Corruption in Myanmar

Last updated

Corruption in Myanmar is an extremely serious problem. Owing to failures in regulation and enforcement, corruption flourishes in every sector of government and business. [1] [2] [3] Many foreign businesspeople consider corruption "a serious barrier to investment and trade in Myanmar." [4] A U.N. survey in May 2014 concluded that corruption is the greatest hindrance for business in Myanmar. [5]

Contents

Transparency International's 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index, which scored 180 countries on a scale from 0 ("highly corrupt") to 100 ("very clean"), gave Myanmar a score of 23. When ranked by score, Myanmar ranked 157th among the 180 countries in the Index, where the country ranked first is perceived to have the most honest public sector. [6] For comparison with worldwide scores, the best score was 90 (ranked 1), the worst score was 12 (ranked 180), and the average score was 43. [7] For comparison with regional scores, the highest score among Asia Pacific countries [Note 1] was 87, the lowest score was 17 and the average score was 45; only North Korea scored lower than Myanmar in the region. [8]

In the Myanmar Business Survey 2014, corruption was the most frequently identified obstacle to business, especially with respect to obtaining firm registration, business licenses and permits from government authorities. [9]

It is common in Myanmar to charge illicit payments for government services, [10] to bribe tax collectors to secure a lower tax payment, and to bribe customs officials to avoid paying customs duties. [11]

Background

Saffron Revolution

In 2007 the then Burmese government revoked several subsidies for various fuel industries, causing prices to soar throughout the nation. This sparked widespread protests due to the public's dissatisfaction with the military government. It was noted that the average citizen was displeased with the immense levels of kleptocracy in the nation, allowing members of the military dictatorship to live in a "state within a state" [12] [13] with accumulated wealth far beyond that of the people. The government reacted harshly to the protests through violence and arbitrary detentions. While the official death count tallied thirteen killed, it is widely surmised that the true number far exceeded this figure. The government had even taken steps to censor internet access within the country, though to no avail. [14] [15] [16] [17]

Although the demonstrations were dispersed and suppressed by the military junta, the public would later vote a new government in and wrested power from Senior General Than Shwe by 2011. Nonetheless, elements of the military government retained power. [18] [19] [20] [21]

Former Burmese Head of State Senior General Than Shwe Than Shwe 2010-10-11.jpg
Former Burmese Head of State Senior General Than Shwe

Myanmar spent five decades under military rule. This period ended in 2011, when a semi-civilian government took power and sought to regenerate the economy and draw foreign investment. Among its objectives was the reduction of endemic corruption. As of May 2014, however, those reforms were viewed as having had a minimal effect on corruption. [5]

Every leading official in the former military regime is said to have "committed thousands of offenses related to corruption." [22] Most high-level officials in the civil service were related to military officials. [22]

Since the end of military rule, Myanmar has been implementing economic reforms and developing a free market, but according to one source "its nascent market economy remains bound by myriads of regulations," which make possible rampant corruption that "hinders the functioning of the price mechanism, upon which the proper functioning of the market economy is based." [11] Kim Ninh of the Asia Foundation said in May 2015 that despite efforts to reduce corruption after military rule, the country's business environment remained essentially the same, with few new companies emerging since 2011. [5]

An October 2015 article in Wired stated that notwithstanding attempts by the US and other Western countries to promote transparency, the majority of Myanmar's economy remains in control of a corrupt elite. [23] During the privatization process, according to a report by the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre that was updated in October 2014, "numerous state assets were sold to the military, family members, and associates of senior government officials at fire sale prices." [24]

According to several reports, moreover, the military influenced the results of the 2010 and 2012 elections by means of fraud, restrictions on political participation, and prohibition of international monitoring. [24]

Factors

Some reasons for the high levels of corruption in Myanmar include multiple exchange rates, which enable officials to demand bribes for providing favorable rates; low civil-service pay rates; and a tradition of nepotism. [22] "As there are no competitive selection processes to enter the public sector," notes one report, "personal connections and bribery are maybe more important than qualifications. For instance, it is common practice to select ministers and high-level civil servants from the military ranks rather than based on expertise." [24]

It has been observed that post-2011 Myanmar has an expanding informal economy, and that such economies are notoriously vulnerable to corruption. [25]

