CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2017 AND MYANMAR: OVERVIEW OF CORRUPTION AND ANTI-CORRUPTION

2/22/2018 Corruption Perceptions Index 2017 - Transparency International
https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017 1/8
SURVEYS (/SEARCH?TOPIC=14) • 21 FEBRUARY 2018
CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2017
(http
s://pl
(what
sapp:
(mail
to:?
(/fee
d/nw
Jump to: Results table | Research analysis | Regional analysis | Resources
This year’s Corruption Perceptions Index highlights that the majority of countries are making little or no progress
in ending corruption, while further analysis shows journalists and activists in corrupt countries risking their lives
every day in an effort to speak out.
The index, which ranks 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption
according to experts and businesspeople, uses a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 is highly corrupt and 100 is very
clean. This year, the index found that more than two-thirds of countries score below 50, with an average score of
43. Unfortunately, compared to recent years, this poor performance is nothing new.


This year, New Zealand and Denmark rank highest with scores of 89 and 88 respectively. Syria, South Sudan and
Somalia rank lowest with scores of 14, 12 and 9 respectively. The best performing region is Western Europe with
an average score of 66. The worst performing regions are Sub-Saharan Africa (average score 32) and Eastern
Europe and Central Asia (average score 34).
Visit www.transparency.org/cpi for more information
Share
1
Sign up!

Search
1 New Zealand 89 90 91 91 91 90 Asia Paci c
2 Denmark 88 90 91 92 91 90
Europe and Central
Asia
3 Finland 85 89 90 89 89 90
Europe and Central
Asia
3 Norway 85 85 88 86 86 85
Europe and Central
Asia
3 Switzerland 85 86 86 86 85 86
Europe and Central
Asia
6 Singapore 84 84 85 84 86 87 Asia Paci c
6 Sweden 84 88 89 87 89 88
Europe and Central
Asia
8 Canada 82 82 83 81 81 84 Americas
8 Luxembourg 82 81 85 82 80 80
Europe and Central
Asia
E d C t l
Visit www.transparency.org/cpi for more information
Share
2017
Rank
Country
2017
Score
2016
Score
2015
Score
2014
Score
2013
Score
2012
Score
Region
Download CPI 2017 XLSX dataset
(https://files.transparency.org/content/download/2172/13704/file/CPI2017_FullDataSet.xlsx)
Since 2012, several countries significantly improved their index score, including Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal and the
United Kingdom, while several countries declined, including Syria, Yemen and Australia.
RESEARCH ANALYSIS
Further analysis of the results indicates that countries with the least protection for press and non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) also tend to have the worst rates of corruption.
Every week at least one journalist is killed in a country that is highly corrupt.
The analysis, which incorporates data from the Committee to Protect Journalists, shows that in the last six years,
more than 9 out of 10 journalists were killed in countries that score 45 or less on the index.

Full research analysis: Digging deeper into corruption, violence against
journalists and active civil society
READ MORE
(https://www.transparency.org/_view/feature/8178)
Corruption Perceptions Index 2017 | Transparency International
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
Learn more about public sector corruption and the index results by region:
Asia Pacific (https://www.transparency.org/_view/feature/8180)
Sub-Saharan Africa (https://www.transparency.org/_view/feature/8182)
Middle East & Northern Africa (https://www.transparency.org/_view/feature/8177)
Americas (https://www.transparency.org/_view/feature/8181)
Europe & Central Asia (https://www.transparency.org/_view/feature/8179)
No activist or reporter should have to fear for their lives when speaking out against corruption. Given current crackdowns on both civil
society and the media worldwide, we need to do more to protect those who speak up.
Patricia Moreira
Managing Director
Transparency International
Learn more about corruption worldwide and how you can help | Corruption Perceptions Index 2017

TOP FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
Our first-hand experience working in more than 100 countries around the world shows that activists and media
are vital to combatting corruption. As such, Transparency International calls on the global community to take the
following actions to curb corruption:
Governments and businesses must do more to encourage free speech, independent media, political dissent and an open and engaged civil
society.
Governments should minimise regulations on media, including traditional and new media, and ensure that journalists can work without fear of
repression or violence. In addition, international donors should consider press freedom relevant to development aid or access to international
organisations.
Civil society and governments should promote laws that focus on access to information. This access helps enhance transparency and
accountability while reducing opportunities for corruption. It is important, however, for governments to not only invest in an appropriate legal
framework for such laws, but also commit to their implementation.
Activists and governments should take advantage of the momentum generated by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
to advocate and push for reforms at the national and global level. Specifically, governments must ensure access to information and the
protection of fundamental freedoms and align these to international agreements and best practices.
Governments and businesses should proactively disclose relevant public interest information in open data formats. Proactive disclosure of
relevant data, including government budgets, company ownership, public procurement and political party finances allows journalists, civil
society and affected communities to identify patterns of corrupt conduct more efficiently.
RESOURCES AND DOWNLOADS
Press Release: Corruption Perceptions Index 2017 shows high corruption burden in more than two-thirds of countries
| (https://www.transparency.org/_view/pressrelease/8172) ‫عرﺑﻲ‬
(https://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/2017_Corruption_Perceptions_Index_Press_Release_AR) | Español
(https://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/el_indice_de_percepcion_de_la_corrupcion_2017_muestra_una_fuerte_presencia) | F
rançais
(https://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/lindice_de_perception_de_la_corruption_2017_met_en_avant_lampleur_du_fardea) | Р
усский (https://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/corruption_perceptions_index_2017_press_release_RU)
Results brochure (https://files.transparency.org/content/download/2185/13756/file/2017_CPI_Brochure_EN.PDF)
Global map graphic and results table: JPG
(https://files.transparency.org/content/download/2174/13712/file/CPI%202017%20global%20map%20and%20country%20results.jpg) | P
DF
(https://files.transparency.org/content/download/2186/13760/file/CPI%202017%20global%20map%20and%20country%20results.pdf)
Global map graphic: JPG (http://files.transparency.org/content/download/2180/13736/file/CPI%202017%20global%20map.jpg) | PDF
(http://files.transparency.org/content/download/2178/13728/file/CPI%202017%20global%20map.pdf)
Global and regional results graphics (with translations) ZIP
(https://files.transparency.org/content/download/2214/13872/file/2017_CPI_GlobalAndRegionalResults.zip)
Data set: Full results XLSX (https://files.transparency.org/content/download/2172/13704/file/CPI2017_FullDataSet.xlsx)
Data Set: Statistically Significant Changes XLSX
(https://files.transparency.org/content/download/2217/13884/file/2017_CPI_StatisticallySignificantChanges.xlsx)
FAQ (http://files.transparency.org/content/download/2184/13752/file/CPI_2017_FAQs_EN.pdf)
Short methodology note
(http://files.transparency.org/content/download/2182/13744/file/CPI_2017_Technical%20Methodology%20Note_EN.pdf)
CPI results correlate not only with the attacks on press freedom and the reduction of space for civil society organisations. In fact, what is at
stake is the very essence of democracy and freedom.
Delia Ferreira Rubio
Chair

Latest
First name Last name
Enter your email address SUBSCRIBE
Technical methodology note
(http://files.transparency.org/content/download/2183/13748/file/CPI_2017_Technical%20Methodology%20Note_EN.pdf)
Source description
(http://files.transparency.org/content/download/2181/13740/file/CPI_2017_SourceDescription%20Document_EN.pdf)
Previous Corruption Perceptions Index results (https://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview)
For any press enquiries please contact press@transparency.org (mailto:press@transparency.org)
Would you like to know more?
Sign up to stay informed about corruption news and
our work around the world
SUPPORT TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
€50 Monthly
SUPPORT US
A redefining moment for Africa
The newly released Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) provides a
good baseline for the African Union (AU) anti-corruption efforts in
2018. This year’s theme for the AU is “Winning the Fight against
Corruption: A Sustainable Path to Africa’s Transformation.” As the
AU rolls out its plan, this is an important moment for Africa to take
stock of the current situation.
(/news/feature/a_redefining_moment_for_africa)
Perceptions remain unchanged despite progress in the
Americas
In the last few years, Latin America and the Carribbean made
great strides in the fight against corruption. Laws and
mechanisms exist to curb corruption, while legal investigations
are advancing and citizen anti-corruption movements are growing
in many countries across the region. However, according to the
Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2017, the region continues to
score poorly for corruption. How can we explain this
contradiction?
(/news/feature/perceptions_remain_unchanged_despite_progress_in_the_americas)
Slow, Imperfect Progress across Asia Paci
While no country in the Asia Pacific region sc
not even New Zealand or Singapore, which b
share of scandals in the last year, our analys
progress across the region.
(/news/feature/slow_imperfect_progress_across
Europe and Central Asia: more civil engagement needed
In 2017, authoritarianism rose across Eastern and South East
Europe, hindering anti-corruption efforts and threatening civil
liberties. Across the region, civil society organisations and
independent media experienced challenges in their ability to
monitor and criticise decision-makers
(/news/feature/europe_and_central_asia_more_civil_engagement)
Rampant Corruption in Arab States

