[Vnbiz] Intel Vietnam refuses to pay bribes

Wed Aug 15 17:44:24 PDT 2007

Having a legal system in place is not the same as having the rule of law.
The rule of law, in short, is my quick answer to chi Lien's question.
The "ultimate victory of goodness" is a lofty goal on the order of the 
"from each according to his ability to each according to his needs", they 
are great goals to aspire to but are unlikely to happen on a global scale 
at this stage of human evolution.  If any force is poweful enough to try 
to impose either, we end up with a theocracy or communism, each with their 
attendant problems.
In corrupt countries that have laws, there are those in the ruling class 
that consider themselves above the law, hence the is no rule of laws.
You wouldn't have had to argue with your friends if the rule of law was in 
place and none one is operating outside or above it.
Singaporean have a good sense of ethics.  The question is where does that 
sense of ethics came from.  My contention is the rule of law (that was and 
is considered so draconian as to infringe on individual freedom/civil 
liberty).  How do you explain the decidedly unethical behavior of some 
Singaporeans when removed from Singaporean legal proper?  A sudden heart 
replacement operation?  How do you explain ethical American companies 
belly-aching  about how the FCPA limits them from being corrupted?
There is nothing wrong with being ethical.
The issue I have is when you discuss building ethics moralistic terms, 
even confusing it with professional codes of ethics are being more than 
the set of rules that they are.  I don't see that anyone in this forum is 
resisting building ethics or contending that it is not important or 
necessary.  I would be interested in seeing how you came to that 
conclusion.  On the other hand, you had earlier confused the rule of law 
with just a bunch of laws. 
I am glad we agreed that being ethical in business is practical. 
Logically, that means that we may not be/cannot afford to be ethical  in 
business anymore when it is no longer practical.  In environments that do 
not support being ethical, corruption is easily understood in this 
context.  The solution is to fix the environment, ie, institute the rule 
of law first.  Training the heart will then be much more practical and 
doable because it doesn't conflict with the reality of survival, and can 
be accomplished through general education.  Conversely, no amount of heart 
training can overcome the forces of corruption when there is no rule of 
law or respect for it.

"Tran Dinh Hoanh" <tdhoanh at gmail.com> 
Sent by: vnbiz-bounces at mail.saigon.com
08/15/2007 07:16 PM
Please respond to
vnbiz at vietlinks.net

To
vnbiz at vietlinks.net
cc

Subject
Re: [Vnbiz] Intel Vietnam refuses to pay bribes

[ Vietnam Business Forum ]

Dear Brother Phong & CACC,

If you look around the world, most corrupt countries have all the elements 
of a legal system in place, not just South Vietnam.  About Singapore, why 
can't we think that the Singaporeans have a very good sense of ethics? 
They are very ethical to me, the way I observe. 

But here is the real question:  I have no problem with building law and 
the legal system and the economic system.  I have talked about these 
issues since ever in this forum and else where.

But why do we have problem when I talk about ethics?  What is wrong with 
being ethical?  In the US and around the world, we have codes of ethics 
for lawyers, for doctors, for dentists, accountants, for engineers, for 
architects, for real estate agents, for business, for all kinds of 
professionals. 

Why when talking about building ethics in Vietnam, do I sense such a 
strong resistance to ethics.  Some people even have the intelligence to 
say that ethics is not necessary. Are we really saying that ethics is not 
necessary for a person, for a country? 

It isn't law versus ethics.  The way I see it, it is law AND ethics. 
What's wrong with it?  What's wrong with being ethical?

(BTW, although I am idealistic, being ethical is not idealism as brother 
Phong said.  It is absolutely practical.  Although I may have lost 
millions of dollars by rejecting corrupt deals in Vietnam, I've built my 
million-dollar company in the US by, among other things, relying heavily 
on ethical practices and training my people to act honestly and 
ethically). 

Have a great day!

Hoanh

On 8/15/07, Hong-Phong_Pho at ita.doc.gov <Hong-Phong_Pho at ita.doc.gov > 
wrote: 
[ Vietnam Business Forum ]

Dear anh Hoanh, 
The pre-75 South Vietnam experience is hardly a model of the rule of law 
to spend too much time pondering over.  To the degree that any of the 3 
elements I cited are in place (they weren't), they we simply overwhelmed 
by the tremendous resources (money) that seemingly fell from the sky. I 
don't know if we can say that the people then were more ethical, but the 
rewards quickly outweight the risks. 
Now consider Singapore.  Are the people there any more ethical than their 
regional neighbors?  There are stories of law-abiding Singaporean citizens 
going offshore to "blow off steam".  Same person, different behaviors in 
different environments. 
Hence the rule of law.  That's how Mr. Lee and his colleague built, almost 
overnight, the "ethical foundation" of Singaporean society. 
The rule of law (not the same as just having lots of laws) controls those 
who are tempted by corruption provides refuge for those who do not wish to 
engage in corruption. 
Back to Vietnam. 
In pre-75 South Vietnam, many American military contractors actively or 
indirectly contributed to corruption in a big way while pointing fingers 
at the very people helped corrupt.  There were simply too much money 
floating around.  And it's war time.  And it was pre FCPA. 
 I don't know what the lawyers for the chemical companies would have 
advised on producing and supplying agent orange and other defoliants to 
the U.S. military, knowing that dioxin is highly toxic and a carcinogent. 
Perhaps they would say it's not illegal, but is it ethical?  Or perhaps 
they just plead ignorance of chemistry! 
I respect your idealism in building the "voluntary sense of right and 
wrong in people's heart".  I think it has always been there, albeit 
greatly disillusioned.  Many a good communist cadres spent all their 
youth, energy, and talent on building lofty ideals, including a society 
free of corruption and exploitation.  Their sand castle lacked the 
foundation of the rule of law and the protection of checks and balance, 
and could not withstand the first challenges of the free market economy. 
Best,  HPP 

-- 
Tran Dinh Hoanh, Esq., LLB, JD
Washington DC _______________________________________________
To subscribe/unsubscribe, please contact admins at
vnbizadmin at vietlinks.net
Info at http://mail.saigon.com/mailman/listinfo/vnbiz
Archive at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vnbiz/
or http://groups-beta.google.com/group/VNBIZforum/
or http://mail.saigon.com/pipermail/vnbiz

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.saigon.com/pipermail/vnbiz/attachments/20070815/a43b77c6/attachment.html 