Ancient Rome gave us concrete and the forerunner of the flushing toilet. The Romans also gave us tariffs on imported goods and created one of the most corrupt systems known to civilization.
These duties were called portoria and customs officials were responsible to ensure that portoria were paid and smugglers held accountable. But, then as now, some officials required a little extra for their own pockets.
From a research paper published by the Charles Sturt University in Australia: “Corruption continues to plague customs administrations around the world regardless of their level of development. No country is immune to the problem.” Filipinos have consistently rated the Bureau of Customs (BOC) the most corrupt of all government agencies.
There are several reasons Customs is a corruption cesspool. GAN Integrity Solutions, a Denmark-based firm, created its “Business Anti-Corruption Portal.” One section of its country corruption assessment is the “Customs Administration.”
For the Philippines, it reads, “Companies cite burdensome import procedures and corruption at the border as being among the most problematic factors for importing.” The Philippines is not alone. For Thailand: “Burdensome import procedures and corruption at the border are obstacles to doing business in Thailand.”
The more complicated the rules, the more potential corruption. Thailand: “Businesses voice concerns about the amount of discretionary power exercised by customs authorities and the arbitrary application of Thailand valuation methodology.” Import valuation rules that are subject to “interpretation” open the door for giving bonus money for favorable tax treatment.
In principle, the Customs office is not much different than buying something at your favorite supermarket. One grade of rice is P70 a kilo, and another is P45. All the cashier would need to do is incorrectly charge for the expensive rice in return for a kickback.
But if that happened constantly, the store would go out of business, costing employees their jobs and customers a place to buy goods. The Customs office will never “go out of business,” and both “customers” and employees know that. If the government is cheated out of taxes and customers and employees pocket the difference, it is a “victimless crime.” It takes a person with a high moral standard to avoid saying “no one got hurt.”
President Duterte’s plan to put the military in the BOC brings another point. Is the Customs office a “financial agency” or a “law-enforcement agency?”
The Philippine BOC is under the Department of Finance. Are Customs officers “revenue collectors” or law-enforcement officers? The BOC Mission is: “To increase revenue collection, to facilitate trade aligned with international practices and to strengthen efforts against smuggling and other customs fraud.”
The Customs and Excise Department (Hong Kong) is part of the Security Bureau of Hong Kong, and is to “to protect Hong Kong against smuggling and to protect and collect revenue on dutiable goods.”
The Thai Customs Department, under the Ministry of Finance, has the mission to “promote the national economy and collect revenue.” The Australian Border Force is “the frontline border law-enforcement agency and customs service, to protect Australia’s border and enable legitimate travel and trade.”
Is there any evidence that Customs, as a bureaucratic agency with that function, career goals and mindset is any less effective than as a law-enforcement agency with “Duty, Honor, Country” mentality? The answer is “yes” and “no.”
For nations with a history of being relatively corruption-free, like Germany and Singapore, it does not matter. However, the severe punishments that can come with violating the standards of a law-enforcement/military organization can “encourage” more professionalism in a customs agency.