CVC RECOVERS Rs 40 Cr FINE

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has recovered Rs.40.62 crore as fine from government departments and public sector undertakings while investigating corruption in 1,103 cases upto October.

How IT can help war on corruption...

Last weekend, over a candle-lit dinner at the Westview restaurant on the Maurya's rooftop in Delhi, Nandan Nilekani discussed with some of us the ins and outs of his ambitious book, "Imagining India," which is due to hit the markets this week. This tome is an effort by the co-chairman of Infosys Technologies - arguably the showpiece of reforming India - to turn an elder statesman in matters related to governance.

The scene was surreal, because we discussed poverty, corruption and such murky issues in a five-star ambience. Some loud Turkish music coming from the lawns provided a metaphorical contrast.

It is not easy to have a quiet dinner amidst the din, and it is not easy to carry big ideas, however rational and well-researched, into the hurly-burly of a huge society. But make no mistake, this dinner was no exercise in self-delusion or simple book promotion.

The well-researched book, in which Nilekani sounds more like a painstaking reporter or systematic programmer than an armchair intellectual, also provides valuable ideas on how information technology can turn the tide for the poor. Loaded with examples, Nilekani's book offers a blueprint in which IT can help fight corruption, reduce bureaucracy and make citizens empowered.

I have witnessed some as a journalist, such as the fingerprint-linked computerization of land records in Karnataka which has made it easy for farmers to get simple proofs of ownership and avoid exploitative encroachment. To my somewhat cynical question on how public-private partnerships (which he likes) can potentially over-ride transparency, he responded by pointing out to how IT can address it.

Nilekani recommends a "national grid" of information, much like interlinked power grids, and "national information utilities" (NIUs) which - functioning like the National Stock Exchange - can bring in transparency and ease of use. We had an example last week when the telecom regulator simply referred to its Internet site to answer a letter from the Central Vigilance Commissioner on questions about irregularities.

"NIUs would be databases that mass information, streamlining it for the government, and also making it more accessible and transparent for citizens," says Nilekani. "NIUs offer us a new kind of governance model - one that is scalable, with a single point of accountability, and where the amount of information available maintains a balance of power between the citizens and the government.

" Clearly, there is much more to IT than gizmos, corporate efficiency and software exports. And it has only just started.

CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX-INDIA

Transparency International India
Registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, Delhi
the coalition against corruption
BALWANTRAI MEHTA VIDYA BHAWAN -ASMA, GREATER KAILASH, PART II,
NEW DELHI-110 048, INDIA
Tel. : +91-11-29224519, 26460826 Telefax : 26460825,
Email : tiindia.newdelhi@gmail.com Website: www.transparencyindia.org

PRESS RELEASE

Corruption Perception Index – 2008

India – Marginally more corrupt in CPI-2008

New Delhi, Sept. 23:

India with an integrity score of 3.4 (versus 3.5 in 2007 and a ranking of all 85th instead of 72 out of 180 countries) is perceived to be marginally more corrupt than in the earlier two years when its integrity score was 3.3 and 3.5 respectively. India and China were on par till last year. This year China has remained at 72 with a marginally higher integrity score of 3.6.

With the exception of Bhutan, which has a score of 5.2,. India with 3.4 is still at the top of all CPI in South Asia.

One wonders whether bundles of currency notes being displayed in Parliament during the Confidence Vote Debate in July could have influenced such an assessment.

Transparency International India, has been pressing for the passage of the Lok Pal Bill, the Corrupt Public Servants (Forfeiture of Property) Bill and other progressive measures like the ratification of the UNCAC. Our political establishment has shown no will to address these measures which would influence India’s standing in the world community and show that it is serious about combating corruption.

Nearly half of the countries have scored three or even lower points; a clear indication that corruption is perceived to be rampant. Haiti, Iraq, Myanmar and Somalia have recorded the lowest score of less than 1.5.

The declining performance of some wealthy exporting countries in tackling corruption shows their failure to honor their commitment to put an end to the questionable methods of their companies in acquiring and managing domestic and overseas businesses. These methods include the role of money in politics.