In a region stricken by violent conflicts and d
corruption remains endemic in the Arab state
freedom of expression, press freedoms and c
to escalate.
(/news/feature/rampant_corruption_in_arab_stat
Digging deeper into corruption, violence against journalists
and active civil society
To mark the release of the Corruption Perceptions Index 2017, we
analysed corruption levels around the world and looked at how
they relate to civil liberties – specifically, the ability of citizens to
speak out in defence of their interests and the wider public good.
(/news/feature/digging_deeper_into_corruption_violence_against_journalists_and_active_civi)
Promise and peril: blockchain, Bitcoin and the fight against
corruption
Bitcoin and the blockchain technology that drives it are among the
most disruptive digital innovations to have emerged in recent
years. We take a look at the potential of blockchain in anti-
corruption efforts.
(/news/feature/blockchain_bitcoin_and_the_fight_against_corruption)
Social Media(http://www.facebook.com/TransparencyInternational/) (http://www.twitter.com/anticorruption/)
(https://www.instagram.com/Transparency_International/)
🔴 OUT NOW: We ranked 180 countries and more than two-thirds
score below 50. Meaning, many countries are still making little to
no progress against corruption. Check out the full ranking!
Corruption Perceptions Index 2017
This year’s Corruption Perceptions Index highlights that the
majority of countries are making little or no progress in ending
corruption, while journalists and activists in corrupt countries risk
their lives every day in an effort to speak out.
ANTICORRU.PT
(https://www.facebook.com/TransparencyInternational/posts/1593867097333472)
Tomorrow we publish the results of the Corruption Perceptions
Index 2017 and we want to ask you something: do you think your
country's score improved/stayed the same or got worse?
{name}
(https://www.facebook.com/TransparencyInternational/posts/1592561557464026)
On average, every week at least one #journalist is killed in
country that is highly corrupt. Read more >…
https://t.co/bswPD4ZOC5
(https://twitter.com/anticorruption/status/9663935071906242
RT @MoreiraTricia: Our chair @DeliaFerreira starts out the
on #corruption based on #CPI2017 results
https://t.co/i6KkYkBrzR @anticor…
(https://twitter.com/anticorruption/status/9663897882689986
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA
(http://www.facebook.com/TransparencyInternational/) (http://www.twitter.com/anticorruption/)
(https://www.instagram.com/Transparency_International/) (http://www.youtube.com/TransparencyIntl/)
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/transparencyinternational/) (https://plus.google.com/107144583774037685187/posts/)
(http://www.linkedin.com/company/transparency-international/)
First name Last name
Enter your email address SUBSCRIBE
WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?
Sign up to stay informed about corruption news and our work around the world

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0
© (/permissions) Transparency International 2017. Some rights reserved.
(/permissions)
Privacy (/privacy) – Terms (/terms) – Impressum (/impressum) – Note about
browsers and our site (/home/browsers)

U4 Expert Answer
Author(s): Maíra Martini, Transparency International, tihelpdesk@transparency.org
Reviewed by: Marie Chêne, Transparency International, tihelpdesk@transparency.org
Date: 23 February 2016 Number: 2016:3
U4 is a resource centre for development practitioners who wish to effectively address corruption challenges in
their work. Expert Answers are produced by the U4 Helpdesk – operated by Transparency International – as
quick responses to operational and policy questions from U4 Partner Agency staff.
Query
Can you provide an overview of corruption indicators in the following countries: Nepal,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Myanmar/ Burma?
Content
1. Corruption levels in selected Asian countries
2. Other governance and corruption-related
indicators
3. References
Summary
This answer provides an overview of governance
and corruption-related indicators in Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, India, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nepal,
Pakistan and Tajikistan.
Corruption and governance indicators in selected Asian countries

www.U4.no U4 EXPERT ANSWER 2
1. Corruption levels in selected
Asian countries
Available indicators show that corruption in
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Kyrgyzstan,
Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan and Tajikistan is a
significant problem, affecting a wide range of
sector and institutions.
There has been limited progress in fighting
corruption in these countries, with serious
consequences for the population. In particular, the
majority of these countries have a poor track
record of promoting transparency and
accountability. Opaqueness and secrecy have
been for many years the norm in the public sector
and more needs to be done to ensure that
government decision-making happens in a
transparent and accountable manner so that
corruption can be prevented and, when it
happens, detected and punished.
Most companies in the majority of these countries
consider corruption as a major impediment for
doing business.
Analysis of available governance indicators also
points to money laundering as an issue of concern
in the region. Most of the countries of interest
have an inadequate legal framework to combat
money laundering.
Another problem identified in these countries
relates to the lack of transparency in the
management of public finances. This is
particularly relevant since many of the countries of
interest rely extensively on funds from
development assistance. Improvements are
required to ensure that money entering the
domestic budget is spent adequately and that
there are enough safeguards to prevent abuses.
Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)
CPI measures the level of perceived corruption in
the public sector in countries. It is a composite
index, based on global surveys and expert
assessments of corruption. Since 2012, CPI
scores can be compared from one year to the
next, but changes in scores do not necessarily
mean that a country has improved or declined. A
more thorough analysis is necessary to ensure
that the change is statistically significant
(Transparency International 2016).
The 2015 CPI assessed 168 countries and
territories, ranking them using a scale of 0 (highly
corrupt) to 100 (very clean). As shown in the table
below, all countries of interest score below 40 out
of 100. India is the best performer of the group
with a score of 38 points and occupying place 76
in the ranking. Afghanistan is the worst performer
of the group and also one of the worst overall,
ranking 166, behind only North Korea and
Somalia (Transparency International 2016).
Analysis of the scores over time shows that the
perception of corruption has remained rather
stable in the region. None of the countries of
interest has improved or declined since 2012 –
the small variations seen below, such as for
Myanmar or Afghanistan, are not statistically
significant as they fall within the confidence
interval, meaning that the change is within the
confidence interval and does not necessarily
reflect a real improvement.
Corruption Perceptions Index’s scores
Country 2015 2014 2013 2012
Afghanistan 11 12 8 8
Bangladesh 25 25 27 26
India 38 38 36 36
Kyrgyzstan 28 27 24 24
Myanmar 22 21 21 15
Nepal 27 29 31 27
Pakistan 30 29 28 27
Tajikistan 26 23 22 22
Source: Transparency International
Global Corruption Barometer (GCB)
GCB is a worldwide public opinion survey on
perceptions and experiences of corruption. As a
poll of the general public, it provides an indicator
of how corruption is viewed and experienced at
national level and how efforts to curb corruption
around the world are judged on the ground.
The last available data for the majority of the
countries of interest is from 2013. Myanmar and
Tajikistan were not part of the assessment. In the

current round (2015-2016), the survey is being
carried out at regional level.
Respondents to the 2013 GCB in the countries of
interest perceive corruption in the public sector as
a significant problem (see table below), with more
than 70% of the surveyed population perceiving
corruption as a problem or as a serious problem.
In Kyrgyzstan and in Pakistan, only 9% of the
population think corruption in the public sector is
not a problem. Similarly, a significant percentage
of individuals surveyed in these countries perceive
corruption to have increased in the two years
preceding the survey (see below). For instance, in
Nepal and in Pakistan corruption seems to have
increased for 72% of respondents. In Afghanistan,
on the other hand, the majority of people believe
that corruption levels either stayed the same
(32%) or decreased a little (22%).
The approval of governments’ action to fight
corruption varies across countries. In Afghanistan,
back in 2013, 49% of respondents thought the
government was effective in fighting corruption. In
India, only 9% of the respondents considered the
government’s actions effective, and in Nepal only
13% (see below).
Global Corruption Barometer 2013
% of citizens who
think corruption is a
problem
1
% of citizens who
believe corruption has
increased
2
% of citizens that believe
the gov’t is effective in
fighting corruption
Afghanistan 71 40 49
Bangladesh 76 60 25
India 80 71 9
Kyrgyzstan 91 41 17
Nepal 85 72 13
Pakistan 91 72 16
Source: Transparency International 2013
1
Answers include both citizens who consider corruption to be a problem and citizens who consider corruption to be a
serious problem.
2
Surveyed individuals answered to the following question: “Over the past two years how has the level of corruption in
this country/territory changed?” The percentage data include citizens who believe corruption increased a little or
increased a lot.

The police, political parties and public officials are
perceived by citizens in the countries of interest to
be the most corrupt among 12 institutions
analysed.
When asked about their experience with
corruption, respondents in the countries of interest
confirm that corruption is a reality in several
institutions and sectors. In Afghanistan, for
instance, 65% of citizens who had been in contact
with the judiciary in the year preceding the survey
reported paying bribes. This corroborates with the
fact that 60% of individuals surveyed perceive the
judiciary as the most corrupt institution in the
country. Of the Afghan respondents, 58% also
reported paying bribes to access registry and
licences, and 51% to the police (Transparency
International 2013).
In Bangladesh, 72% of citizens who had been in
contact with the police in the year preceding the
survey reported paying bribes. The police are also
perceived as the most corrupt institution in
Bangladesh by 60% of citizens. Of the
Bangladeshi respondents, 63% also reported
paying bribes to judiciary services and 44% to
land services.
In India, experience with corruption also seems to
be high among citizens who have had contact with
the police, with 62% of people reporting having
paid bribes. The percentage of individuals
reporting paying bribes to access registry and
permit services (61%) and land services (58%)
are also high.
In Nepal, 40% of those who had contact with the
land services reported paying bribes. In the same
country, 37% reported paying bribes to the
judiciary services and 30% to the police. Political
parties and public officials are perceived as the
most corrupt for 90% and 85% of individuals
surveyed, respectively.
In Pakistan, 75% of those who had contact with
the land services and 65% of those in contact with
the police reported paying bribes. Bribery
incidence in the utilities services and tax revenue
are also high, with 57% and 55% of those
surveyed reporting paying bribes. The police is
perceived by 82% of the population as corrupt/
extremely corrupt, followed by public officials
(81%) and political parties (76%).
Enterprise surveys
Enterprise Surveys, conducted by the World Bank
Group, measure firms’ perceptions of country
business environments and experience with
government processes, including informal
payments and corruption. They measure, among
other things, the percentage of firms that expect to
engage in bribery to access public services or
secure government contracts, and provides an
estimate of the number of businesses that
consider corruption to be a major constraint for
doing business in the country (World Bank Group
2016).
An analysis of the countries of interest shows that
in all of them, firms’ perception and experience
with corruption is high (see table below). In
Afghanistan, for instance, 34.6% of companies
surveyed reported having had to give gifts or
make informal payments to access services.
Almost 50% of the companies surveyed, reported
being expected to give gifts to secure a
government contract. The value of the gift/
informal payments is also higher than in other
countries in the region, reaching approximately
4.5% of contract value. Overall, 62.6% of
companies consider corruption a major constraint
for doing business in the country.
In Bangladesh, bribery incidence is also much
higher than the average of countries in South
Asia, with more than 47% of respondents to the
survey reporting having had to pay a bribe (see
table below), while 43.9% reported that a gift or
informal payment was requested when dealing
with utilities access, permits, licences and taxes.
The percentage of enterprises that reported being
expected to give gifts to access procurement
contracts is also high (48.9%). Corruption seems
to be particularly rampant for an import licence,
with 77.2% of firms reporting being expected to
give gifts against a regional average of 27.4%. As
a consequence, it is not surprising that 49.6% of
enterprises surveyed consider corruption as a
major impediment for doing business in the
country.
In India, enterprises’ perceptions and experiences
with corruption are slightly below the regional
average but still higher than the average of all
countries assessed (see table below). For
instance, 19.6% of firms declared that an informal
payment or gift was requested to access services.
Bribery incidence is particularly high to get an
electrical connection (according to 51.5%) and
water connection (52.5). A significant percentage

