The Singapore experience

Table of Contents

Introduction & Summary A Teaser Background Advocating Democracy Democracy’s vulnerabilities Overall defensive strategy The scale of the problem The legal status of politicians? The case for licensing politicians The case against licensing politicians The requirements for license-a statuary body to manage the process The requirements for license-the process The application and length of validity Eligibility to holding a licence Licences: non-renewal, suspensions and cancellations The requirements for license-the standards to be attained The requirements for license-the criteria Awarding or refusing the licence Political legal liability Educational program The Singapore experience Promotion and dissemination References Appendix 1 SWOT Analysis of UK democracy post 2024 UK general election Appendix 2. Governance and misconduct arrangements in certain professions Appendix 3: Table of evidence required for each criterion Appendix 4: Process for converting Criteria satisfied to Licence granting

Singapore's political system stands as a global benchmark for its thorough anti-corruption measures, showcasing a history of unwavering commitment to integrity and transparency. Transparency International’s annual survey of the Corruption Perception Index in 2024 places Singapore in third place out of the 180 countries being tested. (21) The methodology of the index production has been criticised on a number of counts. It measures perceptions of corruption rather than actual corruption. It surveys only government corruption, and not private corruption. While Singapore took the path of anti-corruption legislation, and not the licensing of its politicians, for our purposes this serves us well. It provides evidence that a rigorous policy to promote the quality of parliamentarians and government ministers, gives national dividends. 

There were 6 components to the strategy. They were:

  • Political will
  • Legislation
  • Adjudication
  • Enforcement
  • Public Administration
  • Zero tolerance

The nation's journey towards a corruption-free society began in earnest by the founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, when the People’s Action Party (PAP) was elected to government in 1959. (22) They did not gain full independence until August 1965 but initially was a self-governing enclave of Malaysia They knew that to be a success the nation at all levels of society needed to be incorruptible and for the government to be meritocratic. This has been maintained throughout and 60 years later it is engrained into the Singapore culture.

There are two pieces of legislation key to fighting corruption. They are the Prevention of Corruption Act(PCA), and the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA). Between the giving and receiving of bribes is outlawed in both the public and private sectors. The CDSA, permits the confiscation of ill-gotten gains from corrupt offenders. 

The judiciary is independent and appointed by means similar to that in the UK. The Chief Justice is appointed by the President but following the advice of the Prime Minister and the Council of Presidential Advisers. District judges and magistrates are appointed by the President with advice from the Chief Justice. 

The sole agency responsible for combating corruption in Singapore is the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). The CPIB works with various government agencies and private organisations to gather evidence and obtain information. Its single remit is to fight corruption vigorously and to enforce the tough anti-corruption laws impartially. The CPIB operates independently from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) though it does report directly to it. 

The ethos pervades throughout the Singapore Public Administration. There is a code of conduct that guides the public officers. It is equivalent to “Good Medical Practice” guiding UK Doctors (23) or the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs for UK solicitors (24). There are frequent system reviews within the CPIB and public service to improve operative efficiency and reduce opportunity for corruption.

The attitudes that are upheld are integrity, incorruptibility and transparency with zero tolerance to that which is not.

Putting it all together all public servants are trained into observing the anti-corruption rules. So that it becomes second nature. They become readily perceptive to threats or deviations from the highest standard. With severe penalties the risk reward balance is very much based against corruption, with deterrence being prominent. 

Singapore benefitted by insisting on having its officers and politicians above reproach. It did not have to reverse a culture of corruption. 

In contrast to Singapore’s 3rd place the UK is placed 30th on the CPI, so clearly not bad. But we do not have zero tolerance with too many people making excuses for the politicians. When it comes to the licensing of politicians. There would almost certainly need to be some legislation, but the biggest gap is the political will. I doubt it is much more than nil, but if the thought has not even crossed the minds of politicians that such a thing would be possible, this is not a surprise. It needs to be tested.  There is no reason why the licencing of politicians would not work.

Last updated on