Types of corruption

Petty corruption

Petty corruption, meaning the extortion of small bribes or "gifts" in connection with everyday services, is "endemic to the everyday life of Myanmar citizens. It is particularly prevalent when citizens deal with the bureaucracy of the country and engage with low- to mid-level public officials." It is common "in application processes for permits or documents, where bribes or gift-giving end up becoming unavoidable elements of the process, perhaps even becoming culturally engrained[,] with bribery rather being seen as gift-giving or a kind gesture." Since gifts up to 300,000 Kyat (US$300) are not legally regarded as corruption, there are no penalties for this kind of activity, even though it "represents a huge cost for the government, undermines trust in state institutions, and violates the principle of equal treatment of citizens." [11]

Business sector

"The problem of corruption in Myanmar is particularly severe in the area of business activity," states one source. [11] A firm wishing a construction permit must go through an application process involving (on average) 16 procedures, a 159-day wait, and a cost of about 567% of income per capita. [25] A firm wishing to get electricity must undergo 5 procedures, wait 91 days, and spend over 3000% of income per capita. [25]

Foreign business and investment

In the Myanmar Business Survey 2014, corruption was the most frequently named obstacle to doing business in the country. In 2014's Ease of Doing Business ranking, Myanmar was also ranked very low. [4]

According to the Investment Climate Statement 2014, "investors may experience corruption when seeking investment permits or when leasing land in Myanmar." [25] The Enterprise Surveys 2014 reported that 38.9% of businesspeople were "expected to give gifts to get an operating licence," while 55.8% were expected "to give a gift to get an electrical connection," and 30.1% were "expected to give gifts to secure a water connection." [25] Persons applying for import and export licences are also likely to be charged illegal fees. [25]

Without notice or external review, Myanmar's government routinely promulgates new regulations and laws affecting foreign investors. [25]

Daniel Barrins of the Herbert Smith Freehills law firm, a partner of Australia-based Asialink, has said that corruption is denying Myanmar's citizens the benefits of foreign investment. Problems with land ownership, intellectual-property rights, and the rule of law all create difficulties for potential foreign investors, according to Barrins. [1]

Land

Under the military government which ruled Myanmar until 2011, land was nationalized. According to an October 2015 report in The Wall Street Journal , land in Myanmar remains largely under the control of the military and their allies. In addition, allegations of forced evictions are still common across Myanmar. [26]

Jade industry

Jade mined in Myanmar Mawsitsit (kosmochlor jade) Kachin State, Burma.jpg
Jade mined in Myanmar

The jade trade accounts for 48% of Myanmar's official GDP. [23] An October 2015 report by Global Witness noted that Myanmar's jade industry is exploited by the nation's elites; including military leaders, drug traffickers, and business leaders. This was the finding of a year-long investigation entitled "Jade: Myanmar's 'Big State Secret,'" which identified that several leading members of the nation's government and economy had siphoned US$31 billion worth of jade in 2014, a figure nearly half of Myanmar's economy. [23]

Global Witness estimated that illegal networks in Myanmar had stolen a total US$122.8 billion worth of jade over the previous decade, and claimed that Myanmar's jade industry is possibly the greatest natural resource racket in recent history. In addition, the nearly one hundred active jade mining deposits are located in areas controlled by about 10 to 15 military-connected businessmen, and a result the people living in those areas remain in poverty while a few businessmen profit greatly. [23] [27]

Oil and gas

Myanmar law requires foreign oil and gas exploration firms operating in the country to be partnered with domestic firms. These arrangements have been criticized for their lack of transparency and accountability. [24]

Logging

As of 2006, illegal logging accounted for at least half of the logging in the country. The smuggling of timber across the Chinese border is a major activity. [24]

Taxation

Taxes are collected irregularly. Over one third of respondents to a survey said they were expected to give gifts in meetings with tax officials. A medium-sized company doing business in Myanmar must make 31 separate tax payments annually. On average, this takes 155 hours' work, and involves a tax payment amounting to 48.9% of annual profits. [10]

In April 2014, a new Union Taxation Law came into effect. It is designed to help eliminate corruption in tax collection. [10]