(39.8%) of firms also reported being expected to
give gifts amounting to 0.1% of contract value to
secure government contracts. Overall, 35.8% of
firms identified corruption as a major constraint for
doing business in the country.
Private sector’s perception and experience with
corruption in Kyrgyzstan is particularly high with
59.8% of firms surveyed reported having to pay
bribes to access services, compared to 17.4% of
firms surveyed in the Europe and Central Asia
region. A majority (55.1%) of respondents
reported being expected to pay an average of
2.4% of contract value in bribes/gifts to secure
government contract. Within this framework, more
than 60% of firms surveyed consider corruption a
major constraint for doing business in the country.
Bribery incidence among the private sector in
Myanmar is slightly higher than in other countries
in East Asia, with 42.9% of firms surveyed
reporting having experienced corruption to access
public services in Myanmar compared to 38.9% in
the East Asia & Pacific region. Of the firms
surveyed, 32.5% also reported being expected to
give gifts to secure government contracts and
more than 53% to get an import licence. However,
probably given political instability and other issues
afflicting the country, only 9.3% of enterprises
surveyed perceived corruption a major constraint
for doing business in Myanmar.
Nepal has the lowest rates of corruption as
experienced by the private sector in comparison
to the other countries analysed. Of those
Nepalese firms surveyed, 14.4% reported having
experienced corruption to access public services.
The average in the South Asia region is 24.8%.
Nevertheless, the percentage of surveyed firms
that report having to give gifts to secure
government contracts is high: 64.5%. The amount
expected to be paid is similar to Afghanistan and
only lower than in Pakistan: 4.4% of contract
value. Overall, corruption is perceived a major
constraint for doing business in the country by
44.7% of firms.
The private sector’s experience with corruption in
Pakistan paints a dark picture of the business
environment in the country. Of the firms surveyed
in 2013, 30.8% reported paying bribes to access
public services and 88.2% reported being
expected to give gifts to secure public contract.
Moreover, the expected value of the gift/informal
payment required to access such contracts is
extremely high: 8.2% of the contract value
(against 2.9% in the South Asia region). Overall,
68.3% of enterprises identify corruption as a major
constraint for doing business in the country.
Bribery incidence in Tajikistan is high in
comparison with other countries in the Europe and
Central Asia region but lower than in neighbouring
Kyrgyzstan, according to enterprises surveyed
(see table). Of the firms surveyed, 33.6% declared
being expected to give gifts to access public
contracts, paying an average of 2% of the contract
value. Corruption is perceived as a major
constraint for doing business in the country by
23.7%, slightly above the regional average of
22.4%.
Enterprise Surveys
% of
firms
reporting
bribery
incidence
% of
firms
expected
to give
gifts to
secure
public
contracts
% of firms
identifying
corruption
as a major
constraint
Afghanistan
(2014)
46.8 46.9 62.6
Bangladesh
(2013)
47.7 48.9 46.9
India (2014) 22.7 39.8 35.8
Kyrgyzstan
(2013)
59.8 55.1 60.2
Myanmar
(2014)
42.9 32.5 9.3
Nepal
(2013)
14.4 64.5 44.7
Pakistan
(2013)
30.8 88.2 68.3
Tajikistan
(2013)
36.8% 33.6 23.7
Source: World Bank Group, Enterprise Surveys

United Nations Convention against
Corruption (UNCAC)
All the countries of interest have signed and
ratified the UNCAC. When countries ratify or
accede to the UNCAC, they must align national
laws, institutions, policies, procedures, and
programmes with the convention, and report
periodically on their anti-corruption initiatives and
impact.
Within this framework, the UNCAC Review
Mechanism analyses the level of implementation
of the convention in a given country. However, the
majority of countries of interest have not published
the assessment or an executive summary of the
findings, making it difficult for citizens, civil society
and other relevant stakeholders to assess
whether or not the country has made any
progress.
Information about the review process is published
on UNODC website country profile pages. As of
February 2016, only Bangladesh has published
the executive summary of the implementation
review, but no final report has been made
available. There is no information on whether
Afghanistan, India, Myanmar, Pakistan and
Tajikistan have already finalised their review.
Source: UNCAC website
World Bank Worldwide Governance
Indicators (WGI)
WGI provide an assessment of the quality of six
broad dimensions of governance: voice and
accountability; political stability and absence of
violence; government effectiveness; regulatory
quality; rule of law; and control of corruption
(World Bank 2015).
WGI report aggregate and individual governance
indicators for 215 economies over the period
1996–2014, and can be used to observe trends
over longer periods of time. However, as is the
case with CPI, the control of corruption dimension
is also based on perceptions-based data.
The results of the last assessment, which was
conducted in 2014, show that corruption is
perceived as a significant problem across the
region. All countries of interest scored below the
40 percentile rank (100 being highest control of
corruption; see table below).
Afghanistan performs particularly poorly (six
percentile rank) and it has shown no real
improvement since 2003 when data was first
available for the country.
Kyrgyzstan follows as the second worst performer
(12 percentile rank), and the country has also not
shown any real improvement in the last years.
UNCAC status
Status
Afghanistan Signed 20/02/04, Ratified 25/8/08
Bangladesh Accession 27/02/07
India Signed 9/12/05, Ratified 9/05/11
Kyrgyzstan Signed 10/12/03, Ratified
16/09/05
Myanmar Signed 2/12/05, Ratified 20/12/12
Nepal Signed 10/12/03, Ratified
31/03/11
Pakistan Signed 9/12/03, Ratified 31/08/07
Tajikistan Accession 25/09/06

India and Nepal are the best performers among
the group. India has maintained a score oscillating
between the 40 and 39 percentile ranks from 1996
onwards. Nepal’s 2014 assessment puts the
country in the 36 percentile rank. An analysis of
the country’s scores in previous years shows quite
a lot of variation (60 percentile rank in 1996 to 28
in 2009, for example), but this variation could be
explained by the number of sources used rather a
real change in perception.
Source: World Bank Worldwide Governance
Indicators Control of Corruption
2. Other governance and
corruption-related indicators
Anti-money laundering index (AML Index)
The Basel AML Index scores provide an overall
picture of a country’s anti-money laundering
framework and risk level. The index takes into
consideration a country’s money
laundering/terrorist financing risk, corruption risk,
financial transparency and standards, public
transparency and accountability as well as the
political and legal risk (Basel Institute on
Governance 2015).
Four of the countries of interest are considered as
having extremely high risks.
For instance, Afghanistan ranks second out of 152
countries assessed. It is considered to have a
high risk of money laundering with an overall
score of 8.48, where 0 means low risk and 10 high
risk. Tajikistan ranks third with a score of 8.26.
Myanmar ranks 10 with a score of 7.78, and
Nepal ranks 12 and scores 7.62.
Other countries of interest also perform relatively
poorly: Pakistan is in position 44 with a score of
6.52; Bangladesh ranks 52 and scores 6.43;
Kyrgyzstan ranks 56 and scores 6.27, and India is
the best performer in place 79 of the ranking with
a score of 5.77.
Financial Action Task Force (FATF)
FATF is an inter-governmental body that has as
its main objective to set standards and promote
effective implementation of legal, regulatory and
operational measures for combating money
laundering, terrorist financing and other related
threats to the integrity of the international financial
system.
As part of its review mechanism, the FATF
identifies jurisdictions which have strategic anti-
money laundering or terrorist financing (AML/CFT)
deficiencies for which the body develops an action
plan recommending improvements. In February
2016, FATF published a note containing the latest
review update and the list of jurisdictions
considered as having strategic deficiencies. Of the
countries of interest, Afghanistan and Myanmar
are part of the list and the FATF will continue to
monitor their progress in the future.
In 2012, Afghanistan made a high-level political
commitment to work with the FATF and the
relevant regional group to improve its strategic
AML/CFT deficiencies. In spite of recent
measures undertaken by the government, the
FATF considered that more needs to be done to
ensure a sound AML framework. In particular, the
FATF has recommended: (i) implementation of

