NGAWANG JAMPHEL
Thimphu
The Anti- Corruption Commission continues to implement a comprehensive range of anti-corruption tools under the framework of Organisation Integrity Plan (OIP) to foster a corruption-resilient, accountable, and transparent public sector.
These tools were implemented across 92 public sector agencies and evaluated for their effectiveness in the FY 2023-2024.
Among the 92 agencies evaluated, 43 agencies scored an ‘Excellent’ rating with a 100 per cent score, demonstrating a strong commitment to fostering strong systems of integrity and anti-corruption.
Conversely, 17 agencies were placed in the ‘Poor’ category, indicating a need for targeted interventions to enhance service delivery standards. The overall average score for the OIP was 83.9 per cent.
The evaluation revealed significant variation in the OIP scores across different categories of agencies. Ministries such as Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock (MoAL), MoENR, Ministry of Finance (MoF), Ministry of Health (MoH), and Ministry of Industry, Commerce & Employment (MoICE) scored a perfect 100 per cent, while others like MoESD and Ministry of Foreign Affairs & External Trade (MoFAET) scored only 50 percent, resulting in an average score of 86.8 per cent for Ministries.
Among Dzongkhags, the OIP scores were generally high, with many achieving full scores, except for Punakha and Trashigang, which scored 21 per cent and 33 per cent respectively, leading to an average score of 85.6 per cent for Dzongkhags.
In terms of Thromdes, Gelephu and Phuentsholing Thromde performed strongly with scores of 100% whereas Thimphu Thromde scored lower at 83.3 percent, bringing the average score to 95.8 percent for Thromdes.
While the National Integrity Assessment 2022 highlighted strong integrity practices within the Judiciary and Constitutional Offices, with internal and external integrity scores above the national average, the OIP scores showed mixed results.
The ACC, Royal Audit Authority (RAA), and Royal Civil Service Commission (RCSC) scored 100 percent except for the Judiciary with a score of 35 percent resulting in an average score of 80.4 percent for Constitutional Offices.
Similarly, autonomous agencies displayed considerable variability, ranging from a low score of 8.3 per cent for the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to full OIP scores for others, with an average score of 84.1 per cent.
Such disparity in the OIP scores can be attributed to issues such as late, incomplete, or non-submission of supporting documents, primarily due to changes in focal persons and improper handing-taking processes.
Despite frequent reminders from the ACC, many agencies only informed these changes only towards the end of the year when it was time for the evaluation. Therefore, some focal officers needed more clarity on the activities and submitted irrelevant documents. Some even submitted the documents based on the OIP of the previous FY.
The wide variability in OIP scores suggests the need to focus on improving low-scoring agencies through targeted training and oversight, leveraging high-performing agencies as models to support underperformers, and standardizing approaches to ensure all agencies have the necessary resources to effectively implement the OIP.
Despite the introduction of these anti-corruption tools, some of which were implemented even before the establishment of the ACC, it still faces persistent challenges in achieving effective implementation.
While activities such as Conflict of Interest Management, Integrity Vetting, and Grievance Redressal show strong performance, with implementation rates above 87 percent, the overall implementation of the Code of Conduct remains notably low at 61.8 percent.
This indicates that, despite long-standing efforts and the presence of various tools, there are ongoing difficulties in fully embedding these practices into organizational culture and operations.
The mixed results also suggest that enhancing adherence to ethical guidelines and improving the consistency of implementing these tools are crucial for advancing transparency and integrity.
The Model Public Service Code of Conduct (MPCoC) is a pivotal framework designed to uphold ethical standards within public sector organizations, as mandated by the ACAB 2011.
However, its implementation has faced several challenges. The ACC has observed that the principles of the MPCoC often remain theoretical, with many agencies struggling to translate these principles into actionable processes and systems.
There is a noticeable lack of clarity among agencies on how to effectively implement the MPCoC, compounded by insufficient resources provided by the ACC to guide this translation.
Moreover, duplication of efforts across different agencies has led to inefficiencies, and some have merely reproduced existing CoC under the OIP requirements, without making a meaningful impact on the broader anti-corruption campaign in the country.
Despite the progress made in implementing other integrity measures, the overall implementation of the MPCoC remains significantly low at 61.8 per cent.
In the reporting year, 17 agencies were mandated to develop and/or review their respective CoC. However, only 12 agencies made modest efforts to develop and review respective CoC for effective implementation.
The ACC continues to play a crucial role in managing conflicts of interest by requiring public officials to disclose both financial and non-financial interests that could potentially influence their decision-making.
These conflicts may arise from owning assets, participating in external activities, owning businesses, or receiving gifts and benefits. Conflicts of interest can be actual, perceived, or potential, and it is essential for public officials to prevent such conflicts to maintain public trust and avoid corruption.
The UNCAC also mandates that State parties implement systems for public officials to declare personal assets and interests that could lead to conflicts of interest. By embedding these practices into the routine operations of public agencies, the ACC ensures that conflicts of interest are identified and addressed before they can undermine the integrity of decision-making processes.
In addition to these efforts, the Asset Declaration System (ADS) is another powerful tool in managing conflicts of interest. The Asset Declaration Rules 2022, mandate that public officials regularly disclose their assets, liabilities, and financial interests, which helps to create a transparent record that can be used to detect and prevent potential conflicts.
The objectives of asset declarations are multifaceted, including the detection and prevention of illicit enrichment, promoting public trust through accountability, and crucially, facilitating the management of conflicts of interest.
This is particularly important when public officials hold additional employment, engage in post-employment arrangements, or when their spouses or dependents have interests that may conflict with their official duties.