Transparency International has found that a strong correlation between corruption and poverty continues to exist, jeopardizing the global fight against poverty and threatening to derail the UN Millennium Development Goals.

Some of TI India’s Initiatives:

Transparency International India (TII) has been actively engaged in the campaign against corruption, together with other civil society organizations like Lok Sewak Sangh, MKSS, Parivartan, Public Affairs Centre, Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Reforms, Citizens’ Forum Against Corruption, Association for Democratic Reforms, Lok Satta etc.



Integrity Pact (IP) : one of the possible reasons why India improved its integrity score in 2006 and 2007 is the success of the IP procedures aimed at bringing about greater transparency and integrity between buyer and seller, eliminating external interventions, improving a sense of ethics, and reducing the number of representations/complaints from bidders and contractors. TII has, therefore, been espousing the need for the adoption of the Integrity Pact (IP) in public contracting & procurements. Whereas 28 PSUs have so far agreed to implement it, regrettably the govt.-nominated directors on the boards of some of the PSUs have shown reluctance to do so. The power sector is the one area where not a single PSU has introduced the IP despite the advisories by the CVC.

It is heartening to note that the Ministry of Defence has adopted IP for all procurements of Rs. 100 crores and above and Rs. 20 crores for the Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) of the Ministry. So far, the defence sector’s track record has been marred by allegations of corrupt deals. If the planned procurement of defence equipment goes through the IP procedures, India’s CPI integrity score will receive a big boost.

Lok Pal : The bill to appoint a Lok Pal has been introduced in Parliament on eight occasions and allowed to lapse for reasons not difficult to understand.
This demonstrates total lack of political will. It is pertinent to mention that the Second Administrative Reforms Commission has also recommended the constitution of the Rashtriya Lokayukta.

Ratification of UNCAC: It is ironical that global financial centers, located in the wealthy countries with top scores on the CPI, allow corrupt officials to move, hide and invest their illegally gained wealth through offshore facilities and money laundering. However, TI India had been pursuing the matter with the concerned authorities. But there is no response. The issue would continue to be pursued as it is in the interest of the financial health of the country.

Admiral (Retd) R H Tahiliani
Chairman, Transparency International India
Website: www.transparencyindia.org

RTI- APPLICATION-LICHTENSTEIN'S LTG BANK

Dated: 28.05.2008

TO,
The Public Information Officer,
Prime Minister’s Office,
South Block, New Delhi

Sub : Application under Right to Information Act, 2005

Dear Sir,

Attached report of Times of India dated 21.05.2008 says that though the German
Government is willing to part with the list of account holders in Liechtenstein’s LTG Bank,
GOI is hesitant in accepting it. In this regard, please provide following information:

1. Has GOI already decided not to accept the above list? If yes, reason for the same.

2. Please provide copies of all correspondence between GOI and German Government in
this regard.

3. Please give a list of the Ministries/Departments dealing with this subject. Kindly forward
a copy of this RTI application to all these Ministries/Departments under section 6 (3) of
RTI Act. I would be grateful if I am informed of the same.

4. Please give a list of all the files in PMO dealing with this subject. I would like to
inspect these files, including file notings. Kindly intimate date and time when I can come
for inspection.

5. Section 2 (f) of RTI Act reads as follows:
“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents and
information relating to any part private body which can be accessed by a public authority
under any other law for the time being in force.

The list contains names of some private bodies. Since the GOI now has the power and
opportunity to obtain this list, the said list is covered under the definition of “information”.

It should therefore, be obtained by GOI and made public.

I am separately attaching Rs. 10/- postal order no. as application fee.

