.png)
Introduction
Corruption is a global phenomenon, affecting countries regardless of their economic development or political system. High levels of corruption within a country can undermine the foundations of governance, erode public trust, and hinder socio-economic progress. Despite its prevalence, Singapore stands out in its exceptional commitment and success in establishing a clean and transparent government.
In this Policy Explainer, we will explain what corruption is, explore the measures Singapore has adopted to tackle corruption, particularly in the public sector, and discuss whether Singapore has successfully tackled it.
What is Corruption?
Corruption can be broadly defined as the abuse of public office, personal power and influence for private gain. It can occur in various forms, involving either monetary or non-monetary gains:
Bribery: Offerings and acceptance of money, gifts or any form of lucrative benefits in exchange for a favour that is illegal, unethical, and constitutes a breach of trust. An example is paying a customs officer to allow vehicles to pass through border controls without undergoing necessary security checks.
Embezzlement: Theft, misuse or diversion of public resources by public officials that results in resource misallocation and deprivation for key sectors of the economy. These include falsifying financial records, creating fake invoices, or diverting money to personal bank accounts.
Extortion: Using coercion, violence or threats of force to obtain money and other resources.
Nepotism: Favoring one’s family members or friends by giving them jobs or positions of power for which they are not qualified or competent.
Patronage: Return of favours, such as job offerings, by a politician for political support to maintain their position in office.
Why Is It Important To Tackle Corruption?
The negative effects of corruption are significant and cannot be overlooked. According to the World Bank, the average income in countries with high levels of corruption is about a third of that of countries with low levels of corruption. Furthermore, government spending on education and health—key factors for raising living standards—is likely to be lower in countries where corruption is rampant. Therefore, governments need to enforce stringent policies against corruption.
An incorrupt and transparent government instils public confidence, which enhances trust and reliance on public servants to discharge their duties without bias. A clean corruption record also presents a conducive and level playing field that can enhance investors’ confidence and promote economic growth. As a small city-state, Singapore needs to take a strong stance against corruption for its survival and progress.
Anti-Corruption Strategies and Policies in Singapore
Since its independence, Singapore has adopted a wide range of strategies and policies to mitigate and combat corruption. Policies can be broadly classified into three groups—ones that deter corrupt behaviour, ones that reduce temptations to engage in corruption, and ones that have established a culture of integrity within the Government.
Deterring Corrupt Behaviour
One way to prevent corruption is to deter individuals from engaging in corruption. Broadly, this can achieved by increasing the likelihood of being caught for acting corruptly and increasing the severity of punishments if one is prosecuted for corruption.
The Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), enacted in 1960, acts as the primary anti-corruption law in Singapore. Before the PCA, Singapore’s primary anti-corruption law was the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance (POCO), implemented during the British colonial era. Under POCO, only three instances of corrupt behaviour were specified. Further, corruption was also a non-seizable offence that required arrest warrants. Together, this meant that the policing powers of law enforcement officers were severely limited.
In contrast, the PCA strengthened the Government’s legal power against corruption. For instance, harsher punishments enhanced the deterrence effect of anti-corruption efforts. According to the law, an individual convicted shall be liable to a fine up to S$100,000, imprisonment for a term of up to five years, or both, for each count of corruption. The PCA also ensures that individuals engaging in corrupt practices abroad are held accountable by allowing them to be taken to court in Singapore.
The formation of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was another pivotal step towards corruption deterrence in Singapore. The CPIB is an independent agency tasked with investigating and prosecuting any act of corruption across both public and private domains. Founded in 1952, it successfully replaced the anti-corruption branch of the colonial police’s Criminal Investigation Department. The previous department failed due to the prevalence of police corruption then. Equipped with greater policing powers from the PCA, CPIB enforcement officers can arrest, search premises or seize evidence without a warrant if there is credible information or reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed.
With these strict measures in place, individuals are less likely to succumb to corruption because it is now viewed as a high-risk act, i.e., there is a much higher chance for them to be caught in the act, and if they are, they will face severe monetary and non-monetary consequences.
Reducing Temptations for Corruption
Apart from deterring corruption, measures have been implemented to reduce the need to engage in corruption.
First, competitive public sector salaries have reduced the temptation for public servants to engage in corrupt practices. The Government often reviews its remuneration and performance bonuses scheme by benchmarking salaries paid to its officers and politicians against those of the private sector. According to the Public Service Division, the salary of an entry-level minister is pegged to the median income of the top 1,000 Singaporean income earners from a range of industries with a 40 per cent discount applied.
Second, Singapore’s emphasis on meritocracy has made corruption relatively less attractive as a means to enrich oneself. This is because citizens recognise that success can be achieved through talent and hard work. In turn, they find that they do not need to engage in dishonest behaviour to achieve the same ends, thereby reducing their propensity to act corruptly.
By addressing the underlying financial incentives for corruption and creating a system of equal opportunity within society, individuals face fewer temptations to engage in corrupt practices because the potential rewards are less significant.