the legal framework for identifying, tracing and
freezing terrorist assets; (ii) establishment of an
adequate AML/CFT supervisory and oversight
programme for all financial sectors; and (iii)
implementation of effective controls for cross-
border cash transactions (FATF 2016).
Myanmar’s commitment to the FATF was made in
2010 and since then has taken a series of
important steps to address key deficiencies. It
has, among others, improved its legal framework
to criminalise money laundering and terrorist
financing and implemented the legal framework
for identifying, tracing and freezing terrorist
assets. The FATF will conduct an on-site visit to
confirm that the process of implementing the
required reforms and actions is underway to
address deficiencies previously identified by the
FATF.
Freedom in the World
Freedom in the World is Freedom House’s
flagship annual report, assessing the condition of
political rights and civil liberties around the world.
Countries are classified into free, partially free and
not free (Freedom House 2016).
Considering the countries of interest, Bangladesh
and Tajikistan are among the countries that
experienced a decline in freedom in comparison
with previous assessments. Bangladesh is
assessed as partially free and Tajikistan as not
free. India is the only country of interest assessed
as free; all the others are considered partially free
(Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Pakistan) or not free
(Afghanistan and Myanmar) (Freedom House
2016).
Global Right to Information Rating (RTI),
Access Info & Centre for Law and
Democracy
RTI Rating comparatively assesses the strength
of legal frameworks for the right to information
from around the world.
As of 2016, 103 countries have been assessed
and ranked according to the strength of their legal
framework. The rating does not analyse how well
the legal framework has been implemented.
Within this framework, India is the best performer
among the countries of interest, ranking third out
of the 103 countries assessed. Bangladesh ranks
20; Nepal 23, Kyrgyzstan 28, Afghanistan 64, and
Pakistan and Tajikistan are the worst performers
ranking 85 and 101, respectively (RTI 2016).
Myanmar still lacks an access to information law.
Government Defence Anti-Corruption
Index (GI), Transparency International
GI assesses the existence, effectiveness and
enforcement of institutional and informal controls
to manage the risk of corruption in defence and
security institutions.
Many of the countries of interest have
experienced a massive expansion in military
expenditure in the past years, making
transparency and accountability in the sector even
more relevant: India’s military spending has
increased 147% in the last decade, Pakistan by
107%, and Bangladesh by 202% (TI Defence &
Security 2015).
In spite of such expansion, the risks of corruption
in the defence establishments are found to be
significant. According to the index, in Bangladesh
and India, corruption risks are assessed as high,
in Afghanistan and Pakistan as very high, and in
Myanmar as critical (TI Defence & Security
2015).
3
The report highlights several problematic issues:
In Pakistan, for example, there is no transparency
or effective oversight of the military’s business
empire, estimated in 2007 to be worth $10 billion.
In India, in 2013, the army was found to be
illegally running golf courses on government-
owned land; air force officials have used defence
land for unauthorised use such as the building of
shopping malls and cinema halls. India’s defence
institutions have also been found to be involved in
the exploitation of the country’s natural resources.
In Bangladesh, the report provides evidence of
military officials involved in the country’s natural
resource exploitation through timber businesses
and the “grabbing” of land and forest resources.
At the institutional level, the military operates a
range of businesses directly and indirectly through
Sena Kalyan Shangstha, a retired officials’ welfare
association (TI Defence & Security 2015).
3
Kyrgyzstan, Nepal and Tajikistan were not part of the
assessment.

Open Budget Index (OBI)
OBI, produced by the International Budget
Partnership, assesses government budget
transparency, focusing specifically on whether the
government provides the public with timely access
to comprehensive information contained in eight
key budget documents in accordance with
international good practice standards
(International Budget Partnership 2015).
All the countries of interest perform poorly in the
assessment and do not publish sufficient
information on their budgets. The majority of
them, including Bangladesh, Kyrgyzstan, India,
Pakistan, and Afghanistan published only limited
information. Nepal and Tajikistan published
minimal information and Myanmar scant or none
(International Budget Partnership 2015). More
information on the performance of each of the
countries is available here.
Open Government Index
The World Justice Project Open Government
Index measures government openness using four
dimensions: publicised laws and government
data, right to information, civic participation, and
complaint mechanisms. Scores range from 0 to 1
(greatest openness).
Among the countries of interest
4
, India is the best
performer followed by Nepal. India ranks 37 out of
102 countries assessed and first among countries
in the South Asia region, with an overall score of
0.57. Nepal ranks 40 and second in the South
Asia region, with a score of 0.56.
All the other countries have a relatively poor
performance. Kyrgyzstan ranks 64 out of 102
countries and 8 among the 13 countries assessed
in the Eastern Europe and Central Asia region,
with a score of 0.50. Bangladesh is in position 73
of the overall ranking and ranks four among South
Asian countries, with a score of 0.47. Pakistan
ranks 83 in the overall rank and fifth among South
Asian countries, followed by Afghanistan in
position 89 of the rank and the worst performer in
South Asia. Finally, Myanmar performs very
poorly, ranking 100 out of 102 countries assessed
with a score of 0.32. Myanmar is also the worst
performer in the East Asia & Pacific region.
4
Tajikistan is not part of the assessment.
The World Justice Project Rule of Law
Index
The Rule of Law Index produced by the World
Justice Project provides original data on how the
rule of law is experienced by the general public in
102 countries around the globe.
5
The index is
based on household and experts surveys covering
eight categories: Constraints on Government
Powers, Absence of Corruption, Open
Government, Fundamental Rights, Order and
Security, Regulatory Enforcement, Civil Justice,
and Criminal Justice (World Justice Project 2015).
The absence of corruption category analyses
three forms of corruption: bribery, improper
influence by public or private interests, and
misappropriation of public funds or other
resources. These three forms of corruption are
examined with respect to government officers in
the executive branch, the judiciary, the military
and police, and the legislature, encompassing a
wide range of possible situations in which petty
and grand corruption can occur (World Justice
Project 2015).
Afghanistan is the worst performer in the 2015
assessment. The country ranked 102 out of 102
countries assessed in the Rule of Law Index, with
an overall score of 0.35 (scores range from 0 –
lowest - to 1 – highest). In the category “absence
of corruption”, Afghanistan received a score of
0.23 (1 being highest), with the judiciary and the
legislature perceived as most corrupt among the
areas assessed (executive, legislature, military
and police and judiciary).
Pakistan occupied position 98 in the ranking, with
an overall score of 0.38. The perception of
absence of corruption is also very low (0.35). The
majority of individuals surveyed perceive
corruption within the military / police to be
relatively higher than in the other assessed areas.
Bangladesh ranked 93 and received an overall
score of 0.42. Its score on absence of corruption
is even lower (0.27), with the military / police
perceived as being the most corrupt among the
areas assessed.
Myanmar ranked 92 out of 102 countries
assessed, with an overall score of 0.42. The
country also performs poorly in the absence of
5
Tajikistan is not part of the assessment.

corruption category, receiving a score of 0.42. The
judiciary is the area perceived as being more
prone to corruption among the areas assessed.
Kyrgyzstan ranked 74, with an overall score of
0.47. The country performs poorly on the absence
of corruption indicator (0.3), with the legislature
among the areas perceived as most prone to
corruption.
India ranked 59, with a score of 0.51. The country
also performs below average in the category
absence of corruption (0.4). The legislature is
perceived as the most prone to corruption among
the areas assessed.
Nepal ranked 48 out of the 102 countries
assessed with an overall score of 0.53. The
country is the best overall performer across the
countries of interest. The category absence of
corruption received a score of 0.39, and
corruption within the legislature appears as the
most problematic area.
World Press Freedom Index
The Reporters without Borders World Press
Freedom Index ranks the performance of 180
countries according to a range of criteria that
include media pluralism and independence,
respect for the safety and freedom of journalists,
and the legislative, institutional and infrastructural
environment in which the media operate. The
index is based upon the organisation's
assessment of the countries’ press freedom
records in the previous year (Reporters without
Borders 2015).
Overall, the 2015 assessment shows that media
freedom is in retreat on all five continents.
Considering the countries of interest, a slight
improvement in media freedom can be seen in
some of them compared to the 2014 assessment,
including Nepal, which was up 15 places thanks to
a decline in violence by the security forces against
journalists, and Kyrgyzstan, up nine places
(Reporters without Borders 2015).
Nevertheless, all the countries of interest in the
Asia Pacific region are assessed as having either
“noticeable problems”, scoring between 25.01 to
35 points (100 being the worst possible), such as
Nepal; or being in a “difficult situation” with scores
between 35.01to 55 points, including Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Myanmar and Pakistan.
In Central Asia, Tajikistan is also assessed as
having noticeable problems (score of 36.19).
Kyrgyzstan performs a bit better with a score of
30.69 (Reporters without Borders 2015).
3. References
Basel Institute on Governance. 2015. 2015 Basel AML Index.
International Centre for Asset Recovery.
https://index.baselgovernance.org/ranking
FATF. 2016. Improving global AML/CFT compliance.
http://www.fatf-gafi.org/countries/a-
c/afghanistan/documents/fatf-compliance-february-2016.html
Freedom House. 2016. Freedom in the World.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-
world-2016
International Budget Partnership. 2015. Open Budget Index.
http://www.internationalbudget.org/wp-
content/uploads/OBS2015-OBI-Rankings-English.pdf
Transparency International Defence & Security. 2015.
Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index: Afghanistan.
http://government.defenceindex.org/countries/afghanistan/
Transparency International. 2016. Corruption Perceptions
Index.
www.transparency.org/cpi
Transparency International. 2013. Global Corruption
Barometer.
www.transparency.org/gcb
Transparency International Defence & Security. 2015.
Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index. Regional
Results Asia Pacific.
http://government.defenceindex.org/downloads/docs/GI-Asia-
Pacific-Regional-Results-web.pdf
Reporters without Borders. 2015. World Press Freedom
Index.
https://index.rsf.org/#!/index-details
RTI. 2016. Global Right to Information Rating.
http://www.rti-rating.org/
World Bank. 2014. Worldwide Governance Indicators.
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home
World Bank Group. 2015. Enterprise Surveys.
http://www.enterprisesurveys.org/
World Justice Project. 2015. WJP Open Government Index.
http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/opengov/#/groups/IND

