Flipper pointed out that there is no mention of the NA on the list and also that it is not likely included in the Netherlands figures either. I get his point very well when he say's the NA are often included in these international reports, but not really. Although the NA is part of the Kingdom, it is unlikely any figures taken from here are included.
Also, the report is not that hard to read, some people seem to be confuded here. #1 is the LEAST corrupt, #160 the most corrupt. If you have a look at the scoring figures you will see that there is not much difference between most european countres, with scandinavian scoring high. Being #12, or #11 is a high score, meaning less corrupt than #13 and all the others to #160.
If you think Holland is more corrupt then you are invited to find the relevant news reports or studies online to back up your claim.
You are confused
Hady Nufyet | Tue, 2007-03-06 11:55
Flipper pointed out that there is no mention of the NA on the list and also that it is not likely included in the Netherlands figures either. I get his point very well when he say's the NA are often included in these international reports, but not really. Although the NA is part of the Kingdom, it is unlikely any figures taken from here are included.
Also, the report is not that hard to read, some people seem to be confuded here. #1 is the LEAST corrupt, #160 the most corrupt. If you have a look at the scoring figures you will see that there is not much difference between most european countres, with scandinavian scoring high. Being #12, or #11 is a high score, meaning less corrupt than #13 and all the others to #160.
If you think Holland is more corrupt then you are invited to find the relevant news reports or studies online to back up your claim.
Hady
»