A brief comparison of public administration,
anti-corruption measures and selected historical events
(resulting in major policy changes)
fostering a corruption-resistant culture
For those of you who have followed my previous articles on anti-corruption
in colonial Hong Kong and on historical U.S. administrative thoughts,
you will probably notice that I am an advocate of building a
"corruption-resistant culture or environment".
If you share with me a similar view, this brief comparison
should be both interesting and, hopefully, somehow inspiring
for those who are either working in the anti-corruption field or
are working or advising on such policies or legislation.
Strictly speaking, there is hardly one convincing reason why I should be comparing
or contrasting the anti-corruption environment of the U.S. and the colonial Hong Kong.
But the only reason I am doing this is because I need an answer to a question
that has been haunting me for some time, and that is, "How come places like
Hong Kong can be seemingly so successful (in terms of its relative high CPI [1a] ranking),
efficient (in terms of 20+ years spent in promoting an anti-corruption culture since 1974)
and be so effective (making corruption a high-risk, low-gain crime)
in the course of combating corruption?"
Nearby countries, like the Philippines (and some others in Asia and Africa),
have been trying to copy what has been done in colonial Hong Kong and
yet most of them did not seem to have gone this far. As I have never believed that this
was just mere coincidence, I needed to come up with a brief comparison between Hong Kong
and just any given western civilization having a comparable CPI ranking, similar GDP,
etc., to see if they share or have walked through anything similar in their histories,
especially when the types of legislation deployed to fight corruption are
entirely different (because I never believe it matters), i.e. one relying on
criminal procedures and the other on civil laws.
In following sections there are three tables comparing the type of public administration,
anti-corruption measures and some selected [1b] historical events
resulting in major policy changes that could have helped foster a corruption-resistant
culture. I have to stress, meanwhile, that I am not comparing anything statistically
or am I doing it in a figure-by-figure manner. What I am comparing here are just
historical events correlated with bribe that accounted for major policy changes.
I hope the comparison will reveal for you some insights between the U.S.
(drawn from its 200+ years of socio-economic development)
and the colonial Hong Kong (drawn from its fight against corruption since
the establishment of the ICAC, Independent Commision Against Corruption, in 1974
to before the Handover of Hong Kong to Communist China in 1997).
For the purpose of clarity, each of the three tables focuses on an area of its own, namely:
I will leave the conclusion to the reader as there is no one clear-cut answer to
all these complicated questions related to corruption and bribe. However, I do
hope that you will find the comparison useful and enjoyable.
Digital platform powered by Wyith Limited, Wyith Institute.
Wyith Limited and Wyith Institute are associated businesses operated by the Office of Dr Raymond Cheng • Dr Raymond Cheng & Partners Ltd and The Commentary Ltd.
Photo credits for top title bar, from left to right: Iza H (Work),
Lukasz Gumowski (Blue balls),
Marcin Bania (Smiling and naked),
Lautaro Gonda (Milan station),
Jan Abt (Girl taking a picture),
Daniel Tang (Hot switch),
Barbara Henry (Moriah reading),
Ralf Herrmann (Checkmate II),
Marko Roeper (Led #4),
Ian Russell (Girl in downtown LA).
Note: Animated GIF graphics and clipart obtained from
amazing-animations.com, gifs.net, findicons.com, clker.com and sevenoaksart.co.uk.
Sketches, cartoons and other handdrawings courtesy of Alice-the-Artist.
This is not the American Jewish Committee's Commentary Magazine
nor are we in any way affiliated with them. To visit AJC's magazine,
please go to commentarymagazine.com instead, thank you for your attention.
This site is best viewed with
Microsoft® Internet Explorer 6.0 or above,
minimum 1024x768 16M color-depth resolution.
The Commentary Group
and its personnel do not endorse external sites and are not
responsible for the content of these websites. All external sites
will open in a new browser window.
For those you who don't have time
to read all our news excerpts about the Asian island
disputes (links above), you may find the following video,
"The economic impact of a war between Japan and China",
"This trial is another example of the Kremlin's attempts to discourage and delegitimize dissent. It is likely to backfire."
John Dalhuisen, Director of Amnesty International's Europe and Central Asia Programme
I am proud to announce that
the Commentary.com website is now carrying the technology updates
from Usman Khurshid's Technize.net.
Usman is a network consultant and works in a mixed environment
of Windows and Linux platforms.
He likes to study about the
latest advancements in computer technology and shares his views on his blog.
Oh, please do not get me wrong.
This new section is not about computers, electronics or
any engineering stuff, but rather I am currently constructing
a new corpus based on Spectrum, the monthly publication
from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers USA,
from July 2007 to date. Having been a member for
over 20 years since 1992, I am always fascinated by
some of the terms scientists use when they talk about or
envision their new inventions or methodologies. How many of
them eventually come into practice? Could there be
some insights we could possibly derive, from
the linguistics perspective?
IMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This website is published and designed by Raymond Cheng, PhD DPA
and reflects only his personal views and opinions in his
individual capacity. It does not represent the views and opinions
of his firm, employer(s), students, etc., and is not in
any way sponsored or endorsed by any other thrid parties.
Click here to read my full disclaimer