World Justice Project, 2015. Rule of Law Index.
http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/

Global Corruption Barometer
PEOPLE AND
CORRUPTION:
ASIA PACIFIC

Author: Coralie Pring, Research Coordinator, Global Surveys
© Cover photo: Istock/urbancow
Design: Kerstin Deinert
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained
in this report. All information was believed to be correct as of February 2017.
Nevertheless, Transparency International cannot accept responsibility for the
consequences of its use for other purposes or in other contexts.
ISBN: 978-3-96076-044-3
Printed on 100% recycled paper.
Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0
Transparency International is a global movement with one vision: a
world in which government, business, civil society and the daily lives
of people are free of corruption. Through more than 100 chapters
worldwide and an international secretariat in Berlin, we are leading
the fight against corruption to turn this vision into reality.
www.transparency.org

content
INTRODUCTION
PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION:
Government ACTION
EXPERIENCES OF CORRUPTION:
BRIBERY
PEOPLE SPEAKING OUT
AGAINST CORRUPTION
CONCLUSION
METHODOLOGY NOTE
NOTES
2
6
12
22
27
30
33

2 Transparency International
Raxaul, India. Employees of PRAYAS, an NGO fighting against
child trafficking, question a boy in the train and discover that he
is being trafficked. Every Saturday at 5pm a train leaves the
bordertown to reach Mumbai. Every week, the team of PRAYAS
searches the entire train to rescue trafficked children. Corruption
is increasingly cited as a key cause and traffickers rarely face
justice. Corruption both facilitates trafficking and feeds the flow
of people by destabilising democracies, weakening a country’s
rule of law and stalling development.
By A. Smeets (2013) Capture Corruption Photo Competition 18-30 Age Group Winner
http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/photo_competition_18_30_age_group_winners

3PEOPLE AND CORRUPTION: ASIA PACIFIC – Global Corruption Barometer
INTRODUCTION
In 2017, inclusive development is high on the agenda
for governments around the world, as people voice their
concerns about growing inequality, persistent poverty
and the exclusion of the most vulnerable. As a diverse
and rapidly developing region, it is essential that the
countries in the Asia Pacific region achieve sustainable
and equitable development – this can only be done
by ensuring that public decision-making promotes the
common good. Corruption undermines this, as it distorts
democratic processes and promotes private over public
interests.
As part of a regional series for the Global Corruption
Barometer, this new report comes at a key moment when
many governments in the region are preparing their
agendas to meet the United Nations Sustainable Develop-
ment Goals (SDGs). The SDGs set out development
priorities for 2030 which include, among others, reducing
corruption and bribery in all their forms.
While reducing public sector bribery is a target in itself,
governments should also take note that corruption
presents a real barrier to achieving other SDGs such as
ending poverty and hunger, ensuring inclusive education,
improving health outcomes, combating climate change
and achieving gender equality. This is because corruption
diverts public funds, leads to inefficient service provision,
and channels resources away from those most in need.
To achieve development on the far reaching SDGs,
tackling corruption risks will be essential for social
progress.
ABOUT THE RESEARCH
In the most extensive survey of its kind, we spoke
to 21,861 people in 16 countries, regions and territories
across the Asia Pacific regioni
between July 2015 and
January 2017 about their perceptions and experiences
of corruption.ii
The survey results show a great diversity
in the corruption risks across the region, but in every
country surveyed there is scope for improved approaches
to corruption prevention.
We found that bribery affects a huge number of citizens.
We estimate that over 900 millioniii
people across the 16
surveyed places had paid a bribe in the past year when
trying to access basic services like education or health
care. Bribery rates for countries vary considerably across
the region – from 0.2 per cent in Japan to 69 per cent in
India. What is clear is that public sector graft is a crime
that affects men and women, young and old, and rich and
poor, and must be urgently addressed in order to further
social progress in the region.
The findings suggest serious problems in the provision
of law and order in a number of countries. The regional
results show that bribery rates for the police are the
highest of all services that we asked about and addition
ally, the police are perceived to have the highest levels of
corruption of all the key institutions. Anti-corruption efforts
must address corruption risks within the police force
and ensure that the police serve their communities fairly
and honestly.
One way to stop corruption and to help better achieve
the SDGs is to encourage victims to report corruption, so
that perpetrators can be held to account. And indeed,
while in theory citizens in the region thought that reporting
graft was the most effective way to stop it, in practice
it almost always goes unreported. The fear of retaliation
was the main reason people would not come forward,
with our survey demonstrating that people who had
reported corruption had also at times suffered negative
consequences. Some people also felt that reporting
channels were ineffective, or they were not even aware
of where to report an incident.
We are calling for better whistleblower protection and
effective reporting mechanisms so that people can
feel safe reporting corruption and can have confidence
that action will be taken as a result.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY
ACROSS THE REGION
1. Few people think that corruption is on the decline
Only one in five people thought the level of corruption had decreased
recently, while two in five thought the level of corruption had increased
and a further one third had seen no change.
People in China were most likely to think the level of corruption had
increased recently – nearly three quarters of people said corruption had
risen. This compares with just 14 per cent in Thailand who reported
corruption had increased.
2. People are divided as to whether governments are doing enough
to stop corruption
A half of people in the region said that their government was doing a bad
job at fighting corruption, while around two in five said that they were
doing a good job.
People in India, Indonesia and Thailand were most positive about their
governments’ efforts, with over a half saying they were doing well. In
contrast over three quarters of people in South Korea rated their govern-
ment badly at addressing corruption.
3. More than one in four, or over 900 million people, paid a bribe when using
a public service, in the 16 places surveyed
India had the highest bribery rate of all the countries surveyed, where
nearly seven in 10 people who had accessed public services had paid
a bribe. Japan had the lowest bribery rate, with 0.2 per cent of
respondents reporting paying a bribe.
4. Police are seen as most corrupt
Across the region, nearly two in five said that they thought most or all
police officers were corrupt, which was the highest of any group.
In addition, just under a third of people in the region who had come into
contact with a police officer in the last 12 months had paid a bribe, which
was the highest of any service we asked about.
5. “Standing up” and “speaking out” are seen as the best ways to fight corruption
When we asked citizens for examples of the best actions they can take
to help fight corruption, the top responses were to speak out by reporting
it, and to stand up by refusing to pay bribes. Worryingly, more than one in
five felt completely powerless to help fight against corruption, saying that
there is nothing that they can do.
6. But few people report corruption as they are afraid of the consequences
Only 7 per cent of bribe payers in the survey said that they had actually
reported it to the authorities. The main reason most corruption incidents
went unreported was because people were afraid of the consequences,
followed by a belief that it would not make a difference and a lack of
awareness of the appropriate reporting channels.
7. Malaysia and Vietnam are seen as having the most severe corruption problems
Across the different corruption issues covered in the survey, citizens in
Malaysia and Vietnam were the most negative in the region across five of
the key questions in the survey (see page 28 for the full details). People
in Australia were the most positive.

RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings in this report, and our experience and
knowledge in the region, Transparency International makes the
following recommendations:
Make good on promises
Heads of states must speak out and act immediately and publicly,
to assert their specific and time-bound commitment under the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to substantially reduce bribery
and corruption by 2030.
Governments must deliver on their anti-corruption commitments
made globally and regionally by implementing legislation and practice at
the national level. For example, the social accountability (article 13) and
anti-corruption agencies (articles 6 and 36) aspects of the United Nations
Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).
Stopping bribery in public services
Governments should address systemic problems that allow corruption
in public sector delivery:
Prevent corruption by promoting transparency through effective
implementation of access to information legislation and open
government practices, enhancing a healthy and free environment for
civil society to operate, and enacting codes of conduct for public
servants.
Punish the corrupt by immediately adopting a zero-tolerance policy
for corruption in public services, pursuing prosecutions and applying
appropriate sanctions.
The police must lead by example and urgently address corruption within
their ranks and act to gain public confidence because of their key role in
fighting corruption.
Governments must integrate anti-corruption targets into all SDGs
including hunger, poverty, education, health, gender equality and climate
action, and develop mechanisms to reduce corruption risks in these
areas.
Encouraging more people to report corruption
Legislatures must adopt and enforce comprehensive legislation
to protect whistleblowers based on prevailing international standards,
including those developed by Transparency International. Meanwhile,
governments and the private sector must support whistleblowers and
reporters of corruption and ensure appropriate follow-up to their
disclosures.
Anti-corruption agencies should engage with the large numbers of
citizens willing to refuse paying bribes and those willing to report bribes.
At the same time, anti-corruption agencies should implement outreach
programmes to encourage people to report corruption and ensure
user-friendly reporting mechanisms to empower citizens to effectively
take action against corruption.

Cheonggye Plaza, South Korea, October 2016. People take to
the streets calling for President Park Geun-hye to step down
after she was impeached by parliament for violating her
constitutional duty as leader.
GOVERNMENT ACTION

Image: Creative Commons, Flickr / Teddy Cross
BBC (2017) South Korea‘s presidential scandal. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37971085

GOVERNMENT ACTION
Few believe that corruption
is on the decline
We asked people how they thought the level of corruption in their
country had changed over the last 12 months – whether it had increased,
decreased, or stayed the same.1
Just one in five thought that corruption had decreased (22 per cent),
compared with two in five who thought that the level of corruption had
increased (40 per cent). A further one in three thought that there had
been no change in the level of corruption (33 per cent).
The picture is very different across the region. In China, where the
question asked about change in the level of corruption over the last
three years, nearly three quarters of people said that they thought
the level of corruption had worsened (73 per cent). This was the highest
of any country surveyed. This was followed by Indonesia and Malaysia,
where around six in 10 thought that corruption had increased
(65 per cent and 59 per cent respectively).
In contrast, less than a quarter of people in Myanmar, Sri Lanka and
Thailand said that corruption had increased over the last 12 months
(from 22 per cent to 14 per cent).
HOW HAS THE LEVEL
OF CORRUPTION
CHANGED RECENTLY?
– REGIONAL RESULTS
1 This question was not asked in Mongolia.The question in China asked about whether the level of corruption had changed over the last three years.

