PwC notes Thailand's economic crimes rate has improved

[webfact]

PwC notes Thailand's economic crimes rate has improved



BANGKOK, 9 May 2016 (NNT) – A global accounting firm has indicated the economic crimes situation in Thailand has shown signs of improvement following a concerted effort between the private and public sectors.

Price Waterhouse Coopers Consulting Thailand (PwC) has released its biannual global economic crimes survey, detailing the incidence of economic crimes by country. It noted that Thailand had its highest rate of survey respondents this year with 261, up from only 76 in previous years. It also pointed out that the range of organizations that took part in the survey grew with stock market listed companies joining private and public organizations to give responses.

The report showed signs of improvement in Thailand with the rate of corruption at 26 percent, down from a previous rate of 37 percent. Computer crimes however increased in line with global trends. In Thailand the rate of computer crimes was 24 percent against the world average of 32 percent.

Bribery tumbled in the Kingdom to only 19 percent from a previous 39 percent. PwC nonetheless reminded that the rate of bribery and graft impact investor sentiment and serve as an obstacle to Thailand’s economic growth.


-- NNT 2016-05-09

[marcusd]

What a pathetic survey

USELSS.

I could get more people at the local noodle shop to answer this

[Bob12345]

It also pointed out that the range of organizations that took part in the survey grew with stock market listed companies joining private and public organizations to give responses.

That, to me, tells that you cannot compare previous results with current results.

They clearly have surveyed a different group.

[lkv]

"Bribery tumbled in the Kingdom to only 19 percent from a previous 39 percent."

Aha. I see.

[Emster23]

self reporting surveys having to do with morality (I assume corruption, bribery, etc are considered at least a bit immoral) are notoriously inaccurate. Like asking a liar if they are a liar: "No, never. Always tell the truth". Similar to surveys about church attendance: if those who said they went actually did, churches would be overflowing, which they aren't.

[phoenixdoglover]

self reporting surveys having to do with morality (I assume corruption, bribery, etc are considered at least a bit immoral) are notoriously inaccurate. Like asking a liar if they are a liar: "No, never. Always tell the truth". Similar to surveys about church attendance: if those who said they went actually did, churches would be overflowing, which they aren't.

And 74% of the respondents had sex more than 5 times a week.

[skildpadden]

They asked 261 companies in Thailand out of the thousands of companies operating in Thailand. Do you think it was the CEO or someone else in high position who answered the questions or it was handed over to junior employee (hey, you wanted to work more with internationals, so here is an interesting thing you can do)?

[Prbkk]

One of the big 4 reporting on fraud, corruption, economic crimes, tax avoidance? Might as well be Dracula as CEO of the Blood Bank.

[marcusd]

"Bribery tumbled in the Kingdom to only 19 percent from a previous 39 percent."

Aha. I see.

I am waiting to see. hahaha Maybe they meant bribery GREW in the Kingdom so now there is honesty of only 19%??

[DrTuner]

"Bribery tumbled in the Kingdom to only 19 percent from a previous 39 percent."

Aha. I see.

My guess is PwC hired Thais to do the numbers.

[Hawk]

Bribery tumbled in the Kingdom to only 19 percent from a previous 39 percent."

Bribery is as rampant as ever it was, perhaps worse, but now its simply just too dangerous to speak out about it.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Hawk

[billd766]

How many of the posters above would eagerly have approved the report if it had said that the survey showed that corruption and bribery was much worse since the last PWC report?

Edited May 9, 2016 by billd766

[phoenixdoglover]

It also pointed out that the range of organizations that took part in the survey grew with stock market listed companies joining private and public organizations to give responses.

That, to me, tells that you cannot compare previous results with current results.

They clearly have surveyed a different group.

Indeed, I would expect the listed companies would be more averse to admitting knowledge of crimes....hence the lower numbers.

As you point out, year-to-year comparisons cannot be reliable. Poor form by the eager beaver consultants.

[billd766]

It also pointed out that the range of organizations that took part in the survey grew with stock market listed companies joining private and public organizations to give responses.

That, to me, tells that you cannot compare previous results with current results.

They clearly have surveyed a different group.

Indeed, I would expect the listed companies would be more averse to admitting knowledge of crimes....hence the lower numbers.

As you point out, year-to-year comparisons cannot be reliable. Poor form by the eager beaver consultants.

Did you believe the comparisons from the previous government or did you not believe them either?

Do you believe forecasts from outside organisations such as the World Bank, the IMF, Bloomberg etc?

PWC is also an outside organisation too.

[phoenixdoglover]

It also pointed out that the range of organizations that took part in the survey grew with stock market listed companies joining private and public organizations to give responses.

That, to me, tells that you cannot compare previous results with current results.

They clearly have surveyed a different group.

Indeed, I would expect the listed companies would be more averse to admitting knowledge of crimes....hence the lower numbers.

As you point out, year-to-year comparisons cannot be reliable. Poor form by the eager beaver consultants.

Did you believe the comparisons from the previous government or did you not believe them either?

Do you believe forecasts from outside organisations such as the World Bank, the IMF, Bloomberg etc?

PWC is also an outside organisation too.

I don't have the slightest idea what point you are trying to make.

To reiterate my point: an organization that conducts surveys, and substantially changes the survey methodology (for example by substantially changing the composition of respondents), should not be making comparisons across the two different surveys.