Political corruption

Political corruption exists at higher levels of government, and comes into play especially "when large infrastructural works or other 'mega-projects' are being negotiated or implemented." Companies pay bribes "to avoid trouble or delays," and often "establish illicit networks of patronage which can be exploited in future deals." Companies that establish such networks "are often given monopoly control over the markets or sectors they win by 'bidding,'" and this monopoly control stifles competition and growth. [11]

In the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report 2013–2014, business executives rated the incidence of corrupt diversion of public funds to companies, individuals, or groups at 2.3 on a 7-point scale (1 being "very common" and 7 "never occurs"). They rated the favoritism of government officials towards well-connected companies and individuals, as reflected in policies and contracts, a score of 2.2 on a 7-point scale (1 meaning "always show favouritism" and 7 "never show favouritism"). [28]

Government ministries often fail to report their own expenditures on projects. [11]

Import, export, and customs officials

Myanmar's import and export regulations are not transparent. According to the Global Enabling Trade 2014, corruption at the border and burdensome procedures are among the major challenges to importation of goods. Business executives gave the efficiency and transparency of border administration in Myanmar a score of 2.2 on a 7-point scale (1 being "non-transparent" and 7 "transparent"). Myanmar ranks 128th out of 138 countries in this regard. [29]

Businesses must bribe customs officials in order to avoid high import and export taxes. 53.5% of businesses surveyed in 2014 said that they expected to give "gifts" to obtain import licences. [29]

On average, exporting a container of goods from Myanmar involves 9 documents, takes 25 days, and costs US$670. On average, importing a container of goods into Myanmar involves 9 documents, takes 27 days, and costs US$660. [29]

Buying property

Business executives rate the protection of property rights and financial assets at 2.5 on a 7-point scale (1 being "very weak" and 7 "very strong"). Registering property involves an average of 6 procedures, a 113-day wait, and a cost amounting to 7.2% of the property's value. [30]

Police and security forces

On the World Economic Forum's 2013–14 Global Competitiveness Report, business executives scored the reliability of police services to enforce law and order at 3.0 on a 7-point scale (1 being "cannot be relied upon at all" and 7 being "can always be relied upon"). [31]

Police officers "reportedly often ask victims of crimes to pay substantial amounts to ensure police investigate crimes; in addition, police routinely extort money from civilians." [31] Police are said to be involved in human trafficking, accepting bribes from drug lords, and to have extorted local businessmen. When a curfew was imposed following riots that took place in Mandalay in 2004, police extorted bribes from people who wanted to break the curfew. [32]

One reason for police corruption is that police officers were expected for many years to pay for their own investigations, without any reimbursement or compensation. This policy not only encouraged corruption but also discouraged serious investigation of crimes. [32]

Security forces "generally act with impunity in Myanmar." The Human Rights Report 2013 noted that a police escort for a UN rapporteur's convoy "stood by" while the convoy was attacked. [31]

Health care and education

The low quality of Myanmar's institutions leads to corruption in health care and education. [11]

NGOs

It is common for international and domestic NGOs to use money intended to help the public to be spent on expensive offices, residences, or other inappropriate expenses. [11]

Judiciary

The judiciary is corrupt and subject to government and military influence. Judiciary officials in Myanmar accept bribes for various services, such as providing access to detainees and rendering a favorable verdict. Judiciary corruption "represents a major challenge to businesspeople looking to do business in Myanmar." In disputes with foreign firms, local businesses can use bribes to secure favorable judgments. [33] On the World Economic Forum's 2013–14 Global Competitiveness Report, business executives rate the independence of the judiciary at 2.8 on a 7-point scale (1 being "heavily influenced" and 7 "entirely independent"). [33]

Judicial decisions about land and buildings are often affected by government influence, personal relationships, and bribery. [30] It can take years to enforce a contract in the Myanmar courts. [11]

Lobbying groups

There are many lobbying groups in Myanmar, but they are unregulated, and "regularly resort to bribes and concessions to secure favor," which is "abetted by the lack of transparency and accountability in Myanmar." [11]

Drugs

Myanmar is one of the world's four major producers of opium and heroin. The government has expanded counter-narcotic efforts, but is "reluctant to investigate, arrest, and prosecute high level international traffickers," according to the CIA. [24]

Anti-corruption efforts

While Myanmar was still under military control, its Central Bank implemented controls in accordance with the IMF's Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) guidelines. As a result, Myanmar was removed from the international Financial Action Task Force's list of "Non-cooperative Countries and Territories" in October 2006. [11]

