Singapore transformed from a corruption-prone society during the colonial era (where graft was widespread, especially in police and public services) to one of the world’s least corrupt nations through sustained, comprehensive efforts starting in the late 1950s. This success is evidenced by its consistent top rankings on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (e.g., 3rd globally in recent years with scores around 84/100).
The key steps, driven primarily by strong political leadership under founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and the People’s Action Party (PAP) after their 1959 election victory, include:
- Strong political will and leadership commitment Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP made anti-corruption a core priority from 1959, viewing it as essential for survival and development. They adopted a zero-tolerance policy, leading by example (e.g., refusing personal gifts) and fostering a culture of integrity. This unwavering commitment from the top—sustained across governments—created an environment where corruption was not tolerated at any level.
- Strengthening the independent anti-corruption agency The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was established in 1952 (originally to address police corruption after a major opium hijacking scandal) but gained real power post-1959. It became fully independent, reporting directly to the Prime Minister’s Office, with adequate funding, staff, and autonomy to investigate without interference—even high-ranking officials.
- Enacting and enhancing comprehensive anti-corruption laws In 1960, the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) was passed, replacing weaker colonial laws. It broadly defines corruption (including private sector bribery), imposes severe penalties (fines up to S$100,000, up to 7 years imprisonment, or both), shifts burden of proof in some cases, and gives CPIB strong investigative powers (e.g., access to financial records, arrest without warrant). Amendments over decades expanded its scope, including extraterritorial application and confiscation of benefits.
- Impartial and swift enforcement Laws are enforced rigorously without fear or favor—corrupt officials, regardless of status (e.g., ministers like Teh Cheang Wan in 1986 or S. Iswaran in recent cases), are investigated and prosecuted. This deterrence, combined with efficient processes, ensures quick action and no cover-ups.
- Reducing incentives and opportunities for corruption Public servants (including ministers and civil servants) receive competitive salaries benchmarked to private sector levels to minimize temptation. Meritocracy in hiring/promotion, streamlined bureaucracy to cut red tape, and regular reviews of procedures reduce corruption-prone loopholes.
- Building public support and education Ongoing prevention efforts include public outreach, school programs, partnerships (e.g., with businesses and media), and encouraging reporting via anonymous channels. This has ingrained a societal norm of zero tolerance.
These steps form an interconnected framework: political will enables effective laws and enforcement, while high salaries and efficiency reduce motives and opportunities. Singapore’s approach proves that corruption can be controlled with consistent implementation, though vigilance is required as it can never be fully eradicated.
Grok.com:@LN Kanungo
Leave a Reply