Is this a map Transparency International’s Index of world corruption or is it a map of Governments contributing funds to this NGO? There is very little difference between the two.
Government bodies that contribute funds to Transparency International are from:
USA (score 74 out of 100)
UK (score 81)
Australia (score 79)
New Zealand (score 90)
The Netherlands (83)
Bhutan (65) apart from Singapore the only good score in the whole of continental Asia.
The anomaly is Malaysia which contributed but got a score of only 49. They should ask for their money back. Iceland, Chile, Uruguay, Botswana, UAE, Singapore and Japan are the only countries that got a good score without, appearing to be, coughing up a penny.
Source: Transparency International Website:
Transparency International is a Non Government Organisation. It is not an official organisation, it is not part of the UN or any University. Anybody can start an NGO, all you need is a bank account and a web page. The main claim to fame of Transparency International is their Corruption Perceptions Index which comes with a lovely down-loadable graphic of the world. The latest map has spread through the web, on to newspapers and into television news. Lots of people are discussing the relative rankings of countries but nobody seems to ask where the data comes from or how it is compiled. The exception is Thailand, where the data has been disputed.
According to Wikipedia Transparency International is not as squeaky clean or as Transparent as it pretends to be:
Non-support of Edward Snowden
At its annual meeting in November 2013 in Berlin, Transparency International's national chapters from Germany and Ireland proposed a resolution calling for the "end of the prosecution of Edward J. Snowden... He should be recognized as a whistleblower for his help to reveal the over-reaching and unlawful surveillance by secret services... He symbolizes the courage of numerous other whistleblowers around the world."
The final resolution that was passed by the plenary excluded any reference to Snowden, and excluded a call for “comprehensive protection on whistleblowers from all forms of retaliation.” The original resolution presented by the German and Irish chapters was weakened following the intervention of Transparency International's American chapter, TI-USA. “The whistleblower resolution was watered down by the US delegation,” a TI insider was quoted in an article published by the Huffington Post. “TI USA is very corporate oriented, very inside the Beltway oriented.”
Five months earlier, in June 2013, representatives from Transparency International declined Snowden's request to meet with him at the Moscow airport. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch met with Snowden to support his asylum request, but Transparency International refused.
Funding from Siemens
In January 2015 it was reported that Transparency International (TI) accepted $3 million from the German engineering multinational Siemens, which in 2008 paid one of the largest corporate corruption fines in history – $1.6 billion – for bribing government officials in numerous countries.
Transparency International applied for and received the money from Siemens, even though TI's due diligence procedures prohibit the organization from accepting money from corporations that want to "greenwash" their reputations by making donations to TI. "If any corporate donor is accused of having been involved in corruption, the donor can expect no protection from TI," the procedures state.
Transparency International received the money from the Siemens Integrity Initiative about a year after the Initiative hired former TI staffer Jana Mittermaier, raising questions of a "revolving door" that has benefited both the organization and the company.
Several of TI's national chapters also have accepted money from Siemens: $660,000 for TI USA, $600,000 for TI Italy, $450,000 for TI Bulgaria, and $230,000 for TI Mexico – each for a period of three years.
"This really shows that Transparency International is not as pure as people think," a TI insider told Corporate Crime Reporter.
Transparency International Managing Director Cobus de Swardt said, “We did not file an application to Siemens, we applied to the Siemens Integrity Initiative. There’s a difference. We have not applied to Siemens.” However, according to Siemens, the money for these grants is "provided by Siemens.”
In April 2015 TI defended the decision by its American chapter, TI-USA, to give Hillary Clinton its Integrity Award in 2012. TI's statement followed a report by National Public Radio that Bill and Chelsea Clinton were not factual regarding the transparency of the Clinton Foundation.
Due to a "lack of confidence," TI's chapter in Croatia was disaccredited by the organization's Board of Directors in November 2015. The previous year, several leaders of the Croatia chapter challenged the legality of the chapter president's election. The president was accused of falsifying records, conflicts of interest, and arbitrarily expelling 10 chapter members who opposed the hiring of staff against the organization's rules. The Croatian government eventually revoked the president's appointment.
In January 2016 a dispute arose regarding TI's chapter in New Zealand. The Governance Director in TI's Berlin headquarters sought to block an ethics complaint filed against the chapter's Board Chair by preventing the complaint from being heard by the Berlin office. The Governance Director also submitted an affidavit challenging a New Zealand court's jurisdiction to hear the case.
In August 2015 former TI staffer Anna Buzzoni went public regarding retaliation she and her colleagues faced after reporting to managers questionable financial dealings at TI's Water Integrity Network. Two of Buzzoni's project responsibilities were suspended and she was transferred against her will. She left TI shortly before internal whistleblower guidelines were adopted in June 2014.