corrupt practices within the whole system. If it becomes known that corruption is the norm, new members admitted to the government would inherit this reputation and be expected to be corrupt. A simple opinion poll survey would establish whether there are widespread perceptions of government corruption despite reshuffling of cabinet members and changing of one premier to another. The current government has this privilege of being part of the corrupt forces and therefore our leaders are responsible for dismantling the institutionalised roots of corruption. Any leader in the government that is able to uproot corruption from the norm to universalism would be remembered for his/her legacy in Malaysia – which will represent a major victory for electoral democracies as well as a turning point to become a developed nation.

We therefore need to examine our anti-corruption agency and strategy. Is our Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) effective? Or more crucially: is the government truly convicted in fighting corruption especially with the recent pledge of turning the ACA into a full-fledged Malaysian Commission on Anti-Corruption (MCAC)? I shall defer this discussion and examine the governance structure of ACA in my next article. Meantime, we all can help reduce corruption by consciously build expectations for the young generation that honesty would also perpetuate and generate incentives for their future.

---

[1] World Bank (2000) Anticorruption in Transition: A Contribution to the Policy Debate. Washington: World Bank

[2] See: Meyer J.W. & Rowan, B. (1977) Institutional organisation: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363

[3] See e.g.,: Bertram I.S. (ed.) (2005) Fighting Corruption in Developing Countries: Strategies and Analysis. Bloomfield, Conn: Kumarian Press. Weber, M. (1969) Economy and Society III. New York: Bedminster.

 

Dr Teck Yong Eng is a senior lecturer at King's College, University of London., His work covers economic development and strategy issues and has appeared in business management and strategy journals. He will be writing a regular column specially for the Centre for Policy Initiatives.