Establishing a Culture of Integrity
Historically, Singapore’s political leaders have taken a strong stance against corruption. The Government established a reputation for being clean and honest, putting in place measures to punish corrupt public servants even in the 1970s.
These early efforts have not only led to a culture of transparency and integrity in Singapore’s public service, it has also nurtured generations of political leaders who champion clean governance. In a 2015 speech, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong emphasised the importance of integrity as a core value in the public service, especially amongst the leadership. In some ways, the high levels of integrity have come to characterise Singapore’s government and public service.
To build upon this culture of integrity, transparency and honesty are emphasised during the training of public servants. For example, the Civil Service College has several programmes in place to teach public servants how to make honest decisions in real-world settings. One instance is seen from a now-discontinued course titled “Managing Ethical Dilemmas Involving Financial Irregularities for Public Finance Officers,” where public servants are taught to protect themselves from threats which may compromise their integrity.
Public servant training also emphasises ethics education, especially for leaders. In their teaching, the Civil Service College has used various methods to teach public servants how to apply ethical decision-making in practical situations. It not only covers the legislation that guards against corruption but also tries to nurture stronger moral character in public servants.
Overall, this training aims to equip public servants with morals that can help them make honest decisions in their day-to-day work.
Evaluating Singapore's Anti-Corruption Measures
Successes
Singapore’s government and public service is one of the most transparent in the world. In the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2023, Singapore was ranked 3rd out of 142 countries for the absence of corruption. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2023 ranked Singapore 5th out of 180 countries (see Figure 1), highlighting the high level of trust experts and businesspeople have in the Singaporean public service.
In Asia, and especially in Southeast Asia, Singapore has emerged as a nation uniquely free from corruption. These successes can be attributed to Singapore’s robust framework of incentives, penalties, and culture that keep corruption in check.
The Case of S. Iswaran
However, no government is entirely free from corruption. Singapore has had a few high-profile cases which have damaged its reputation for clean and transparent governance.
The most high-profile case in recent years was that of former Minister of Transport S. Iswaran. While he was ultimately not charged for corruption, some Singaporeans interviewed on the matter continue to hold the view that what he did constitutes as corruption, contrary to the standards of integrity and transparency the Government sets for itself.
Ultimately, Isawaran was sentenced to a year in jail for obtaining S$403,300 of gifts from businessmen he had official dealings with. He was found guilty of violating Section 165 of the Penal Code, which penalises civil servants for accepting valuable gifts. The length of Iswaran’s stay in jail far exceeded the six to seven months sought by the prosecution. In his decision, Justice Vincent Hoong highlighted the damage to public trust this case had caused as Iswaran occupied an important position in the Government. In the Justice’s opinion, this called for a longer sentence.
It could be said that this case exposed potential gaps in Singapore’s existing anti-corruption measures. As a minister, Iswaran was likely aware of the legislative measures Singapore has on corruption and the Government’s strong anti-corruption stance. He was also a beneficiary of the competitive salary offered to ministers—at least S$46,750 monthly in addition to his S$16,000 monthly allowance as a Member of Parliament (MP). With all these measures in place, many found it surprising that Iswaran acted the way he did.
Notably, Iswaran was not charged under the PCA, Singapore’s main anti-corruption law. Instead, he was charged under a rarely-used section of the Penal Code. In response to queries, the Attorney-General Chambers cited challenges in proving corruption beyond a reasonable doubt in the trial, resulting in them dropping the PCA charges against Iswaran.
In this regard, the Iswaran case shines light on a potential weakness of the PCA—not only does the prosecution have to prove that the accused accepted gratification, but it must also prove that these bribes affected their judgment. That said, there have been cases where public servants have been found guilty of crimes under the PCA, like in 2019 when a town council manager was jailed for accepting S$86,000 in bribes. Moreover, the use of the Penal Code highlights the numerous levers the Government has in place to stamp out corruption and behaviour that fall short of corruption. The harsh sentence meted out also establishes a strict precedent against corruption.
Conversely, the resolution of this case can also be interpreted as a success of Singapore’s high standards of integrity. The harsh punishment handed out to Iswaran highlights the court’s attempt to restore public trust in the Government’s transparency. It also demonstrates that those in high office do not receive preferential treatment by the courts. This emboldens officials in law enforcement and prosecution to stamp out corruption when they see it, even if committed by senior public servants.
Conclusion
Singapore’s achievement in tackling corruption is greatly attributed to the effectiveness of its anti-corruption policies. While occasional instances of corrupt behaviour have surfaced, Singapore has largely been able to keep corruption at bay through the Government’s strong political will and stance against it. This commitment by political and public service leaders ensures that Singapore remains a global model for integrity and clean governance worth learning from and potentially emulating.
This Policy Explainer was written by members of MAJU. MAJU is a ground-up, fully youth-led organisation dedicated to empowering Singaporean youths in policy discourse and co-creation.
By promoting constructive dialogue and serving as a bridge between youths and the Government, we hope to drive the keMAJUan (progress!) of Singapore.
The citations to our Policy Explainers can be found in the PDF appended to this webpage.
Comentarios