www.transparency-thailand.org

NOTE: To use the advanced features of this site you need javascript turned on.

Home

FLOOD RECOVERY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

A chance for honesty

  

As Thailand emerges from the current flood crisis, the country is focused on efforts to rebuild and recover. While this process will be challenging, it also presents a unique opportunity to internalise good governance measures within the recovery efforts _ measures that can have a dramatic impact on getting the country back on track.

      Elephants from the Ayutthaya Elephant Kraal help clean the grounds at Wat Phra Si Sanphet near King U-Thong statue in central Ayutthaya after the floodwaters receded last month. It will indeed be a mammoth task for the government to properly supervise the vast rebuilding and rehabilitation projects across the country.  Taking advantage of this opportunity will ensure a comprehensive and effective recovery programme. It will also create conditions that will strengthen the public's trust in Thailand's institutions and make its public sector more responsive, efficient and accountable.

Read more...
 
Corruption Perceptions Index 2011

http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/

 

Press Release 

Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2011 

Annual Survey from Transparency International 

Thailand is ranked 80 out of 183 countries around the world.

 

 December 1, 2011 Bangkok, Thailand Dr. Juree Vichit-Vadakan, Secretary General of Transparency Thailand, announced the latest results from the annual Corruptions Perceptions Index for 2011. Thailand earned 3.4 points from a total of 10, putting it in 80th place from a total of 183 countries surveyed. As for the 26 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, Thailand ranks number 11. Globally, Thailand ties with Columbia, Venezuela, Greece and Peru. 

This year’s survey reveals that the majority of the countries earned less than half of the total possible points. There were only 49 countries that received 5 or more points. New Zealand came out on top with 9.5 points, representing an increase from last year’s survey. As for Denmark and Finland, countries at the top of last year’s survey, received more points than last year, but are still ranked in 2nd place with 9.4 points.  

Somalia and North Korea each earned 1 point and are both at the bottom of this year’s index. In the Asia-Pacific region, Singapore still retains the top position (9.2 points). Comparing different regions in the world, the OECD countries along with the European countries fared much better than countries in other regions. Countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Africa all received limited points and are generally rank towards the bottom of the index.  

Dr. Juree Vichit-Vadakan said that “the CPI is an advocacy tool used to raise awareness among governments and citizens of various countries about the seriousness of corruption both in their respective countries and other countries. As a result, we can then work together to tackle this problem.”  

The Secretary General of Transparency Thailand also added “in Thailand, we’ve paid more and more attention to issues relating to corruption. Many sectors in Thai society have tried to come up with solutions, including the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), the private sector and various government agencies. The most important, however, is to try to change people’s mindsets about corruption and make them feel that corruption is unacceptable. Values should be more important than wealth. Transparency Thailand together with the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) have collaborated on an innovative curriculum entitled ‘Growing Good’ for students attended schools under the supervision of the BMA in order to address this problem in the long-term.”  

The 2011 CPI draws on 17 data sources from 13 institutions. The information used for the 2011 CPI is survey data from these sources gathered between December 2009 and September 2011. The CPI includes only sources that provide a score for a set of countries/territories and which measure perceptions of corruption in the public sector. A country/territory’s score indicates the perceived level of public sector corruption there on a scale of 0 - 10, where 0 means that a country is perceived as highly corrupt and 10 means that a country is perceived as very clean. A country’s rank indicates its position relative to the other countries/territories included in the index. It is important to keep in mind that a country’s rank can change simply because new countries enter the index or others drop out.

  

For further information, please contact: 

Dr. Juree Vichit-Vadakan, Dr. Chirawan Pakdeebut or Dr. Kanokkan AnukansaiTransparency ThailandNational Institute of Development Administration (NIDA)Seri-Thai Road, Bangkapi, Bangkok 10240

Tel: 02-727-3501, 02-377-7206Fax: 02-374-7399

www.transparency-thailand.org

 

 
UK Corruption Health-Check 2011

UK Corruption Health-Check 2011: Growing Threats but Inadequate Response


(Extracted from Krishnan C., and Barrington, R., 2011, “Corruption in the UK: Overview and Policy Recommendations”, Transparency International UK: United Kingdom)
According to the research team of Transparency International UK in its publication, the measures to cope and remove the corruption practices are subject to the robust institutional framework as measured by its National Integration System index (NIS). Even though the overt bribery is not common in UK but other forms of unethical to illegal acts are becoming serious in certain sectors and institutions like political parties, sport financing and parliament.
As reported by the TI-UK, there is strong correlation between organized crimes and the rise of corruption. There is a prevalent antipathy to corruption and people demonstrated that 93% of the respondents from research would report the practices of corruption. Finally, there are some notable weaknesses in the national integrity system and disturbing nuances of corrupting practices in key institutions and sectors as mentioned.
The research has identified the following key concerns and themes:
• Lack of awareness and understanding of corruption
• Effectiveness of future law enforcement as demonstrated by the act of procrastination of investigating and prosecuting bribery, for instances.
• The emergence of serious and organized crime as a driver of UK corruption as the main goal of organized crime is information which can be used to expand criminal activity, secure and entrench networks and avoid detection
• The dangers of dismantling current oversight structures as illustrated in local government oversight and the abolition of Audit Commission
• Lack of information and data makes the prevalence and scope of corruption difficult assess and is likely to reinforce the notion of public complacency.
• Lack of coordination among anti-corruption agency as the UK does not have a single agency that is dedicated to combating corruption.

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next > End >>

Results 1 - 4 of 17