Your sincerely
Anupama Jha

Transparency International India
Lajpat Bhawan, Qr. No. IV,
Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi – 110024



Dated : 14.07.08

To
Mrs Pragya Sahay Saksena,
Director (FT&TR-I) & Appellate Authority,
Room No 908, Hudco Vishala Building,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi – 66

Sub: First appeal under RTI Act in the case of information regarding tax evaders from
German Government

Dear Madam,

I had sought certain information under RTI Act, copy of which is enclosed. In point no 2 of
the said application, I had sought copies of all correspondence between GOI and German
Government on the subject. In point no 5, I had requested the Indian Government to obtain the information about tax evaders from German Government and provide it to me under section 2(f) of RTI Act. However, information for these two points has not been provided to me.

The PIO, in his reply dated 25.6.08, has quoted the “Exchange of information” Article of the India/Germany DTAA to claim exemption from disclosure of information. The said article reads as follows:

ARTICLE 26 - Exchange of information - 1. The competent authorities of the
Contracting States shall exchange such information as is necessary for carrying out
the provisions of this Agreement. Any information received by a Contracting State
shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the
domestic laws of that State and shall be disclosed only to persons or authorities
(including courts and administrative bodies) involved in the assessment or collection
of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in
relation to, the taxes covered by this Agreement. Such persons or authorities shall use
the information only for such purposes. They may disclose the information in public
court proceedings or in judicial decisions.

2. In no case shall the provisions of paragraph 1 be construed so as to impose on a
Contracting State the obligation :

(a) to carry out administrative measures at variance with the laws and
administrative practice of that or of the other Contracting State ;

(b) to supply information which is not obtainable under the laws or in the
normal course of the administration of that or of the other Contracting State ;
and

(c) to supply information which would disclose any trade, business,
industrial, commercial or professional secret or trade process, or information,
the disclosure of which would be contrary to public policy (ordre public).
After quoting the said article, the PIO has sought exemption under clause (a) and (f) of
section 8(1) of RTI Act. Section 8(1)(a) reads as follows:

“information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State,
relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence.”

Section 8(1)(f) reads as follows:
“information received in confidence from foreign Government”

My objections to PIO’s refusal to provide information is as follows:

1. In point no 2, I have just sought copies of correspondence between Indian
Government and German Government. According to media reports, though the
German Government is willing to part with the list of accountholders in
Liechtenstein’s LTG Bank, the GOI is hesitant in accepting it. I am interested in
finding out what was the offer of the German Government? What was Indian
Government’s response thereto? How could this correspondence be covered under
Article 26 of DTAA? Did German Government write in their letter that they were
writing that letter under Article 26 and that the same should be treated as confidential?
Did German Government say that disclosure of the said letters would affect India’s
relations with the German Government? If not, then why is the Indian Government so
hesitant in disclosing it?

2. At point no 5, I have requested that the said list be obtained from German
Government and be disclosed. I am not commenting on this issue at this stage and
reserve the right to plead later after going through the said correspondence.
I would therefore request you to direct the PIO to provide the said correspondence
immediately. I would be grateful if I am provided an opportunity of personal hearing should you decide to reject my prayer.

With best regards
Yours sincerely,
(Anupama Jha)

Transparency International India,
Lajpat Bhawan,Qr.No IV
Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi - 110024

Driving Hyundai Into A Corner?

The authorities are minimising the gravity of the alleged cheating by Hyundai India, in underpricing cars and parts sold to its Korean parent, reports PC VINOJ