PERCENTAGE WHO THINK THE LEVEL
OF CORRUPTION HAS INCREASED –
RESULTS BY COUNTRY
Q. In your opinion, over the past year, has the level of corruption in this country increased, decreased, or stayed the same? Base: all adults. Results presented
combine those who said “Increased a lot” and “Increased somewhat”.“Stayed the same”,“Decreased somewhat”,“Decreased a lot” and “Don’t know”
responses not shown for ease of comparison.This question was not asked in Mongolia.
* In China the question wording asked about change in the level of corruption over the last three years.
For this report,Transparency International were given access to the results from a shortened module on corruption as asked in China, provided by the Asian
Barometer Surveys organisation. Comparable questions were asked in China on the change in level of corruption, the perceptions of the level of corruption
in various institutions, and bribery.As not all of the Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer questions were asked in China, footnotes in this
report mention when the results do not include that country.

HOW CORRUPT ARE
DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS
AND GROUPS IN SOCIETY?
% SAYING MOST OR ALL
ARE CORRUPT
The police are seen as
the most corrupt
We asked people how corrupt they thought nine of the most powerful
groups in their society were, so that we could find out who were
perceived as the most and least corrupt.
The results from across the region show that it is a key law and order
institution – the police – that was thought to suffer most from corruption.
Nearly two in five said that the police were mostly or entirely corrupt
(39 per cent).
Many people in the region also perceived political decision-makers at
both the national and local level to be highly corrupt. Over a third
said that their legislative representatives (such as members of parliament
or senators), government officials and local government councillors
were highly corrupt (from 35 to 37 per cent). By contrast religious leaders
were seen as far cleaner, with less than one in five saying they were
highly corrupt (18 per cent).
People in Thailand and Pakistan were particularly likely to think that the
police were highly corrupt, with over three quarters saying most or all
police officers in their country were corrupt (78 per cent and 76 per cent).
In Australia and Japan, the police were seen as far cleaner with less than
one in 10 saying they were highly corrupt (5 and 8 per cent).
Q. How many of the following people do you think are involved in corruption, or haven’t you heard enough about them to say? Base: all respondents, excluding
missing responses. Chart shows percentage of respondents who answered that either “Most” or “All” of them are corrupt.“None”,“Some” and “Don’t know”
responses not shown for ease of comparison.The result for prime minister/ president and religious leaders excludes China where these questions were not asked.

IS THE GOVERNMENT DOING WELL
OR BADLY IN FIGHTING CORRUPTION?
– RESULTS BY COUNTRY
People are divided over how
well governments are doing
at tackling corruption
We asked people to rate their own government in terms of how it was
performing in fighting public sector corruption.2
We found that people
were fairly divided – around two in five rated their government as doing
a good job (41 per cent), while a half rated their government as doing
a bad job (50 per cent).
People in South Korea were most likely to rate their government as doing
badly at stopping graft. Over three quarters rated their government badly
(76 per cent). Governments in Hong Kong, Vietnam, Japan, Mongolia,
and Malaysia were perceived to be doing badly at fighting corruption by
six in 10 of their citizens (from 60 per cent to 62 per cent).
In contrast, around a half or more of people living in India, Indonesia,
Sri Lanka and Thailand said that their government was doing a good job
(from 49 per cent to 72 per cent).
Q. How well or badly would you say the current government is handling the following matters, or haven’t you heard enough to say? “Fighting corruption
in government”. Base: all respondents, excluding missing responses. Response categories “Very badly” and “Fairly badly” are combined into “Badly”; and
response categories “Very well” and “Fairly well” are combined into “Well”.“Don’t know” responses not shown for ease of comparison.
2 This question was not asked in China.
say their government is doing badly
say their government is doing well
50%
41%

“John is from Chin state, Myanmar and this is his second job.
He says he is 19 but he does not look it. Under-age work is
common in Myanmar. John dreams of going to work in Malaysia
for 10 years – not longer – to save money to buy a small fishing
boat and start a fishing business. Everything that happens
in Myanmar is related to politics. After 52 years in power, the
military regime still holds a strong hand over everything
that happens in the country. Corruption is the top concern for
businesses. This construction site pays a measly US$2.50
a day for 12 hours of hard labour. When I tried to discuss the
issue with the foreman he shrugged his shoulders and said
‘no money, all money stays up’ pointing his index finger towards
the sky.” – Dejan Petrovic
EXPERIENCES OF
CORRUPTION: BRIBERY

By D. Petrovic (2015) Capture Corruption Photo Competition 31+ Age Group Winner
http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/photo_competition_31_plus_age_group_winners

EXPERIENCES OF
CORRUPTION: BRIBERY
900 million people
have paid a bribe
across the 16 places
surveyed
We asked people whether they had come into contact with six key public
services during the previous 12 months: public schools, public clinics
or hospitals, official documents, utility services, the police and the courts.iv
Of those who had contact,v
we asked whether they had paid a bribe,
given a gift or done a favour in order to receive the services they needed.
We found that more than one in four people in the 16 places surveyed
had paid a bribe in the last 12 months when they used a public service
(28 per cent). Based on the bribery rates for each country/territory
and its adult population size, this is equivalent to over 900 million people
across the 16 places surveyed.
Bribery rates vary considerably between countries. Bribery was highest
in India where nearly seven in 10 people who had accessed public
services had to pay a bribe (69 per cent). This was followed closely by
Vietnam where around two thirds had paid a bribe when accessing
services (65 per cent).
Bribery was far lower in Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea
where fewer than 5 per cent of respondents said that they had
paid a bribe when they accessed public services (from 0.2 per cent
to 4 per cent).
See all results on the map on page 16.

Police are most likely
to take bribes
30% 23%
Just under one third of people who came into contact with the police
in the previous 12 months had to pay a bribe (30 per cent) either
to get the assistance that they needed or to avoid a fine. This was the
highest of the six services we asked about. Bribery for healthcare
services had the lowest bribery rates, but still nearly one in five had
to pay a bribe to get access (18 per cent).
The law and order institutions in Pakistan were the most likely of any
country that we surveyed to accept bribes – around seven in 10 people
who came into contact with either the police or the courts had to pay
a bribe (75 per cent and 68 per cent respectively).
Vietnam and India had the highest bribery rates of all the countries
surveyed for public schools (57 and 58 per cent) and healthcare
(both 59 per cent), suggesting serious corruption risks when people
try to access these basic services.SERVICE USERS WHO SAid
THAT THEY HAD PAID A BRIBE
Police
23%
CourtsID, voter’s card, permit
20%
Utilities
Q.And how often, if ever, did you have to pay a bribe, give a gift, or do a favour for: a teacher or school official; a health worker or clinic or hospital staff;
a government official in order to get the document; a government official in order to get the [Utilities] services; a police officer; a judge or court official.
Base: pooled responses from across all 16 countries, territories and regions; respondents who had contact with each service in the previous 12 months,
excluding missing responses.
The results for “utilities services” exclude China and Mongolia as this question was not asked there. Results from Malaysia are excluded due to a difference
in the way the bribery questions were implemented during fieldwork.
18%
Public hospital
22%
Public school

Mongolia 20%*
India 69%
Pakistan 40%
Sri Lanka 15%
Q. And how often, if ever, did you have to pay a bribe, give a gift, or do a favour for: a teacher or school official; a health worker or clinic or hospital staff;
a government official in order to get the document, a government official in order to get the [Utilities] services; a police officer; a judge or court official.
Base: Respondents who had contact with at least one service in the past 12 months, excluding missing responses. An * denotes countries where the bribery
rate is based on a revised wording. Please see end notes for more details.
The results from Malaysia are based on the total population due to differences in the way the bribery questions were implemented during fieldwork.
Scale:
% of people who had paid a bribe when
accessing basic services
Bribery rates across
the Asia Pacific region
0-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61%+

Malaysia 23%
Vietnam 65%
Japan 0.2%
china 26%*
Taiwan 6%
Hong Kong 2%
South Korea 3%
Cambodia 40%
Thailand 41%
Myanmar 40%
Indonesia 32%
Australia 4%

PLACE
Public
school
Public
hospital
ID, voter’s card,
permit
Utilities Police Courts
Australia
Cambodia
China
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Japan
Malaysia
Mongolia
Which services do
people pay bribes for?

PLACE
Public
school
Public
hospital
ID, voter’s card,
permit
Utilities Police Courts
Myanmar
Pakistan
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
Thailand
Vietnam
Q.And how often, if ever, did you have to pay a bribe, give a gift, or do a favour for: a teacher or school official; a health worker or clinic or hospital staff;
a government official in order to get the document, a government official in order to get the [Utilities] services; a police officer; a judge or court official.
Base: Respondents who had contact with at least one service in the past 12 months, excluding missing responses.An * denotes places where the service
was not asked, or where the service had a base size of fewer than 60 respondents.
The results from Malaysia are based on the total population due to differences in the way the bribery questions were implemented during fieldwork.
1-5%0% 6-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-60% 61%+
Percentage of service users who had
paid a bribe in the past 12 months.
The size of the circle corresponds to the
proportion of service users who had paid a bribe.