President Thein Sein has introduced a number of policies intended to reduce corruption in business. [4] A key theme of his inaugural speech on 30 March 2011, was fighting government corruption. He said that "democracy will [be] promoted only hand in hand with good governance. That is why our government responsible for Myanmar's democratic transition will try hard to shape good administrative machinery.…We will fight corruption in cooperation with the people as it harms the image of not only the offenders, but also the nation and the people." [11] Thein Sein has reportedly made "significant efforts to minimise corruption in the extractive industries" in hopes of attracting foreign investment. [34]

In August 2012, an anti-bribery bill was approved. In August 2013, an Anti-Corruption Law was passed. [11]

In April 2013, several senior government officials charged with corruption were compelled to retire or to leave departments working on investment. [11]

The Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business (MCRB) was founded in 2013. Its seeks to promote "more responsible business practices in Myanmar." An MCRB initiative called Transparency in Myanmar Enterprise (TiME) "publishes information about anti-corruption, organizational transparency, and concern for human rights, health, and the environment among the largest businesses in Myanmar. Using criteria laid out by Transparency International the project has produced rankings of companies according to the above criteria by analyzing information they post online." [11]

Anti-corruption laws "were further amended in 2014 to allow for the parliament to establish a committee to investigate allegations of corruption among government officials." [11] The Anti-Corruption Commission was established in February 2014. It focuses mainly on bribery, which can be punished by fines and up to fifteen years in prison. [11] By December 2014, it had received almost 600 written complaints, but had addressed only three, saying that it could not act without documented evidence. MP U Ye Tun stated that the commission did not have the authority to take action effectively. An expert in governance and anti-corruption, stated in December 2014 that the commission would be unlikely to target the government or its ministries, which is where the bulk of corruption in Myanmar takes place. [1]

A February 2014 report said that the Myanmar Police Force (MPF) had improved its ability to identify and acknowledge corruption. In 2013 the MPF arrested two senior police officers for involvement in drug smuggling. [32]

In July 2014, Myanmar became an Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) candidate country. [4] Myanmar was thereby agreeing to increase transparency in its extractive industries, notably the logging industry. [34]

The Money Laundering Eradication Law (2015) provides for the recovery of funds tied to illicit or criminal activities. The Anti-Money Laundering Rules, the establishment of a special police unit for financial crimes, and the passage of Rules Combating the Financing of Terrorism also aid the struggle against corruption. The Financial Institutions of Myanmar Law and the Foreign Exchange Management Law both criminalize fraud and other crimes committed in financial institutions. Myanmar's Competition Law allows for the prosecution of anti-competitive business activities. Prosecution under these laws, however, is relatively rare, owing largely to a lack of governmental resources. [35]

In October 2015, Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and opposition leader, said in a speech that she had looked to Singapore for advice on combatting corruption in her own country, due to Singapore's incredibly low levels of corruption. [26]

In Myanmar, Coca-Cola adopted a policy of zero-tolerance for corruption at its facilities and trucking routes. All drivers of Coca-Cola trucks carry an anti-corruption card stating that they are forbidden to bribe the traffic authorities and that they are required to report any solicitation of bribes to their supervisors. This procedure initially met with resistance but over time has been respected by police. [36]

Telenor has declared that it is "firmly opposed to corruption" and that it requires all parties in Myanmar working with Telenor Myanmar "to adhere to Telenor's Supplier Conduct Principles." [37]

According to a survey report published in November 2020 by Transparency Networks, 93 percent of Myanmar citizens think the government is doing well in tackling corruption. The report was praised by local media and government officials. [38]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Fiji, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, North Korea, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Vanuatu, and Vietnam

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bribery</span> Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action

Bribery is the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official, or other person, in charge of a public or legal duty. With regard to governmental operations, essentially, bribery is "Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action." Bung is British slang for a bribe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption</span> Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power