CARMAKER HYUNDAI has run into trouble after a Central Excise official accused it of cheating the government of an estimated Rs 3,000 crore in foreign exchange by undervaluing exports to its parent company. Manufacturing out of Sriperumbudur near Chennai, Hyundai Motor India is the country’s second-largest carmaker, selling about 3.3 lakh cars in 2007, of which about 50 percent were exports. Hyundai’s troubles with Central Excise Superintendent Samuel Wilson go back to 2004 when Wilson allegedly detected the company exporting cars and automobile components to its Korean parent company and other group entities at low prices. These were sometimes even below production cost, in violation of customs and excise rules and the Foreign Exchange Management Act.
Documents available with TEHELKA indicate that Wilson informed his seniors, but the department did not order an investigation. Based on Wilson’s reports, however, Fifth Pillar, a Chennai-based anti-corruption movement, has filed a case in the Madras High Court seeking a direction to the Revenue Department to take action against Hyundai. “It is one of the biggest scams in Indian corporate history. Top Revenue Department officials are in nexus with Hyundai to suppress the issue,” says activist T. Retna Pandian, who filed the petition.
According to Wilson, he got wind of the irregularities one month into his posting as superintendent of Central Excise, Poonamallee IV range. TEHELKA has a copy of the letter he wrote to Hyundai on August 9, 2004 — OC No:255/256/2004 — seeking clarifications on its exports pricing. The letter states: “It is observed from your export documents for thepast two years and also the present year, that you have been exporting cars, engine assemblies and spare parts to your parent company, viz., Hyundai Motor Corporation, Korea, and other group companies at nearly half the value of the cost of production.” The letter notes that the export price of a Santro in 2004 was less than the cost of producing a basic model of the car by sums ranging between Rs 58,000 and Rs 73,000. In the case of the Accent model, the difference ranged between Rs 1.22 lakh and Rs 1.49 lakh. Exported Santro engines were priced at $819.6 (approximately Rs 39,700 according to the then value), whereas the company had sold a defective engine of the same type for Rs 58,140 in the Indian market during the relevant period. The letter further points out that Hyundai was exporting engines for the Getz — a costlier model than the Santro — at $650 (at that time around Rs 30,000), far lower than even the Santro engine export price of $2,611 (then about Rs 1,25,200).
Hyundai’s reply was evasive, says Wilson. So, he wrote them another letter, reiterating the company’s violation of the rules. He also infor - med his senior, the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Poonamallee Division, and submitted about 30 documents to back his claim. The documents, copies of which are with TEHELKA, seek to establish the vast difference between Hyundai’s export invoices and the cost of its cars as furnished by it to the Excise Department. For instance, in a statement to the department regarding its 2002-03 prices for cars, Hyundai had quoted the price of the Accent GVS as Rs 3.51 lakh. But the car’s price was lower by about a lakh, in an application to the Excise Department (No MC-00200029/02-03, dated September 12, 2002), related to exports to group company Hyundai Motor Algerie in Algeria.
In December that year, Wilson wrote again to his immediate boss about the violations, and suggested that an investigation be ordered. It was more than a year before he received a reply,dated February 7, 2006, in which the officer quoted the commissioner’s observation on the matter. “What is the issue from the Central Excise angle? If there is no Central Excise angle, why in the first place an investigation was commenced by the division/range?”
AFTER HIS seniors didn’t support him, Wilson shot off letters to the Prime Minister, the Union Finance Minister and the Chairman of the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). In a letter on July 29, 2006, he apprised them of the issues in contention and pleaded for “appropriate action”. Two months later, he received a reply from Rahul Nangare, an Under Secretary in the CBEC, asking him to meet the Chief Commisioner, Central Excise, Chennai. But when Wilson met him, he was allegedly informed that the CBEC had already decided there was nothing in the issues he had raised. Wilson then approached the Central Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, and requested information regarding the action taken on his report to the Prime Minister and its present status. If the file was closed, he wanted to know the basis on which it had been done and the details of the order, along with the file notings.
The response he got was shocking. In a letter dated February 26, 2007, an official, Kamal Dayani, noted that Wilson’s petition “could not be acted upon as it got mixed up with other papers and could not be readily located”. He was advised to contact the Revenue Department on the matter. After a series of letters, Sushil Solanki, Commissioner, CBEC, New Delhi, wrote that Wilson’s representation did not stand the scrutiny of law. Added to this was the observation of Jayendranath, Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Chennai, who said that the “price variation between domestic clearances and exports is due to several duty concessions that accrue (to Hyundai) while exporting cars. Further, it is the prevalent practice adopted by most manufacturers-exporters to price their export at a competitive price, which is less than the domestic price.”
Wilson told TEHELKA, “It is a clever way of sidetracking the issue. I have always stated that the issue in contention relates to Hyundai’s export to parent and associate companies at below-production price, which is illegal. If it had exported cars to other parties at lower prices, it wouldn’t have been illegal.” Having ruffled too many feathers in the department, Wilson is now banking on legal and moral support from Fifth Pillar. According to activist lawyer Su Srivinvasan, who is appearing in the case on Fifth Pillar’s behalf, the case is due for hearing any day now, but none of the respondents had filed their counter affidavits even two months after notices were issued to them.
Jayendranath was not available when TEHELKA contacted his office. His secretary said DP Naidu, Additional Commissioner, Large Tax Payers Unit, was the officer dealing with Hyundai and directed Wilson to contact him. When contacted, Naidu refused to comment, saying the matter was in court. Hyundai Deputy General Manager (Corporate Communication), Rajiv Mitra, told TEHELKA: “The matter was investigated by the Commissioner of Excise and Customs and also by the Revenue Department. All allegations were found to be baseless. We consider these to be reliable and impartial authorities, and hence we do not feel that there is further need to comment on the matter.”
WRITER’S EMAILvinoj@tehelka.com
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 38, Dated Sept 27, 2008

