Spilling - hverjum er treystandi?

Þótt ég segi sjálfur frá verð ég að segja að ég stóð vaktina vel sem þingmaður, gagnrýndi spillinguna og benti á leiðir til úrbóta. Ég sendi m.a.s. Transparency International bréf fyrir ríflega þremur árum til að hrekja mat þeirrar stofnunar á að hér væri allt með felldu. Víða fékk ég bágt fyrir.

Bréfið upp á tæpar þrjár blaðsíður fylgir hér með.

X-F

Transparency International (TI)

 Alt Moabit 96 - 10559 Berlin, Germany
Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail] / Web: http://www.transparency.org

                                                               Reykjavik, November 1^st, 2005

To whom it may concern

Recently, Transparency International (TI) published a survey (see enclosed 1) ranking countries around the world in order of their level of corruption, both in politics and business. According to the latest results, Iceland is the least corrupt country in the world, but many Icelanders have expressed their disbelief in the results of the survey.

I am an MP for the Liberal Party in Iceland, and I wrote an article on my website expressing my disbelief in the survey, listing some examples of corruption in Iceland. Then several people wrote to me, giving comments regarding the survey, saying that they could not believe the results and giving examples on why Iceland cannot possibly be the least corrupt country in the world. I have made the following list of examples of corruption, built on their comments:

1) The reluctance of the political parties to reveal their sources of financing, with the ruling Independence Party still adamantly against opening their books.

2) The sale of the state banks Búnaðarbanki and Landsbanki in 2002, from which Prime Minister Halldór Ásgrímsson and his family profited personally.

3) Friends and family of former PM Davíð Oddsson have been appointed to the Supreme Court, in particular naming Ólafur Börkur Þorvaldsson in 2003, who University of Iceland law professor Sigurður Líndal said was one of the least qualified candidates for the position.

4) The connection between members of the ruling coalition and players in the oil price-fixing scandal, naming Kristinn Björnsson, the former CEO of Skeljungur (Shell), who is the husband of parliamentary president and Independence Party member Sólveig Pétursdóttir, who was also Minister of Justice at the time of the scandal´s investigation. Björnsson is today the vice chairman of Árvakur, the company that publishes Morgunblaðið, a widely distributed newspaper.

5) The "Baugur-case", where an investigation lasting three years and costing millions of krónur yielded 40 charges of economic crimes (only eight of which have made it to the Supreme Court), but is considered by many to be a politically motivated attack from key Independence Party players against corporate giant Baugur Group.

The survey´s result is confusing and therefore I have consulted the methodology of TI, to see how you´ve arrived at your conclusions (described on TI´s website):

“The TI Corruption Perceptions Index is a composite survey, reflecting the perceptions of business people and country analysts, both resident and non-resident. It draws on 16 different polls from 10 independent institutions. For a country to be included, it must feature in at least 3 polls.”

Fair enough. TI’s table says that eight polls were used to assess Iceland. After a minimal amount of digging, it seems that in fact there were only four different polls used, for different years. These were the World Competitive Yearbook (conducted by the International Institute for Management Development), Grey Area Dynamics (conducted by the Merchant International Group), the Global Competitiveness Report (conducted by the World Economic Forum) and Risks Ratings (conducted by World Markets Research Centre). And what do these polls do?

The World Competitive Yearbook criterion ranks countries around the world by, in their own words, “economic performance, government efficiency, business efficiency and infrastructure.”

Grey Area Dynamics (GAD) seeks to help investors analyse the stability of countries, saying on the methodology page of their website that GAD “is a unique programme designed to assess risks, weaknesses and threats.”

The Global Competitiveness Report describes itself as “a valuable tool for shaping economic policy and guiding investment decisions.”

Risk Ratings says that it “assesses the foreign direct investment (FDI) climate based on six individual ratings in each country: political, economic, legal, tax, operational and security.”

In other words, Iceland’s entire rating was based mostly on how well foreign investors can expect to do in our country. That being the criterion, it’s easy to see how some of the largest examples of corruption in Iceland managed to slip through the net.

Curiously enough, as you descend TI’s list of corrupt countries, you’ll notice a trend: the more corrupt the countries get, the more likely it is that more polls were used to rate them. Perhaps if Iceland was studied on a criterion based on more than just how much you can expect to cash in should you invest here, Iceland’s ranking would be slightly different.

This is not to say that there is much more corruption in Iceland than in other countries. But it can hardly be one of the least corrupt countries, and there is certainly room for improvement. And studies which make broad assessments based on narrow evidence certainly don’t help.

                                               Sincerely,

                                               _________________________________

                                               Sigurjón Þórðarson, MP

Athugasemdir

[Ína (IP-tala skráð) 24.4.2009 kl. 21:06]

Hafþór gefðu þig endilega fram til að bjarga Íslandi fyrst þú veist nákvæmlega hvernig á að gera það. Á meðan að Ísland á svona Beturvitringa eins og þig þá þurfum við engu að kvíða er það nokkuð?

[hafþór Skúlason (IP-tala skráð) 24.4.2009 kl. 21:51]

ég er ekki að gefa mig fram til þess að bjarga íslandi. ég er aftur á móti á móti svona krappi eins og f-listi er að boða,  ef menn geta ekki útfært þessar tillögur betur þá eru þetta einkins nýttar tillögur settar eingöngu fram til að reyna afla fylgis.  Sama má segja um hina flokkana. 

Samt fékk fólk á borgarafundum tækifæri að spyrja frambjóðendur. 

Nú er rekinn hræðslu áróður um að fólk yfirgefi landi ef allt snarbatnar ekki hið snarasta.  hvert á fólkið að flytja?  það er kreppa í öllum heiminum þannig að fólk hérna fær það ekki betra erlendis.  rökin eru fólksfækkun í færeyjum.  well það var kreppa í færeyjum fyrir um 15 árum en að sama skapi ekki heimskreppa þannig að fólk þar átti auðvelt með að flytja. 

X-F vill auka innkalla aflaheimildir og svo auka kvótann um 100.000 tonn.  ok X-F telur það þá rétt að ef ég fer út í búð og versli fyrir 1000 kr að þeir megi taka vöruna af mér þegar ég kem út úr búðinni.  X-F hefur aftur á móti ekkert talað um að taka inn þann pening sem þeir sem hafa selt sig úr greininni hafa fengið. 

X-F hefur ekki lausn um hvaða atvinnu það skapar ef 100.000 tonn mættu veiðast  umfram það sem er veitt í dag þar sem jú 50 þús + tonn fara óunninn erlendis.  hvað á þá að gera við þessi 100.000 tonn? 

X-F í örvæntingu vill virkja allt og á sama tíma og þeir gefa sig út fyrir að vera landsbúnaðarflokkur segir grétar öhöm (maður sem á alls ekki að vera á þingi) að landbúnaður hérna eigi að greiða hærra raforkuverð en alcoa álver.  frábært fyrir íslendinga ekki satt?

ína það er ekki nóg að koma með glymmer á ball.  ef kellinginn er ljót verður henni ekki riðið álver sama hvað hún setur á sig mikið glimmer.

[Helgi Jóhann Hauksson, 25.4.2009 kl. 04:13]

Gott að draga þetta fram. - Takk fyrir það.

[Helgi Jóhann Hauksson, 25.4.2009 kl. 04:14]

Þ.e. gott hjá þér Sigurjón og þakka þér Sigurjón.