The enormity of the Satyam scandal has given prominent rebirth to a heavily contested debate, witnessed at times of most crises that have hit different parts of the world: the choice between the `let free market forces prevail' liberalism and a tight regulatory framework. Almost every democratic country witnesses such a poignant divide reflected in the oft-conflicting ideologies of hopeful-elects, indeed at a macro policy level. A similar divide is witnessed in the scintillating corporate sector in the rapidly growing Indian economy: one view is that when public invests its money in purchasing stocks in companies, reasoned decision is expected and the public ought to be responsible for the investment made and thereby bear all normal risks associated with such investment; the other compelling view is that the government or its agencies through legislation or other enforceable measures should be able to define certain rules of the game, rules not quite intended to define what the players (for the scope of this article, publicly-held companies) should do, but what they should not do. Such rules are referred to as `ethics' and a conglomeration of such ethics and governing principles comprise what is referred to as `corporate governance'. It does sound counterintuitive when one questions the need for a supervisory agency setting up rules for corporate behavior, when ideally those who create the companypromoters and stakeholdersshould be able to define the broad rules of the game.

The Analyst Magazine, US Sarbanes Oxley Act, Corporate Governance, Ethical Governance, Satyam Scandal, Corporate Sectors, Corporate Governance, Satyam Computer Services, Financial Crises, Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB, Financial Reporting, Foreign Institutional Investors, FIIs, Corporate Governance Code.