Corruption in India and its remedies

In terms of changing public perception of corruption as a low-risk, high-reward activity to a high-risk, low-reward activity, India just has to make strong determination to combat corruption, given the various legislations and its legal structure.

HIGH LEVELS of corruption and its fallouts can be reduced only when an adequate anti-corruption strategy is made effective through strong political and bureaucratic will. And for this, the root causes of corruption have first to be diagnosed, and then eliminated or minimized. The root cause of bureaucratic corruption in the case of India and a few other Asian countries (Indonesia and China) basically originate from opportunities provided by the involvement of civil servants in the administration’s control, and final disposal of lucrative activities, disproportionate salaries, and weak and ineffective policing in terms of detection and the consequent punishments.

Apart from these causes, the politician-criminal-bureaucrat nexus existing merely for individual gain and survival, and for expanding their tentacles all over and showing no sincerity and reverence towards values, is also a crucial debilitating factor.

 

Apart from learning from the experience of other countries (like Singapore, the least corrupt country in Asia), in terms of changing public perception of corruption as ’a low-risk, high-reward’ activity to ’a high-risk, low-reward’ activity, and also basing the comprehensive anti-corruption strategy on the ’logic of corruption control’ in terms of focusing on the removal or minimization of incentives and opportunities that make individual corrupt, India just has to have strong determination to combat corruption, given the various legislations and its legal structure.

 

The only thing, which has to be ensured is proper, impartial, and unbiased use of various anti-corruption Acts to take strong, deterrent prompt and timely legal action against the offenders, irrespective of their political/bureaucratic connections, and money or muscle power.

Beyond that there is a widespread perception, and it is also widely seen in everyday life that India is increasingly becoming a soft state in terms of postponing or ignoring, diplomatically, the use or application of the given legal sanctions or discretions, if any, in crucial matters. This attitude requires a paradigm change starting with a tough treatment (within the given framework) of anyone involved directly or indirectly in corrupt practices.

 

The law enforcement authorities also have a crucial role to play in this context. Presently, they are viewed with suspicion. They have to evoke faith, not terror and have to change their mindset to be fully accountable to generate public confidence. Judiciary, which is presently under great strain, has to provide speedier and less expensive justice by enhancing its infrastructure and incorporating modern methods to activate the whole procedure.

 

These prescriptions combined with strong and undaunted political will and long-period macro anti-corruption strategy, will no doubt make India, in time to come, a less corruption-free society, and once the beginning is made, the end result would be highly rewarding.

 

 

CJ: Vinod Anand  (meri news)

 

 

State Vigilance departments should be made independent bodies

 

Ludhiana, September 20 The Anti-Corruption Federation of India (TACFI) has decided to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court for declaring the state vigilance departments as independent bodies. This was announced by Neeraj Chawla, the national president of TACFI, while addressing a press conference on Saturday.