People aged under 35 are more
likely to have to pay a bribe to
access a public service.
Younger people are being hit harder
Similar proportions of
both men and women
have paid a bribe in the
last 12 months
WOMEN ARE JUST AS LIKELY AS MEN TO PAY BRIBES
in the 16 Asia Pacific places surveyed
have paid a bribe in the last year, or more
than 1 in 4 people, when accessing basic
services like medicine, education or water.
MORE THAN 900 MILLION PEOPLE
30% OF MEN
PAID A BRIBE
27% OF WOMEN
PAID A BRIBE
Who has to
pay bribes?
34%
Under 35
19%
55+
29%
35 to 54

When looking at the overall regional results, 38 per cent of the poorest people have
paid a bribe, which was the highest of any income group.vi
This may be because they
have fewer alternative options available to them, or because they have less power or
influence to avoid paying bribes.
In these countries, the poorest
people are far more likely than
richer people to pay a bribe:
However, in some countries the
reverse trend was found, where it
was the richest people who were
more likely to pay. This may be
because they have more resources
to pay bribes when asked, or
because they want to get a quicker
or better quality service.
Bribery often hurts the poorest most…
but this can differ between countries
% of richest people paid a bribe
% of poorest people paid a bribe
Thailand India Pakistan
34%
26%
55%
46%
China
31%
24%
64%
Taiwan
19%
6%
73%
Results are based on those who have come into contact with at least one of the six public services in the past 12 months.The demographic analysis excludes
Mongolia due to question wording differences and Malaysia due to differences in how the bribery questions were implemented during fieldwork.
Vietnam
73%
55%
Cambodia
45%
29%
Myanmar
63%
38%

Student protestors gather in Taiwan to express their concerns
that a trade accord with mainland China had not been properly
debated or deliberated by the legislature, and demanding
adherence to due process.
PEOPLE SPEAKING OUT
AGAINST CORRUPTION

Image: Creative Commons, Flickr / tomscy2000 (2014)

PEOPLE SPEAKING OUT
AGAINST CORRUPTION
People can make a
difference
We asked people whether they felt they could make a difference in the
fight against corruption. Positively, based on the 16 places surveyed,
a majority of citizens across the Asia Pacific region agreed that they felt
empowered (63 per cent).3
People in Australia, Taiwan and Indonesia felt most empowered to fight
against corruption, with over three quarters of people agreeing (from 78
per cent to 80 per cent). Citizens in Pakistan felt least empowered with
only a third agreeing that people can make a difference (33 per cent).
This was substantially lower than in any other country that we surveyed.
CAN ORDINARY PEOPLE
MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE FIGHT
AGAINST CORRUPTION?
– RESULTS BY COUNTRY
agree
Q. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement:“Ordinary people can make a difference in the fight against corruption”. Base:
all respondents, excluding missing responses.“Strongly disagree”,“Disagree”,“Neither” and “Don’t know” answers are not displayed for ease of comparison.

What actions can
people take
We wanted to find out the best ways people thought they could tackle
corruption in their own countries.4
Across the region, people thought that
reporting corruption (22 per cent) followed by refusing to pay bribes
(21 per cent) were most effective. This was followed by voting for clean
parties or candidates, or those saying that they would reduce corruption
(6 per cent). All other positive actions were mentioned by fewer than
5 per cent.
Even so there was a large minority (21 per cent) who felt completely
pessimistic about the effect that ordinary people can have on corruption
in their country.
VIEWS ON THE MOST EFFECTIVE
ACTIONS PEOPLE CAN
TAKE AGAINST CORRUPTION
Q.What is the most effective thing that an ordinary person like you can do to help combat corruption in this country? Base: all respondents, excluding missing
responses.“Don’t know” responses are not shown.

Why don’t people
report?
While in theory people thought that reporting corruption was the most
effective action they could take, we found that in practice few people
actually reported it. Only 7 per cent of people living in the Asia Pacific
region who had paid a bribe said that they had reported it to the
authorities.5
When we asked why more people don’t report corruption, the main
reason given by people across the entire region was that they were afraid
of the consequences (36 per cent).6
A further 15 per cent said that they
wouldn’t report because they think that it wouldn’t make any difference,
and 13 per cent said that they don’t report because they are not aware of
how or where to report. All other responses were given by 5 per cent or
fewer respondents.
The lack of confidence in official reporting channels seems to be justified.
Of those who said that they had reported a bribery incident to the
authorities less than a quarter (23 per cent) said that the authorities had
taken action as a result, while 26 per cent said that they had suffered
some form of negative repercussion.
WHY PEOPLE DO NOT REPORT
INCIDENTS OF CORRUPTION
– TOP THREE RESPONSES People are afraid of
the consequences
36%
It wouldn’t make a
difference
15%
People don’t
know where or how
to report it
13%
Q. Some people say that many incidents of corruption are never reported. Based on your experience, what do you think the main reason is why many people do not
report corruption when it occurs? Base: all respondents, excluding missing responses. Full results available in the excel tables of results.
5 This question was not asked in China or Mongolia.Weighted N: 3,825 respondents who had paid a bribe and answered the question on whether they had reported
the incident.Weighted N: 275 respondents who had reported an incident to the authorities.

CONCLUSION
This regional report from the Global Corruption Barometer
focuses on the results in the Asia Pacific region derived
from interviews with nearly 22,000 people living in 16
countries, regions or territories. Our scorecard on the
following page summarises the anti-corruption perfor
mance of these places as reported by their own citizens.
It is based on the responses to the survey on the key
indicators of (1) the extent to which the level of corruption
is perceived to have increased, (2) the perceived perfor-
mance of governments in addressing corruption, (3) the
perceived levels of corruption among the police, (4) the
experience of bribery and (5) the extent to which people
think that ordinary people can make a difference in the
fight against corruption.
According to the results from the survey, Australia
followed by Sri Lanka and Taiwan did the best, with the
most positive ratings overall across the key corruption
questions in the survey. In these countries, few people
felt that corruption was increasing, many people felt
empowered to help fight against corruption and bribery
rates were very or fairly low. However, even in these well
performing countries, there were still areas for improve
ment such as poor ratings of government efforts to fight
corruption (Australia and Taiwan) or a substantial minority
of people who thought that the police were highly
corrupt (Sri Lanka).
At the other end of the scale, Malaysia and Vietnam
performed the worst with not a single positive rating,
according to their own citizens. In these countries, the
governments were rated poorly in their efforts to fight
corruption, people saw widespread corruption among
the police, and many people thought that corruption
was on the rise. In Vietnam too, bribery was very high.
The survey suggests real and serious corruption
challenges in these countries, which urgently need to
be addressed.
The results from other countries show a mixed picture
of positive, mediocre and negative ratings – which in part
reflect the varied nature of the corruption challenges
across the region. In some of these countries, like India,
the bribery rate was very high, but citizens were fairly
positive about government efforts to fight corruption and
a clear majority felt they could make a difference in the
fight against corruption. South Korea, by contrast, had a
very low bribery rate, but citizens were critical of govern-
ment efforts to fight corruption.
The scorecard clearly demonstrates diversity in the
corruption challenges across the region; 30 of the 77
ratings were positive, 19 were mediocre and 28 were
negative. With high bribery risks for public services
found in a number of countries in the region, government
progress against the SDGs will remain unachievable
unless mechanisms are introduced to clean up public
service delivery. Citizen engagement will be key but there
are a number of barriers to this including poor whistle
blower protection, impunity for the corrupt and a lack of
awareness of existing effective reporting channels.
Addressing the corruption challenges in the region and
furthering progress on the SDGs will require all levels
of government, the private sector and civil society working
together to achieve this.

These groupings are meant to be indicative, and regionally contextual. It is important to keep in mind that they are based on the subjective
perceptions and experiences of citizens in each country rather than on an assessment against a common objective benchmark.
* is used when the question was not asked in that country.
Place
How has the level of
corruption changed?
How is the
government doing at
fighting corruption?
How corrupt
are the police?
How many people
paid a bribe?
Do people feel
empowered to fight
corruption?
Negative/High risk
Mediocre/Medium risk
Positive/Low risk
The anti-corruption performance
of the government and the
corruption risks are rated by
citizens as:
Overview of Corruption
– A Citizen Scorecard
Myanmar
Thailand
Japan
Australia
Hong Kong
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
China

Place
How has the level of
corruption changed?
How is the
government doing at
fighting corruption?
How corrupt
are the police?
How many people
paid a bribe?
Do people feel
empowered to fight
corruption?
Cambodia
Vietnam
Pakistan
Indonesia
Malaysia
South Korea
This infographic summarises the results for five key corruption questions
presented in this report. For each question, countries/territories/regions
are categorised as either red, amber or green depending on how
positively or negatively respondents from that place responded. Places
are ordered from those who score the best according to their citizens to
those who score the worst. See the methodology note for the full
description of how the colours are assigned.
India
Mongolia

METHODOLOGY NOTE
The Global Corruption Barometer 2017 question module
was conducted via face to face or telephone survey in
the Asia Pacific region, with a random selection of adults
in all 16 surveyed countries, territories and regions.
Face to face household interviews were conducted either
with Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) or
Paper-and-Pencil Interviewing (PAPI). A random probabil
ity stratified clustered sample was designed in each
project country. The sample was stratified by regions and
by level of urbanisation. Households were selected at
random, using a random walk, or using existing registers.
The respondent was selected at random from all adults
in the household.
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) were
used in some project countries. Random digital dialling
was using to randomly select households and respon-
dents were selected at random from all adults in the
household. Both landline telephones and mobile phones
were selected for interviewing. Samples were stratified
across all regions in the country according to population
size.
MODE EFFECTS
The report presents the results obtained using two
different modes of data collection and may be prone to
mode effects, in terms of sampling, the selection of
respondents and the propensity to respond using different
modes of data collection.
WEIGHTING
The survey samples were selected and, if necessary,
weighted to be nationally representative of all adults living
in each country/territory. The results have margins of
sampling error of a maximum +/–3.1 percentage points
(for a sample of 1,000) for dichotomous questions
(for example, yes or no) at a 95 per cent confidence level.
In addition, an extra weight was applied so that the
sample sizes for each country/territory are equalised.
The overall results for the Asia Pacific region are
equivalent to an average of the countries surveyed.
POPULATION ESTIMATES
Population estimates have been made using available
recent population data from the CIA Factbook. To
calculate the total number of bribe payers in the Asia
Pacific region, we used the national bribery rates (the
percentage of all adults who had paid a bribe) to calculate
the number of bribe payers in each country/territory/
region. We then added the projected number of bribe
payers across all 16 countries/territories, which gives
a total number of 919,998,712. For ease of reporting we
rounded this figure to 900 million.