Corruption is a form of dishonesty or a criminal offense which is undertaken by a person or an organization which is entrusted in a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one's personal gain. Corruption may involve many activities which include bribery, influence peddling and embezzlement and it may also involve practices which are legal in many countries. Political corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts with an official capacity for personal gain. Corruption is most common in kleptocracies, oligarchies, narco-states, and mafia states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in India</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in India is an issue which affects economy of central, state, and local government agencies. Corruption is blamed for stunting the economy of India. A study conducted by Transparency International in 2005 recorded that more than 62% of Indians had at some point or another paid a bribe to a public official to get a job done. In 2008, another report showed that about 50% of Indians had first hand experience of paying bribes or using contacts to get services performed by public offices. In Transparency International's 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index, which scored 180 countries on a scale from 0 to 100, India scored 39. When ranked by score, India ranked 93rd among the 180 countries in the Index, where the country ranked first is perceived to have the most honest public sector. For comparison with worldwide scores, the best score was 90, the worst score was 11, and the average score was 43. For comparison with regional scores, the highest score among the countries of the Asia Pacific region was 85, the lowest score was 17, and the average score was 45. Various factors contribute to corruption, including officials siphoning money from government social welfare schemes. Examples include the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and the National Rural Health Mission. Other areas of corruption include India's trucking industry, which is forced to pay billions of rupees in bribes annually to numerous regulatory and police stops on interstate highways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Russia</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption is perceived as a significant problem in Russia, impacting various aspects of life, including the economy, business, public administration, law enforcement, healthcare, and education. The phenomenon of corruption is strongly established in the historical model of public governance, and attributed to general weakness of rule of law in the country. Transparency International stated in 2022, "Corruption is endemic in Russia" and assigned it the lowest score of any European country in their Corruption Perceptions Index for 2021. It has, under the regime of Vladimir Putin, been variously characterized as a kleptocracy, an oligarchy, and a plutocracy; owing to its crony capitalism economic system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in the Philippines</span> State of corruption in the country

The Philippines suffers from widespread corruption, which developed during the Spanish colonial period. According to GAN Integrity's Philippines Corruption Report updated May 2020, the Philippines suffers from many incidents of corruption and crime in many aspects of civic life and in various sectors. Such corruption risks are rampant throughout the state's judicial system, police service, public services, land administration, and natural resources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Finland</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Finland's overall corruption is relatively low, according to public opinion and global indexes and standards. The 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index released by Transparency International scored Finland at 87 on a scale from 0 to 100. When ranked by score, Finland shared second place with New Zealand among the 180 countries in the Index, where the country or countries ranked first are perceived to have the most honest public sector. For comparison, the best score was 90, the worst score was 12 and the average was 43.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Afghanistan</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Afghanistan is a widespread and growing problem in Afghan society. Transparency International's 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks the country in 162nd place out of 180 countries. The 180 countries of the Index are scored on a scale from 0 to 100 according to the perceived corruption in the public sector, and then ranked by their score. Afghanistan's 2023 ranking is based on a score of 20. For comparison with worldwide scores, the best score was 90, the average score was 43, and the worst score was 11. For comparison with regional scores, the highest score among the countries of the Asia Pacific region was 85, the average score was 45 and the lowest score was 17. In this region, only North Korea had a lower score than Afghanistan. The Taliban significantly tackled corruption upon taking power in 2021; Afghanistan was ranked in 150th place in the 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index, following a ranking of 174th in 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Italy</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Italy is a major problem. In Transparency International's annual surveys, Italy has consistently been regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in the Eurozone. Political corruption remains a major problem particularly in Lombardy, Campania and Sicily where corruption perception is at a high level. Political parties are ranked the most corrupt institution in Italy, closely followed by public officials and Parliament, according to Transparency International. But in the 2013 Global Corruption Barometer report, Italy is in 17th position in front of the United Kingdom (18th), Switzerland (21st) and the United States (22nd).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Bangladesh</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Bangladesh has been a continuing problem. According to all major ranking institutions, Bangladesh routinely finds itself among the most corrupt countries in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Slovenia</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Slovenia is examined on this page.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Georgia</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Georgia had been an issue in the post-Soviet decades. Before the 2003 Rose Revolution, according to Foreign Policy, Georgia was among the most corrupt nations in Eurasia. The level of corruption abated dramatically, however, after the revolution. In 2010, Transparency International (TI) said that Georgia was "the best corruption-buster in the world." While low-level corruption had earlier been largely eliminated, Transparency International Georgia since 2020 has also documented dozens of cases of high-level corruption that remain to be prosecuted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Uzbekistan</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Uzbekistan is a serious problem. There are laws in place to prevent corruption, but enforcement in terms of laws regarding corruption is very weak. Low prosecution rates of corrupt officials is another contributing factor to the rampant corruption in Uzbekistan. It is not a criminal offense for a non-public official to influence the discretion of a public official. The judicial system faces severe functional deficits due to limited resources and corruption.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Sudan</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Sudan is substantial, as it is considered one of the most corrupt nations in the world. On the 2010 World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators, on one hundred point scale, it scored in the single digits in every category, including 0.9 for political stability, 6.2 for rule of law, 7.2 for regulatory quality, 6.7 for government effectiveness, and 4.3 for control of corruption. In 2011 Freedom House named Sudan as one of the worst nations for human rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Bolivia</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Bolivia is a major problem that has been called an accepted part of life in the country. It can be found at all levels of Bolivian society. Citizens of the country perceive the judiciary, police and public administration generally as the country's most corrupt. Corruption is also widespread among officials who are supposed to control the illegal drug trade and among those working in and with extractive industries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Tajikistan</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Tajikistan is a widespread phenomenon that is found in all spheres of Tajik society. The situation is essentially similar to that in the other former Soviet republics of Central Asia. Reliable specifics about corruption can be difficult to come by, however, as can hard information about the effectiveness of supposed anti-corruption initiatives.