Chawla said, “The state vigilance bodies should be made independent just like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). They should also be trained on the lines of the CBI.” The vigilance bodies presently work under their respective state governments.

When asked if the state governments were using the vigilance departments as a tool for setting scores with rival political parties, he said, “It is quite evident.”

He said that corruption had to be controlled from the grassroots level and moreover at an individual level. Chawla said, “Corruption is growing at a rapid pace. TACFI cannot control it all alone.”

 

Indian Express Sep 21,2008

HUMAN CHAIN FOR FREEDOM FROM CORRUPTION

   “Encourage, Enable and Empower Every Citizen of India to Eliminate Corruption at All Levels of Society”

HUMAN CHAIN

FOR

“FREEDOM FROM CORRUPTION”

 On Thursday October 2^nd 2008 at 9 am 

 Venue: Marina Beach (Service Road), Chennai.

 Opp to Vivekanandar Illam (Near Kannagi Statue)

Come and join hands with us in the fight against corruption

 

Say NO to BRIBE. Use ZERO Rupee Note. Make use of RTI.

2008 Corruption Perception Index

2008 CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX
country rank	country	2008 CPI  score	surveys used	confidence range
1	Denmark	9,3	6	9.1 - 9.4
1	New Zealand	9,3	6	9.2 - 9.5
1	Sweden	9,3	6	9.2 - 9.4
4	Singapore	9,2	9	9.0 - 9.3
5	Finland	9,0	6	8.4 - 9.4
5	Switzerland	9,0	6	8.7 - 9.2
7	Iceland	8,9	5	8.1 - 9.4
7	Netherlands	8,9	6	8.5 - 9.1
9	Australia	8,7	8	8.2 - 9.1
9	Canada	8,7	6	8.4 - 9.1
11	Luxembourg	8,3	6	7.8 - 8.8
12	Austria	8,1	6	7.6 - 8.6
12	Hong Kong	8,1	8	7.5 - 8.6
14	Germany	7,9	6	7.5 - 8.2
14	Norway	7,9	6	7.5 - 8.3
16	Ireland	7,7	6	7.5 - 7.9
16	United Kingdom	7,7	6	7.2 - 8.1
18	Belgium	7,3	6	7.2 - 7.4
18	Japan	7,3	8	7.0 - 7.6
18	USA	7,3	8	6.7 - 7.7
21	Saint Lucia	7,1	3	6.6 - 7.3
22	Barbados	7,0	4	6.5 - 7.3
23	Chile	6,9	7	6.5 - 7.2
23	France	6,9	6	6.5 - 7.3
23	Uruguay	6,9	5	6.5 - 7.2
26	Slovenia	6,7	8	6.5 - 7.0
27	Estonia	6,6	8	6.2 - 6.9
28	Qatar	6,5	4	5.6 - 7.0
28	Saint Vincent and the  Grenadines	6,5	3	4.7 - 7.3
28	Spain	6,5	6	5.7 - 6.9
31	Cyprus	6,4	3	5.9 - 6.8
32	Portugal	6,1	6	5.6 - 6.7
