CORRUPTION: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

 

Many years ago, at IBM, Apple was off-limits as a topic of discussion; at Kodak, digital photography was “unheard of” in the boardroom; and among Michael Jackson’s minions, drug dependence was a no-no in conversation.

In the mid-80s, IBM was the leading supplier of computer technology. Failing to gain a place at the dawn of the internet age, it eventually lost $16 billion in the early 90s – marking off the twilight of the IBM dominion. Meanwhile, Apple made history in 2020 for breaking records -- the first company in reaching a $2 trillion market cap.

A Kodak engineer invented the digital camera. But here’s how Kodak leadership took it: “That’s cute – but don’t tell anyone about it,” pushing it aside lest it would cannibalize its existing product market share. Picking up on the cutting-edge innovation, its rivals seized the opportunity. In 2012, Kodak declared bankruptcy.

Suffering from cardiac arrest, Michael Jackson died at the age of 50 -- caused by a fatal combination of drugs.

Apple, digital photography, and drug dependence above -- “elephants in the room,” all.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

The expression “the elephant in the room” according to the Oxford Languages dictionary, is a “major problem or controversial issue which is obviously present but is avoided as a subject for discussion.” Wikipedia added that “everyone knows about it but no one mentions or wants to discuss it because it makes some uncomfortable and is personally, socially, or politically embarrassing.”

During our corporate heyday, I worked with the largest (at one point during its operation) steel mill in Asia; my wife, with one of the largest banks in the country. Our management toolboxes were jammed full of tools and techniques we could use in our respective jobs in improving our companies’ product output and quality, or reducing costs. The new-arrival fashionable names were wide-ranging: reengineering, downsizing, project management, problem analysis, decision making, work simplification, completed staff work principle, just-in-time inventory, 5S workplace methodology, know-your-customer basic, and fraud detection, among others.

At home then, those tools and their applications (like resource allocation and work scheduling technique) were a piece of cake: a nanny for the baby, a cook in the kitchen, and an all-around "kasambahay" for the rest of the tasks. So far so good.

One weekend, while doing the groceries, I picked up peanut butter and jelly (PB&J) stripes for breakfast. The next morning I could not find the PB&J in the refrigerator. Catching on to what’s going on, right then and there, one "kasambahay" put the “lost” PB&J on the dining table which she had brought out from her room. It caught me off guard. To cut this story short, after due diligence and subsequent findings and admissions, we learned we had been also feeding, unwittingly, the families of our "kasambahays" in their respective homes. For how long, we had no idea.

Of course, God was pleased and, unknown to us, could have rewarded us already for our giving in secret (Matthew 6:4). Strangely enough, it was so secret that we hadn’t got a bit of idea we did such a special kind of giving. It’s out of the question.

The crux of the matter: no great deal of cost savings can make up for the corruption losses in the system.

CORRUPTION LOSSES

The World Bank estimated in 2002 that the Philippines had lost $48 billion (P2.7 trillion @ $1=P56 today) to corruption from 1977 to 1997. That is equivalent to average corruption losses of P224 billion per year. Such an elephantine amount could have built four-lane superhighway networks along the whole Philippine coastlines. The projected P14.8 Billion in rightsizing savings is only 6% of the corruption losses per year.

The Philippines slumped to a historic low in a global 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index with 33 points out of 100 as reported by Transparency International. The Index ranks 180 countries based on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to be on a scale of 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). The Philippines slid a point down from its previous year’s points of 34. The highest annual points the Philippines got so far during the period from 1995 to 2021 was 38. Right beside the Philippines with the same 33 points are Algeria, Egypt, Zambia, and Nepal. The Philippines dropped two spots to 117^th place among the 180 countries on the list.

Transparency International noted that just as the Philippines slumped to a historic low in its corruption index, so freedom of expression also declined under PRRD making it difficult for citizens to speak up against corrupt activities.

COMBATTING CORRUPTION

The World Bank 2000 report “Combating Corruption in the Philippines” proposed a nine-point approach to fighting corruption:

1. Reducing opportunities for corruption by policy reforms and deregulations

2. Reforming campaign finance

3. Increasing public oversight

4. Reforming budget processes

5. Improving meritocracy in the civil service

6. Targeting selected departments and agencies

7. Enhancing sanctions against corruption

8. Developing partnerships with the private sector

9. Supporting judicial reform

Well, the anti-corruption blueprint above has been all systems go and on standby for more than two decades. Let’s just do it -- to be spearheaded by no less than PBBM voted by 31 million people and now standing behind him as the leader of the country. As stressed by Sir James David Wolfensohn who served as the ninth president of the World Bank:

“The issue of corruption in many countries is determined by the leadership and by the people of the country.”

But, not so fast.

CORRUPTION: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

Let’s rewind a bit to our definition of “the elephant in the room”: “Everyone knows about it but no one mentions or wants to discuss it because it makes some uncomfortable and is personally, socially, or politically embarrassing.”

Let’s take up again the details of corruption: “The World Bank estimated in 2002 that the Philippines had lost US$48 billion (P2.7 trillion @ $1=P56 today) to corruption from 1977 to 1997.”

Here’s the big-time ID of the “elephant in the room”: “Estimates of the ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH OF THE MARCOS FAMILY (underscoring mine) vary, with most sources accepting a figure of about US$5-10 billion for wealth acquired in the last years of the Marcos administration.” (Wikipedia) It is noteworthy that the “last years of the Marcos administration” fell within the World Bank corruption study period from 1977 to 1997. In other words, the US$5-10 billion ill-gotten wealth was part and parcel of the US$48 billion which the Philippines lost to corruption.

One cannot mention or discuss the US$48 billion corruption loss without mentioning or discussing the US$5-10 billion ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. Otherwise, such mention or discussion, as our definition of “the elephant in the room” goes, will make “some uncomfortable and is personally, socially, or politically embarrassing.”

Is it any wonder the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission was abolished?

The coupling of “corruption” with the “ill-gotten wealth” tailor-made the duo as “the elephant in the room” which no one wants to discuss -- it is politically embarrassing.

            World Bank’s Wolfensohn said, “And when they get fed up with [corruption], something happens. And until they do, not a lot happens.”

Are we not yet fed up?

Head still photo courtesy of Keith Lobo @ pexelsdotcom