Introduction

In order to discuss about who should be held accountable in the four financial scandals/crisis which is the subjects of this paper, this paper proposes to discuss the concept of accountability first. According to Johnson (2011,p.69),at the most basic level, system and practices of accountability involve the idea that individuals and collectivities (organizations, companies, agencies,countries) are expected to behave in particular ways-according to norms, standards, expectations or principles. When an individual or a collective entity fails to adhere to a norm, the individual or organization is expected to explain, that is to give an account, and depending on the account given, the individual or organization may be liable to certain consequences such as shame,mistrust, punishment,compensation,further scrutiny etc.

Accountability may be retrospective or prospective. In retrospective accountability, one is held to account for one's actions or inactions after they have occurred. Usually, retrospective accountability operates when something untoward has happened, in other words, something that is not supposed to happen has happened (Johnson, 2011,p 69). This paper will deal with only this type of accountability of the actors in all four scandals/crisis. In so doing, this paper will approach the scandals/crisis chronologically, beginning with the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. 1997 Asian Financial Crisis

The so called 1997 Asian financial crisis was brought about by one contagious event which eventually spread region-wide. According to Ariff and Khalid (2000,p.34), the contagious event which was responsible for the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis was the dramatic and rapid decline in the volatility of the Thai Baht. In July 2, 1997, after four years of defending the weakening Baht, the Bank of Thailand announced that it will let the market dictate the value of the Baht. Immediately, the Baht losses 10% of its pre-float value (Ariff & Khalid,2000,p.35). What began as a national crisis in Thailand then affected Thailand immediate neighbours inn Asia first, then spread to the stock markets and then globally. Barely three weeks after Thailand's predicaments, in July 24, 1997 the Malaysian Ringgit comes under speculative attack. By the end of 1998, the Asian financial crisis began to assume a global dimension and its effect became more serious with the political destabilization in several affected countries, in particular Indonesia.

Literatures available on the 1997 Asian financial crises put the blame to currency traders as the main culprits behind the crisis. Before the 1997 financial crisis, the only country in Asia that had real economic difficulty was Thailand. In 1996, Thailand was already in serious recession due to the collapse of the real estate markets. International currency speculators then rightly decided that the Thai Baht was overvalued and began a speculative attack on the Thai Baht in the foreign currency exchange market (Lee,1999,p.327). The currency speculators attacked all of Asian currencies (except Hong Kong) after the fall of Thai Baht . (Mankiw and Taylor,2006,p.757). A speculative attack in the foreign currency exchange markets occurs when a government is trying to maintain the value of a currency while at the same time international currency speculators start selling the currency heavily to force the government to let the value of the currency falls.

The following will explain the mechanism of the attack. The initial reaction of the government to a speculative attack will be to raise interest rates. But if the speculators continue to sell the currency, then in order to stop its value falling, the government will have to intervene in the foreign exchange market and buy its own currency, using up its reserves of foreign currency to do so. if the speculators carry on selling the currency, the government will eventually run out of reserves and finally will have to let the value of their currency fall in the foreign currency exchange market. The speculators will then will be able to buy back all of the currency that they sold and make a huge profit (Mankiw and Taylor,2006,p.757).

For the question on who should be brought to justice for the 1997 Asian financial crisis, this paper maintains that the then Malaysias Prime Minister, Dato Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed was right when he urged the world to criminalize the currency speculators, in particular, George Soros. In relation to predicaments brought about by the currency speculators, Dato Seri Dr. Mahathir had these to say : We have spent our time-thirty to forty years-building up our nation, giving our people a good life, raising their income level,and this man in a few days destroyed everything.and the world doesnt [even] regard him as criminal [when in fact, he is] just as much [a criminal] as people who produce and distribute drugs are criminals, they destroy nations, undermines economies (Zonis, Lefkovitz and Wilkin,2003,p.89).

According to Lee (1999,p.327), in order to avoid the occurrence of speculative attack on their currency, the governments concerned should consider adopting currency board system.The currency board system is a monetary authority that issues notes and coins convertible into a foreign anchor currency such as US dollar at a truly fixed rate. This way speculation on the countrys currency can be avoided.3