33	Dominica	6,0	3	4.7 - 6.8
33	Israel	6,0	6	5.6 - 6.3
35	United Arab Emirates	5,9	5	4.8 - 6.8
36	Botswana	5,8	6	5.2 - 6.4
36	Malta	5,8	4	5.3 - 6.3
36	Puerto Rico	5,8	4	5.0 - 6.6
39	Taiwan	5,7	9	5.4 - 6.0
40	South Korea	5,6	9	5.1 - 6.3
41	Mauritius	5,5	5	4.9 - 6.4
41	Oman	5,5	5	4.5 - 6.4
43	Bahrain	5,4	5	4.3 - 5.9
43	Macao	5,4	4	3.9 - 6.2
45	Bhutan	5,2	5	4.5 - 5.9
45	Czech Republic	5,2	8	4.8 - 5.9
47	Cape Verde	5,1	3	3.4 - 5.6
47	Costa Rica	5,1	5	4.8 - 5.3
47	Hungary	5,1	8	4.8 - 5.4
47	Jordan	5,1	7	4.0 - 6.2
47	Malaysia	5,1	9	4.5 - 5.7
52	Latvia	5,0	6	4.8 - 5.2
52	Slovakia	5,0	8	4.5 - 5.3
54	South Africa	4,9	8	4.5 - 5.1
55	Italy	4,8	6	4.0 - 5.5
55	Seychelles	4,8	4	3.7 - 5.9
57	Greece	4,7	6	4.2 - 5.0
58	Lithuania	4,6	8	4.1 - 5.2
58	Poland	4,6	8	4.0 - 5.2
58	Turkey	4,6	7	4.1 - 5.1
61	Namibia	4,5	6	3.8 - 5.1
62	Croatia	4,4	8	4.0 - 4.8
62	Samoa	4,4	3	3.4 - 4.8
62	Tunisia	4,4	6	3.5 - 5.5
65	Cuba	4,3	4	3.6 - 4.8
65	Kuwait	4,3	5	3.3 - 5.2
67	El Salvador	3,9	5	3.2 - 4.5
67	Georgia	3,9	7	3.2 - 4.6
67	Ghana	3,9	6	3.4 - 4.5
70	Colombia	3,8	7	3.3 - 4.5
70	Romania	3,8	8	3.4 - 4.2
72	Bulgaria	3,6	8	3.0 - 4.3
72	China	3,6	9	3.1 - 4.3
72	Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of)	3,6	6	2.9 - 4.3
72	Mexico	3,6	7	3.4 - 3.9
72	Peru	3,6	6	3.4 - 4.1
72	Suriname	3,6	4	3.3 - 4.0
72	Swaziland	3,6	4	2.9 - 4.3
72	Trinidad and Tobago	3,6	4	3.1 - 4.0
80	Brazil	3,5	7	3.2 - 4.0
80	Burkina Faso	3,5	7	2.9 - 4.2
80	Morocco	3,5	6	3.0 - 4.0
80	Saudi Arabia	3,5	5	3.0 - 3.9
80	Thailand	3,5	9	3.0 - 3.9
85	Albania	3,4	5	3.3 - 3.4
85	India	3,4	10	3.2 - 3.6
85	Madagascar	3,4	7	2.8 - 4.0
85	Montenegro	3,4	5	2-5 - 4.0
85	Panama	3,4	5	2.8 - 3.7
85	Senegal	3,4	7	2.9 - 4.0
85	Serbia	3,4	6	3.0 - 4.0
92	Algeria	3,2	6	2.9 - 3.4
92	Bosnia and Herzegovina	3,2	7	2.9 - 3.5
92	Lesotho	3,2	5	2.3 - 3.8
92	Sri Lanka	3,2	7	2.9 - 3.5
96	Benin	3,1	6	2.8 - 3.4
96	Gabon	3,1	4	2.8 - 3.3
96	Guatemala	3,1	5	2.3 - 4.0
96	Jamaica	3,1	5	2.8 - 3.3
96	Kiribati	3,1	3	2.5 - 3.4
96	Mali	3,1	6	2.8 - 3.3
102	Bolivia	3.0	6	2.8 - 3.2
102	Djibouti	3,0	4	2.2 - 3.3
102	Dominican Republic	3,0	5	2.7 - 3.2
102	Lebanon	3,0	4	2.2 - 3.6
102	Mongolia	3,0	7	2.6 - 3.3
102	Rwanda	3,0	5	2.7 - 3.2
