Search results

There is no comparative research into the Chinese (PSB) police and the Indian police generally and none on police corruption in particular. This paper aims to show what police corruption and malpractices look like in China and India and offer up some suggestions as to why wide spread malpractices persists.

Horses’ mouth qualitative research is supported by primary public and police survey data.

There are many similarities in corruption “tricks of the trade” in both the countries, as well as in the reasons for its persistence. However, petty police corruption is more pervasive and less subtle in India. But both the forces suffer from politicization of policing, criminalization of politics, culture of tolerance towards substantive justice over procedural justice and master/servant attitude towards the public. In China, the police have administrative powers beyond criminal legislation, and Indian corruption is underscored by the culture of “Jugaad”.

This is largely a qualitative research, so the usual arguments regarding limitations on its generalization applies. However, the insights in this article may provide some understanding of this under-researched topic and may stimulate further research in this field. It may also offer pointers to potential solutions for practitioners and policymakers.

By providing data on what corruption looks like and why it persists, policymakers can use the findings of this study to develop measures to address them. In so doing they would create a police service in India and China that is less prone to corruption and misconduct, thereby increasing public trust in these institutions.

Peace and security is a prerequisite condition for economic and social modernization through the rule of law. Reform of the police is a critical success factor in this process. Therefore, by reforming the police, India and China stand a better chance of eradicating poverty and reducing inequality.

There is little in the way of research into the Chinese Police and none into Chinese police corruption. There is also no comparative study of the Chinese and Indian police generally and none on police corruption in particular.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA 1998) was the model for South Africa’s Protected Disclosures Act 2000 and has been regarded as an exemplary piece of legislation in debates in other countries, for example, the Netherlands, New Zealand and some Australian states. However, in the light of international developments since PIDA 1998 came into force, in particular the principles contained in the Council of Europe Recommendation and the enactment of more sophisticated statutes elsewhere, it is contended that the UK legislation is no longer fit for purpose. The purpose of this article is to make suggestions for reform in the light of developments elsewhere.

This paper assesses the operation of PIDA 1998 (as amended) in the light of the case law and empirical research.

The paper makes detailed suggestions for reform in relation to both the law and practice of whistleblowing.

The paper focuses on the main issues raised by the UK whistleblowing provisions. It has implications both nationally and internationally.

It is hoped that the recommendations will provoke thought about legislative reforms and changes in management practices.

If the reforms suggested in the paper are enacted, it is expected that workers will be more confident about raising concerns about wrongdoing. This should benefit society generally in that economic inefficiencies can be dealt with and citizens can enjoy greater freedom of speech.

This review of the UK legislation over 19 years should be of value to academics, students, legal and management practitioners both at home and abroad.