Australia Efficience3 CATI 06.09.2016 - 12.10.2016 1002
Cambodia Efficience3 Face to face 28.04.2016 - 19.04.2016 1003
China Asian Barometer Surveys Face to face 01.07.2015 - 06.03.2016 4068
Hong Kong Efficience3 CATI 15.01.2016 - 03.02.2016 1000
India Cvoter International Face to face 01.03.2016 - 11.04.2016 2802
Indonesia Efficience3 Face to face 26.04.2016 - 27.06.2016 1000
Japan Efficience3 CATI 06.12.2016 - 21.01.2017 1000
Malaysia Efficience3 Face to face 21.11.2016 – 31.01.2017 1009
Mongolia TNS Face to face 25.11.2015 - 02.01.2016 1500
Myanmar Cvoter International Face to face 24.02.2016 - 09.03.2016 1224
Pakistan Cvoter International Face to face 13.03.2016 - 30.03.2016 1078
South Korea Efficience3 CATI 12.09.2016 - 03.11.2016 1000
Sri Lanka Business Insights & Solutions Face to face 06.07.2016 - 06.10.2016 1073
Taiwan Taiwan Real Survey Co., Ltd CATI 23.09.2016 - 02.10.2016 1082
Thailand Efficience3 Face to face 10.04.2016 - 27.05.2016 1020
Vietnam Efficience3 Face to face 26.05.2016 - 20.06.2016 1000
Place Organisation Methodology Fieldwork Sample size

1. Change in level of corruption over previous 12 months
The scores are based on the percentage of respondents in each country/
territory who say that corruption has either increased a little or increased
a lot over the 12 months prior to when the survey was conducted.7
Green: fewer than 40 per cent say corruption had increased either
somewhat or a lot in the preceding 12 months.
Amber: from 40 per cent up to 60 per cent say corruption had
increased either somewhat or a lot in the past 12 months.
Red: 60 per cent or more say corruption had increased either
somewhat or a lot in the past 12 months.
2. How the government is handling the fight against corruption
The scores are based on the percentage of respondents who rate their
government as doing either “very badly” or “fairly badly” at fighting
corruption in government. The results were rebased to exclude don’t
know responses.
Green: fewer than 40 per cent say “very badly” or “fairly badly”.
Amber: from 40 per cent up to 60 per cent say “very badly” or
“fairly badly”.
Red: 60 per cent or more say “very badly” or “fairly badly”.
3. How corrupt the police are perceived to be
Each score is based on a simple average of the percentage of the
population who say that “most” or “all” police are corrupt. The results
were rebased to exclude don’t know responses.
Green: fewer than 20 per cent say that “most” or “all” police are corrupt.
Amber: from 20 per cent up to 40 per cent say that “most” or “all”
police are corrupt.
Red: 40 per cent or more say that “most” or “all” police are corrupt.
4. Bribery rate
The scores are based on the percentage of people who say that they had
paid a bribe to at least one of the six public services mentioned in the
12 months prior to the survey: public medical care; public schools (either
vocational, or primary and secondary); official documents; unemployment
benefits; other social security benefits; the police; or the courts. The
results exclude those who say that they did not come into contact with
any of these services in the previous 12 months.
Green: fewer than 10 per cent paid a bribe.
Amber: from 10 per cent up to 30 per cent paid a bribe.
Red: 30 per cent or more paid a bribe.
5. Ordinary people can make a difference
The results are based on the percentage of people who either “strongly
agree” or “agree” with the statement “Ordinary people can make a
difference in the fight against corruption”. The results were rebased to
exclude don’t know responses.
Green: 60 per cent or more “strongly agree” or “agree”.
Amber: from 40 per cent up to 60 per cent “strongly agree” or “agree”.
Red: fewer than 40 per cent “strongly agree” or “agree”.
Citizens’ corruption
scorecard ratings
7 In China the results are based on change in the level of corruption over the previous 3 years.

NOTES
i For the sake of readability, we use the term “region” even though
the report includes 16 countries, territories or regions in the
Asia Pacific region. In this report, China refers to respondents
from mainland China.
ii The survey was conducted either face to face or by telephone,
with nationally representative samples in place. Please see
the Methodology section on page 31 for a full explanation.
iii This estimate is made on the basis of the approximate total number
of adults living in each of the surveyed places according to available
population data, which gives a figure of 919,998,712. See Method-
ology section for full details.
iv The bribery module was implemented with amended wording in
Mongolia as the questions were implemented as part of a longer
existing survey. In Mongolia the questions asked about household
rather than individual level bribery.
v 83 per cent of the respondents said that they came into contact
with at least one of the public services. Bribery rates are based on
those who came into contact with at least one of the services
(unweighted N = 17,119). For China and Mongolia the base is based
on those who came into contact with 5 services, as utility services
was not asked there. In Malaysia, the bribery results are based on the
total population due to differences in how the bribery question
module was implemented during fieldwork.
vi Income calculations are based on available subjective income
measures as asked by the respective surveying organisations.

Generous support for the People and Corruption: Asia Pacific / Global
Corruption Barometer was provided by EY, The Asia House Foundation,
The Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
The Belgium Development Cooperation, Irish Aid, The Hong Kong ICAC,
Transparency International Sri Lanka and Transparency International
Cambodia.
We gratefully acknowledge these contributions. Responsibility for the
content lies entirely with the author. The contributors do not necessarily
share the expressed views and interpretations. For a full list of all
contributors and to find out how you can support our work please visit
Acknowledgements

create
change
withus
Engage
More and more people are joining the
fight against corruption, and the
discussion is growing. Stay informed
and share your views on our website
and blog, and social media.
Volunteer
With an active presence in more than
100 countries around the world, we’re
always looking for passionate volunteers
to help us increase our impact. Check
out our website for the contact details
for your local organisation.
Donate
Your donation will help us provide
support to thousands of victims of
corruption, develop new tools and
research, and hold governments and
businesses to their promises. We
want to build a fairer, more just world.
With your help, we can. Find out
more at:
www.transparency.org/getinvolved
And join the conversation:
transparencyinternational
anticorruption

International Secretariat
Alt-Moabit 96, 10559 Berlin, Germany
Phone: +49 30 34 38 200
Fax: +49 30 34 70 39 12
ti@transparency.org
blog.transparency.org
facebook.com/transparencyinternational
twitter.com/anticorruption

ASEAN INTEGRITY COMMUNITY
A VISION FOR TRANSPARENT
AND ACCOUNTABLE INTEGRATION

© 2015 Transparency International. All rights reserved.
Printed on 100% recycled paper.
© Cover photo: Shutterstock.com/Jiri Flogel
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained
in this report. All information was believed to be correct as of April 2015.
Nevertheless, Transparency International cannot accept responsibility for the
consequences of its use for other purposes or in other contexts.
Transparency International is a global movement with one vision: a
world in which government, business, civil society and the daily lives
of people are free of corruption. Through more than 100 chapters
worldwide and an international secretariat in Berlin, we are leading
the fight against corruption to turn this vision into reality.

3ASEAN INTEGRITY COMMUNITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................6
ASEAN AND CORRUPTION ...................................................................................................................6
SUSTAINABLE PROSPERITY BUILT ON TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY........................8
ASEAN AND REGIONAL INTEGRATION................................................................................................10
REGIONAL INTEGRATION RAISES CORRUPTION RISKS................................................................10
CORRUPTION THREATENS REGIONAL INTEGRATION ...................................................................11
EMERGING REGION-WIDE ANTI-CORRUPTION CHALLENGES ......................................................12
Cross-border bribery ..........................................................................................................................12
Illicit international trade networks .......................................................................................................13
Money laundering and asset recovery ...............................................................................................13
MEETING THE CHALLENGES.................................................................................................................14
ACHIEVING AN ASEAN INTEGRITY COMMUNITY.............................................................................14
Embracing mutual accountability in ASEAN.......................................................................................15
Key recommendations........................................................................................................................15
RECOMMENDED ASEAN INTEGRITY COMMUNITY FOCUS AREAS ...............................................16
1. Achieving effective anti-corruption policies, legislation and strategies...........................................16
2. Achieving strong and independent anti-corruption institutions .......................................................18
3. Achieving intergovernmental anti-corruption cooperation ..............................................................19
4. Achieving meaningful engagement with civil society and the business sector...............................21
CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................................24
ANNEX I: ROADMAP FOR AN ASEAN COMMUNITY ............................................................................25

CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2017 AND MYANMAR: OVERVIEW OF CORRUPTION AND ANTI-CORRUPTION

CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2017 AND MYANMAR: OVERVIEW OF CORRUPTION AND ANTI-CORRUPTION

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2017 AND MYANMAR: OVERVIEW OF CORRUPTION AND ANTI-CORRUPTION

Similar to CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2017 AND MYANMAR: OVERVIEW OF CORRUPTION AND ANTI-CORRUPTION (20)

More from MYO AUNG Myanmar

More from MYO AUNG Myanmar (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2017 AND MYANMAR: OVERVIEW OF CORRUPTION AND ANTI-CORRUPTION