Singapore
is one of the cleanest, corruption free countries in the world. In Singapore,
there is a very strong anti-corruption policy, which recognizes that corruption
control:
a.
has
a strategic significance in national development;
b.
provides a source of competitive
advantage. Investors are happy doing business if there is an efficient, clean
and transparent environment without being encumbered by bribery;
c c. is part and parcel of good
governance for the common good of the citizens;
d. contributes
to the meritocratic ideal, leveling the playing field because unchecked corruption has
the following detrimental effects;
e. distorts accepted and cherished values,
particularly achievement orientedness and diligence;
f. undermines fairness and
stability in society;
g. subverts the course of
justice and weakens the rule of law especially if bribes are paid to prevent
law enforcement, there will be contempt and hostility towards authority.
In Singapore’s relentless
fight against corruption it has the following measures in place:
Legislative Measures
against Corruption:
In 1959, when Singapore
attained self-government, it inherited from the British a Government service where
corruption was quite rampant. Syndicated corruption and greasing the palms of
public officers in return for the services was common. Enforcement action then
was difficult against the corrupt because of:
a 1. weak law;
2. gathering of evidence was
difficult because of the weak anti-corruption law and this had resulted in many
corrupt public officers getting away with their crime
c 3. the people generally were
less educated and did not know their rights. They were submissive in their
dealings with public officers in authority and were accustomed to unfair
treatment by them;
d 4. public officers were not
adequately paid compared with those in the private sector.
e 5. CPIB officers then were
drawn from the Singapore Police Force on short secondment.
They were not fully
committed to combating corruption especially when it involved their fellow
police officers. Furthermore, the short secondment was disruptive as before an
investigation could be completed, they were already due for posting.
After independence the Singaporean
political leaders amended the laws to give more powers to the CPIB officers. To
win the public trust and the confidence of the people of Singapore, the leaders
took it upon themselves to set good examples for public officers to follow.
They created a climate of honesty and integrity. Some of the examples set were:
a. they divested
themselves from any involvement in financial or commercial ties;
b. they reported for work
earlier than their subordinates.
Besides setting good
examples, legislative measures were also taken by the new political leaders to
ensure that the anti-corruption law was adequate and provided sufficient punishments
for corrupt offenders
Administrative Measures:
Along with the legislative
measures, administrative measures were also taken to reduce the chances of
public officers from getting involved in corruption and wrong doings and making
the CPIB more effective. These measures included:
a. replacing seconded
police officers with permanent civilian investigators;
b. giving the CPIB a free
hand to act without fear or favor against anyone irrespective of his social
status, political affiliation, color or creed;
c. removing opportunities
for corruption in government work procedures;
d. streamlining cumbersome
administrative procedures;
e. slashing down excessive
red tape which provides opportunities for corruption;
f. reviewing public
officers’ salaries regularly to ensure that they are paid adequately and
comparable to that of the private sector;
g. reminding government
contractors at the time when contracts are signed that bribing public officers
administering the contracts may render their contracts to be terminated. A
clause to this effect forms part of the contract;
h. a contractor who gives
bribe will be debarred for a period of five years from any public contract
unless he co-operates fully with the authority.
Preventive Guidelines:
Strict guidelines in the
form of instructions were laid down in the Singapore government instruction
manual to prevent public officers from getting involved in
corruption or wrongdoings.
Some of the instructions are:
a. a public officer cannot
borrow money from, or in any way put himself under a
financial obligation to
any person who is in any way under his official authority or has official
dealings with him;
b. a public officer cannot
use any official information to further his private interest;
c. a public officer is
required to declare his assets at his first appointment and subsequently annually;
d. a public officer cannot
engage in trade or business or undertake any part-time employment without approval;
e. a public officer cannot
receive entertainment from members of public;
f. a public officer cannot
accept any share issued by a company offered to him through a private placement
without the approval of the Permanent Secretary (Public Service).
Action against corrupt
government officers:
Depending on the
availability of evidence, a corrupt public officer is dealt with in any one of
the two ways:
a. charging him in court
if there is sufficient evidence for court prosecution;
b. charging him
departmentally if there is insufficient evidence for court
prosecution.
Court Punishment for
Corruption:
In Singapore, both the
giver and the receiver of a bribe are guilty of corruption and are liable to
the same punishment. Any person who is convicted of a corruption offence can be
fined up to $100,000 or sentenced to imprisonment of up to five years or to
both. If the offence relates to a government contract or involves a Member of
Parliament or a member of public body, the term of imprisonment can be
increased to seven years. Besides fine and imprisonment, the person convicted
of corruption offence will be ordered by the court to return the amount of
bribe, which he had accepted in the form of a penalty. In addition to the
punishment, which the court may impose on a convicted person, the court is also
empowered to order the confiscation of the property obtained by corrupt
offenders.
Departmental Punishment
for Corruption:
A public officer who is
convicted in court of a corruption offence will also lose his job and if he is
a pensionable officer, his pension and other benefits as well. He will also be debarred
from any future public appointment. A public officer who is convicted of a
departmental charge may, depending on the severity of the charge, receive one
or a combination of the following punishments:
-dismissal from the service;
-reduction in rank;
-stoppage or
deferment of increment;
-fine or
reprimand;
-retirement
in the public interest.
Roles
of Government Agencies:
The responsibility of
combating corruption does not lie with the CPIB alone. Whilst the bureau has
been entrusted with the responsibility of investigating cases of corruption,
the primary responsibility of prevention of corruption lies with the respective
department. A Permanent Secretary of a Ministry is responsible for ensuring
that each department under him has a committee to review anti-corruption
measures and his responsibilities in combating corruption are incorporated in
the Government Instruction Manuals. He is to ensure that reasonable and
adequate measures are taken to prevent corrupt practices including:
a. improving work methods
and procedures;
b. improving cumbersome
work methods and procedures to avoid delay in granting permits, licences, etc;
c. reviewing procedures,
which promote corrupt practices to prevent them from occurring;
d. devising control system
to ensure junior officers who are given power to make decision have not abused
such powers;
e. ensuring that
supervisors and administrative staff take anti-corruption measures seriously
and that they are not lax in checking and reporting their subordinates;
f. rotating the officers
periodically;
g. ensuring that besides
routine checks, surprise checks are carried out systematically and regularly by
senior officers as part of their duties and
h.
reviewing anti-corruption measures.
CONCLUSION
No country in the world
today can claim to be free from corruption. However, Singapore has managed to
control this problem quite successfully. The success of fighting corruption in
Singapore can be attributed to:
a. the political leaders
who are fully committed to fight against corruption;
b. the anti-corruption
laws which provide sufficient deterrence;
c. the support of the
members of the public as well as senior public officers; and
the last, but not the
least;
d. the relentless efforts of the CPIB to
investigate all cases of corruption without any fear or favor.
Posts