102	Tanzania	3,0	7	2.5 - 3.3
109	Argentina	2,9	7	2.5 - 3.3
109	Armenia	2,9	7	2.6 - 3.1
109	Belize	2,9	3	1.8 - 3.7
109	Moldova	2,9	7	2.4 - 3.7
109	Solomon Islands	2,9	3	2.5 - 3.2
109	Vanuatu	2,9	3	2.5 - 3.2
115	Egypt	2,8	6	2.4 - 3.2
115	Malawi	2,8	6	2.4 - 3.1
115	Maldives	2,8	4	1.7 - 4.3
115	Mauritania	2,8	7	2.2 - 3.7
115	Niger	2,8	6	2.4 - 3.0
115	Zambia	2,8	7	2.5 - 3.0
121	Nepal	2,7	6	2.4 - 3.0
121	Nigeria	2,7	7	2.3 - 3.0
121	Sao Tome and Principe	2,7	3	2.1 - 3.1
121	Togo	2,7	6	1.9 - 3.7
121	Viet Nam	2,7	9	2.4 - 3.1
126	Eritrea	2,6	5	1.7 - 3.6
126	Ethiopia	2,6	7	2.2 - 2.9
126	Guyana	2,6	4	2.4 - 2.7
126	Honduras	2,6	6	2.3 - 2.9
126	Indonesia	2,6	10	2.3 - 2.9
126	Libya	2,6	5	2.2 - 3.0
126	Mozambique	2,6	7	2.4 - 2.9
126	Uganda	2,6	7	2.2 - 3.0
134	Comoros	2,5	3	1.9 - 3.0
134	Nicaragua	2,5	6	2.2 - 2.7
134	Pakistan	2,5	7	2.0 - 2.8
134	Ukraine	2,5	8	2.2 - 2.8
138	Liberia	2,4	4	1.8 - 2.8
138	Paraguay	2,4	5	2.0 - 2.7
138	Tonga	2,4	3	1.9 - 2.6
141	Cameroon	2,3	7	2.0 - 2.7
141	Iran	2,3	4	1.9 - 2.5
141	Philippines	2,3	9	2.1 - 2.5
141	Yemen	2,3	5	1.9 - 2.8
145	Kazakhstan	2,2	6	1.8 - 2.7
145	Timor-Leste	2,2	4	1.8 - 2.5
147	Bangladesh	2,1	7	1.7 - 2.4
147	Kenya	2,1	7	1.9 - 2.4
147	Russia	2,1	8	1.9 - 2.5
147	Syria	2,1	5	1.6 - 2.4
151	Belarus	2,0	5	1.6 - 2.5
151	Central African Republic	2,0	5	1.9 - 2.2
151	Côte d´Ivoire	2,0	6	1.7 - 2.5
151	Ecuador	2,0	5	1.8 - 2.2
151	Laos	2,0	6	1.6 - 2.3
151	Papua New Guinea	2,0	6	1.6 - 2.3
151	Taijikistan	2,0	8	1.7 - 2.3
158	Angola	1,9	6	1.5 - 2.2
158	Azerbaijan	1,9	8	1.7 - 2.1
158	Burundi	1,9	6	1.5 - 2.3
158	Congo, Republic	1,9	6	1.8 - 2.0
158	Gambia	1,9	5	1.5 - 2.4
158	Guinea-Bissau	1,9	3	1.8 - 2.0
158	Sierra Leone	1,9	5	1.8 - 2.0
158	Venezuela	1,9	7	1.8 - 2.0
166	Cambodia	1,8	7	1.7 - 1.9
166	Kyrgyzstan	1,8	7	1.7 - 1.9
166	Turkmenistan	1,8	5	1.5 - 2.2
166	Uzbekistan	1,8	8	1.5 - 2.2
166	Zimbabwe	1,8	7	1.5 - 2.1
171	Congo, Democratic Republic	1,7	6	1.6 - 1.9
171	Equatorial Guinea	1,7	4	1.5 - 1.8
173	Chad	1,6	6	1.5 - 1.7
173	Guinea	1,6	6	1.3 - 1.9
173	Sudan	1,6	6	1.5 - 1.7
176	Afghanistan	1,5	4	1.1 - 1.6
177	Haiti	1,4	4	1.1 - 1.7
178	Iraq	1,3	4	1.1 - 1.6
178	Myanmar	1,3	4	1.0 - 1.5
180	Somalia	1,0	4	0.5 - 1.4