Public Sector Auditing, Accountability and Independence: a Study of ASEAN Countries

Abstract

Supreme audit institutions, such as the auditors‐general, are considered a crucial link in the accountability chain between parliament and the executive arm of government. The purpose of this study is to examine the enabling legislation of the supreme audit institutions of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member countries from a public sector accountability and independence perspective. Following on from INTOSAI (1998), English and Guthrie (2000) and De Martinis and Clark (2001), this study uses an accountability and independence framework to identify and compare the current legislation applicable to the supreme audit institutions of the ASEAN member countries with regard to independence, autonomy, mandate, funding issues, and related parliamentary powers. This study finds that while on average each jurisdiction has addressed slightly less than half the total number of issues under examination, there is considerable diversity with regard to the particular issues addressed. The study suggests policy implications to further strengthen the provisions for accountability and independence of supreme audit institutions through amendments to the enabling legislation of the various jurisdictions.

Entrepreneurship‐driven public management reforms in Southeast Asia: Critical implications for public accountability

“…In addition, the government audit institutions in all Southeast Asian countries have the authority to have access to financial accounts and records of ministries, state enterprises, statutory boards and local governments, to review budgets and financial transactions, and to maintain overall financial disciplines (Kiraka, Clark, & Martinis, 2002;Siddiquee, 2005).…”

“…On the other hand, there are Public Complaints Bureau in Malaysia, which examines public complaints and deals with citizens' grievances related to administrative decisions and actions (Carmona et al, 2011). In addition, the government audit institutions in all Southeast Asian countries have the authority to have access to financial accounts and records of ministries, state enterprises, statutory boards and local governments, to review budgets and financial transactions, and to maintain overall financial disciplines (Kiraka, Clark, & Martinis, 2002; Siddiquee, 2005).…”

Public sector audit history in Britain and Australia

“…Comparisons across international jurisdictions were made by Kiraka, Clark, and De Martinis () and Stevenson (). Both researchers found a considerable diversity of the provisions for auditor‐general independence and called for their further strengthening.…”

“…For example, in the light of the Commonwealth Joint Committee on Public Accounts reports (1989,1996), de Martinis and Clark (2003, p. 26) compared the enabling legislation of Australian auditors-general to highlight the extent to which the legislation provided 'the necessary platform for maintaining public sector accountability and supporting key requisites related to independence, mandate, and funding' . Coghill (2004, p. 15) Comparisons across international jurisdictions were made by Kiraka, Clark, andDe Martinis (2002) andStevenson (2002). Both researchers found a considerable diversity of the provisions for auditor-general independence and called for their further strengthening.…”

Public sector audit in the absence of political competition

“…Studies of SAIs have also been conducted in countries whose democratic traditions are less well-established. The independence of SAIs in ASEAN countries was evaluated by Kiraka et al (2003) and in Southern African countries by Clark et al (2003). These studies assessed SAI independence in terms of guidelines developed by the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) – an independent UN-auspice body comprising national SAIs.…”