IN the previous article, I referred to Dr Anis Yusal Yusoff’s writings, which explained well what we need to know about the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). Based on his independent work, it has been shown that the CPI score is calculated based on a combination or from several different sources. It is not a conceptual or statistical problem or a mere “perception without any reality”.

This is how composite pointers work. They aggregate different measurements that describe the same phenomenon. In the case of CPI, all sources are closely related to each other. This means that all of them, although measuring different aspects of corruption, effectively capture a broader underlying phenomenon, namely public sector corruption. For this reason, the exact combination of sources that produce the final CPI score is irrelevant.

Regarding the number of sources used to calculate the different country scores, the statistical audit also concluded that “there is no pattern between the CPI score and the number of sources used to rate a country”. This means that the number of sources used to calculate the CPI score is not associated with better or worse outcomes.

Some parties put forward suggestions as to whether we should follow the example of the absence of Brunei in the list of countries under review and decide to leave. In fact, Transparency International (TI) only reports scores for countries covered by at least three sources and Brunei, like many other small countries, often failed to meet that threshold. The fact that a country moves in and out of the CPI is the reason why TI emphasises the importance of focusing on scores rather than rankings. In fact, according to TI, this is not a methodological issue, but just a feature of how ranking works. Therefore, the sample of countries that TI covers in the CPI has remained stable since 2012.

At the same time, the view mentioning that the change in CPI coverage as the cause of Malaysia’s decline in the CPI is also incorrect. If TI maintains all the fundamentals used continuously, Brunei’s exit from the survey, for example, will benefit Malaysia’s position in the ranking.

In short, changes in rankings or scores have nothing to do with changes in coverage or sources of CPI Malaysia assessed by the same nine sources in 2020 and 2021.

As suggested by Anis, what is important for us is to use knowledge and information in the best way to create a strategy that can have a positive effect and impact on the country. CPI sees corruption in its entirety and not like some of us who assume that corruption is related to the work solely done by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

The CPI also looks at data from the Economist Intelligence Unit and the Country Risk Service. It evaluates data from the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook. In other words, they also take into account the views of experts from Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Asian Intelligence and Varieties of Democracy.

They are all interrelated. If a country’s democratic system continues to be shackled by leaders who rule at will, it will result in a country governed by abuse of power. The same is true that if the bureaucracy in the administration of a country is not curbed, the administrator will take the opportunity to extort and trouble the people, and only when the people bribe them (such as giving “duit kopi”), only then the bureaucracy will be simplified.

Things like this can be seen around us. The relationship between economy, politics and the way we manage a country has an important correlation to the results of a country’s achievements. If seen from the outset, there are important indicators that encourage corruption, misuse of power and bribery, hence the country has a higher tendency to encourage corruption. For instance, some government departments have succeeded in reducing the complicated processes that trouble people who want to start a business in the country and that effort has helped improve our achievements in some of the aforementioned indices such as the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook.

This is what we need to understand, especially from the perspective of MACC, who is tasked with fighting corruption holistically in the country. We need to look at the perception of corruption in a country such as Malaysia from various angles, and the role of government agencies and ministries. This includes the responsibility of enacting a new legislative framework related to democracy and empowering the MACC, strengthening the implementation of the National Anti-Corruption Plan (NACP), providing provisions related to the approval of investment and business applications and ensuring the government’s open attitude in guaranteeing the interests of the people and stakeholders.

If there are no actions taken to improve, correct and empower, the perception of the people and those surveyed by TI will continue and Malaysia’s score in the CPI will not change, and there is even a possibility of falling further.

The perception of CPI, whether directly or indirectly, is related to the extent to which the authorities are concerned in improving the people’s quality of life in every aspect. The leakage of the people’s money will affect the quality of life of the people as is often raised in the Auditor General’s Report.

In short, we need to look at all these factors thoroughly if we want to improve Malaysia’s score and position in the CPI.

If the NACP and the 115 initiatives are implemented as outlined in 2019, surely Malaysia’s score will improve incrementally. Unfortunately, four years after the plan was launched, we were informed that only 33% had been achieved, while the five-year NACP will end next year.

We at TI Malaysia strongly support the efforts planned and contained in the NACP as it looks at corruption in totality. Delaying efforts and changing what we have planned have resulted in us falling consecutively from 2020. That is why, when I announced Malaysia’s latest score, I suggested that the government today be serious in implementing the plan that was launched in January 2019.

We should not look at the plan from the viewpoint of which government is in power. This is the National Anti-Corruption Plan of all Malaysians, which has been proven as a good working document and which has been endorsed by all the “governments of the day” since it was incepted. That is why we think it should continue to be seriously implemented.

With due respect, rather than continuing to criticise the findings of the CPI, TI-M appeals to the MACC chief commissioner to focus on delivering the outcomes outlined in the NACP and in that way help Malaysia to improve its position in the CPI next year. – July 25, 2022.

* Dr Muhammad Mohan is president of Transparency International Malaysia.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.