The good news is that there is a proven, straightforward, cost-effective solution that holds the key to releasing Ukraine and scores of other nations from its bondage. This solution exposes the shallow excuses political leaders use in failing to live up to their core law enforcement responsibilities. I call it “the Singapore Challenge” because it challenges the one element in society that can break the legacy of corruption…. that element is its top leadership. In Ukraine it starts with the president, and the prime minister. They command an unstoppable army of 45 million citizens that can trample any corrupt oligarch, bureaucrat, judge or politician that stands in their way. Failure to deal with this crime – and it is, purely and simply, a crime – is not a failure of resources or talent but a failure of leadership.
From Rags to riches (and self respect)
In 1965, the year in which Singapore gained complete independence as a parliamentary republic, its level of corruption and poverty was among the worst in the world, and the tiny country was riddled with ethnic and political strife. Its nominal gross domestic product per capita was about $500, the same level as South Africa, while 25 years later it had risen to $13,000, surpassing Israel and South Korea., and now stands at $56,000, catching up with Germany and the U.S. Unlike some of the other wealthy, smaller states such as Quatar, Kuwait, or UAE, Singapore has no natural resources to sell.
Singapore is a nation of 5.6 million people with a land area of 700 square kilometers, smaller than that of Kyiv. Its GDP is now $297 billion while Ukraine’s – with 8 times as many people and 862 times more land area as a GDP that is only 60% that of Singapore.
Most economists credit much of Singapore’s “miracle” economic performance to its extraordinary record of defeating corruption. For more than 2 decades Singapore has ranked in the top ten least corrupt countries in the world, and has held between 1st and 5th place for most of the last 15 years. In addition, partly because of Singapore’s determination to eliminate opportunities for corruption by streamlining government services and reducing burdens on businesses, it is considered the best country in the world in which to start and do business and ranks among the top 20 places in the world for investment.
Just think where Ukraine – with its vast resources and an educated, resourceful population – could be in a few years if even part of Singapore’s success could be successfully replicated in Ukraine.
Comprehensive strategy
During the British colonial period corruption in Singapore was seen as a low risk, high reward activity because corrupt officials were seldom caught or punished. It became a way of life for many people, especially civil servants, struggling to cope with low salaries and rising inflation.
The post-colonial government recognized three primary factors that cause corruption: opportunities, incentives, and policing. Opportunities arise when there is excessive regulation, lack of transparency, and increased bureaucratic discretion . Certain agencies such as Customs, Taxation, and Police, were especially vulnerable. Incentives are present when government employees are paid so little that they need to supplement their income through bribery, especially when the risk of discovery or punishment is low. And Policing simply means that corruption fighters must be incorruptible and independent; have wide powers of investigation; court proceedings should be swift and transparent; and punishment harsh. Singapore adopted – through its Prevention of Corruption Act and its Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau – a comprehensive strategy to address all three causes simultaneously.
The Singapore tribune
Incentives. During its first 10 years of independence, Singapore could not afford more than minor and selective increases of civil service pay. But the government stated its intention to raise it to “acceptable” levels and keep pace with private sector compensation. This was written into law and applied to all employees, including top-level officials, but did not reach full comparability till the 1980s.
Opportunities. Notwithstanding the low pay, Singapore initiated preventive and administrative measures affecting public employees. Public officers could not accept any gifts, had to declare their assets annually, and could have no unsecured debts of more than 3 months salary. If a public official was suspected of corruption, he had to prove his innocence. Both the bribe taker and receiver were subject to prosecution. Cumbersome administrative procedures were streamlined and red tape slashed to provide efficient and transparent service without need for recourse through corrupt practices to get things done.
Policing (and adjudication). The Prevention of Corruption Act (and a sister “confiscation of benefits” act) provides the legal basis for the policing and adjudication arm of the triune. The CPIB – reporting only to the Prime Minister – was given the exclusive right and independence to deal with private and public cases of both petty and high level corruption. It investigates complaints of corruption and misconduct of public officers, and examines public service controls and procedures. It has the power to search and arrest, investigate financial records, require attendance of witnesses, and solicit support of all public agencies in its work.
The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau is an elite, carefully selected, well-paid, and monitored team with a reputation for competency and incorruptibility. Starting from eight employees in the early 60s, it now employs a staff of 75.
After the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau completes its investigation, the judicial process takes over and is open to the public. Sentences are harsh: up to five years imprisonment and a $100,000 fine; a penalty equal to the amount of the bribe or benefits received; debarment from government employment or contracts.
The challenge
The record is now clear. All the discourse and dissertations on corruption can not substitute for a real-world, successful, anti-corruption model. The benefits are immense. All the requisite laws have been written and all the investigative and adjudicative procedures have been tested by Singapore.
Ukraine already has a sufficient number of the components in place (the laws, the investigative bureau, etc.) to begin the effort.
Whatever the shortcomings, they can be amended or modified by reviewing Singapore’s program and experience.
And yet there is a sense that the engine has very little fuel.
An intangible element may be missing….the one element that is always mentioned in all the reviews coming out of Singapore: “Political will is the key ingredient”….“The most important lesson is the need for the political leadership to be committed to the eradication of corruption”….”The moment key leaders are less than incorruptible, less than stern in demanding high standards, from that moment the structure of administrative integrity will weaken, and eventually crumble.”
That is the Singapore challenge. Will Ukraine’s top leaders be up to it? Time will tell.