The Improper Solicitation and Graft Act is a 2016 anti-corruption law in South Korea. The bill is associated with Kim Young-ran, former head of the Anticorruption and Civil Rights Commission, who proposed it in August 2012, and is often referred to as the Kim Young-ran Act. The bill has also been translated as Anti-Corruption and Bribery Prohibition Act, though "Improper Solicitation and Graft Act" is the official name. The law was passed in 2015 and started being enforced on September 28, 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Ecuador</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Ecuador is a serious problem. In 2014, the U.S. Department of State cited Ecuador's corruption as a key human-rights problem. According to Freedom House, "Ecuador has long been racked by corruption", and the weak judicial oversight and investigative resources perpetuate a culture of impunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Guinea-Bissau</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Guinea-Bissau occurs at among the highest levels in the world. In Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2023, Guinea-Bissau scored 22 on a scale from 0 to 100. When ranked by score, Guinea-Bissau ranked 158th among the 180 countries in the Index, where the country ranked first is perceived to have the most honest public sector. However, Guinea-Bissau's score has either improved or remained steady every year since its low point in 2018, when it scored 16. For comparison with worldwide scores, the best score in 2023 was 90, the average score was 43, and the worst score was 11. For comparison with regional scores, the average score among sub-Saharan African countries was 33. The highest score in sub-Saharan Africa was 71 and the lowest score was 11. In 2013, Guinea-Bissau scored below the averages for both Africa and West Africa on the Mo Ibrahim Foundation’s Index of African Governance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Israel</span> Institutional corruption in the country

There is evidence that corruption is a legitimate problem in Israeli politics and many investigations have taken place into allegations of influence peddling and bribery.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corruption in Turkmenistan</span> Institutional corruption in the country

Corruption in Turkmenistan is considered by many independent sources as a serious problem. The country is near the bottom of several annual indices that measure corruption, including The Wall Street Journal's Index of Economic Freedom.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Aung, Nyan Lin (8 December 2014). "Myanmar stalls in corruption rankings march". Myanmar Times.
  2. ↑ "Myanma Corruption Levels". GAN Integrity Solutions. Archived from the original on 21 July 2015. Retrieved 17 July 2015.
  3. ↑ "Business Corruption in Myanmar". GAN Integrity Solutions. October 2014. Archived from the original on 4 July 2015. Retrieved 17 July 2015.
  4. 1 2 3 4 "Business Corruption in Myanmar". Business Anti-Corruption Portal. Archived from the original on 4 July 2015. Retrieved 17 July 2015.
  5. 1 2 3 "Corruption the biggest concern for Myanmar businesses: survey". Reuters. 6 May 2014.
  6. ↑ "The ABCs of the CPI: How the Corruption Perceptions Index is calculated". Transparency.org. 20 December 2021. Retrieved 23 April 2023.
  7. ↑ "Corruption Perceptions Index 2022: Myanmar". Transparency.org. 31 January 2023. Retrieved 23 April 2023.
  8. ↑ "CPI 2022 for Asia Pacific: Basic freedoms restricted as anti-corruption efforts neglected". Transparency.org. 31 January 2023. Retrieved 23 April 2023.
  9. ↑ Abe Masato; Margit Molnar (May 2014). "Myanmar Business Survey 2014: Survey Results" (PDF). Hanns Seidel Foundation. OECD and UNESCAP. Retrieved 17 July 2015.
  10. 1 2 3 "Myanmar Tax Administration". Business Anti-Corruption Portal. Archived from the original on 11 April 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Saw, Khaing Sape (April 2015). "Tackling Myanmar's Corruption Challenge". Institute for Security and Development Policy.
  12. ↑ The hardship that sparked Burma's unrest BBC News 2 October 2007
  13. ↑ Burma leader's lavish lifestyle aired BBC, 2 November 2006
  14. ↑ "Human Rights Concern". Archived from the original on 17 February 2009. Retrieved 7 April 2009.
  15. ↑ "BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Burma leaders double fuel prices". news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 16 May 2015.
  16. ↑ UN envoy warns of Myanmar crisis Archived 28 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine
  17. ↑ Archived 25 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine Challenging the Authoritarian State: Buddhist Monks and Peaceful Protests in Burma. vol.32:1 winter 2008. Retrieved 7 April 2009. 16 May 2009.
  18. ↑ Irrawaddy: Burma's junta vows to crack down on human rights activists-Yeni BurmaNet News, 23 April 2007. Retrieved 23 April 2007. Archived 16 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  19. ↑ Jenkins, Graeme; Paris, Natalie (26 September 2007). "Burma troops charge monks with batons". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 22 April 2010.[ dead link ]
  20. ↑ Burma riot police beat back monks BBC, 26 September 2007.
  21. ↑ Groups struggle to tally Myanmar's dead Yahoo News, 1 October 2007
  22. 1 2 3 "Corruption in Burma: How the causes and consequences reflect the current situations" (PDF). Burma Digest. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 March 2022. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
  23. 1 2 3 4 Williams, Greg (22 October 2015). "Revealed: Myanmar's jade trade is run by former junta members". Wired.
  24. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Overview of corruption in Burma (Myanmar)". Transparency International.
  25. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Myanma Public Services". Business Anti-Corruption Portal. Archived from the original on 11 April 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
  26. 1 2 Mahtani, Shibani; Myo, Myo (12 October 2015). "Myanmar's Suu Kyi Puts Corruption Fight at Center of Campaign". The Wall Street Journal.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  27. ↑ Jeijmans, Philip (23 October 2015). "The corruption of Myanmar's jade trade". Al Jazeera.
  28. ↑ "Myanmar Public Procurement". Business Anti-Corruption Portal. Archived from the original on 12 April 2016. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
  29. 1 2 3 "Myanmar Customs Administration". Business Anti-Corruption Portal. Archived from the original on 5 April 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
  30. 1 2 "Myanmar Land Administration". Business Anti-Corruption Portal. Archived from the original on 11 April 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
  31. 1 2 3 "Myanmar Police". Business Anti-Corruption Portal. Archived from the original on 11 April 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
  32. 1 2 3 Thompson, Rhys (18 February 2015). "Corruption and police reform in Myanmar". The Interpreter Magazine.
  33. 1 2 "Myanmar Judicial System". Business Anti-Corruption Portal. Archived from the original on 12 April 2016. Retrieved 12 February 2016.
  34. 1 2 "Myanmar Natural Resources". Business Anti-Corruption Portal. Archived from the original on 11 April 2016. Retrieved 12 February 2016.
  35. ↑ "Myanmar Anti-Corruption Compliance". Global Investigations Review. Archived from the original on 31 October 2015. Retrieved 12 February 2016.
  36. ↑ "Coca-Cola's fight against corruption in Myanmar". United Nations Global Impact.
  37. ↑ "Anti-Corruption". Telenor. Archived from the original on 17 October 2016. Retrieved 12 February 2016.
  38. ↑ "Overwhelming majority approves Myanmar anti-corruption efforts". The Myanmar Times. 27 November 2020. Retrieved 1 December 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.