1MDB versus 38 Oxley Road: Differentiating the Anti-corruption Culture of Malaysia and Singapore
While emerging from almost the same historical past and sharing very analogous geographical and cultural backdrops, Malaysia and Singapore are like chalk and cheese when it comes to intolerance with corruption. How Lion City’s PM Lee Hsien Loong handled the 38 Oxley Road estate controversy and how Wild East’s PM Najib Razak treated the 1MDB (One Malaysia Development Berhad) scandal spells a huge difference in the levels of incorruptibility in these two Southeast Asian countries.
In Singapore, the decision of PM Lee Hsien Loong to defy his father’s wish of preserving their family home at 38 Oxley Road earned a raucous tumult among his siblings who accused him of abusing his powers as prime minister to overrule the desire of Singapore’s founding father, Lee Kuan Yew. PM Lee came out into the open and apologized for not being able to keep the matter internally to their family and for its impact on Singapore’s scandal-free reputation. He also submitted himself fully to be interrogated by their Parliament.
Meanwhile, PM Najib Razak was accused of siphoning close to 700M USD from 1MDB, a government-run development company, to his personal bank accounts. As a response, PM Razak remained quiet on the issue after denying the allegations. He also prevented debates and public discussion of the issue and even ordered a clampdown to the Malaysian Parliament restricting them from mentioning it and removed officials of his cabinet who spoke out about the 1MDB controversy.
While a very private squabble among siblings ended with an appearance of Singapore’s prime minister on national television seeking for apologies, a deafening silence befalls in Malaysia after their leader’s alleged pilferage of government resources. While one parliament took the issue seriously by investigating, the other one was sitting on the fence for fear of reprisal. This stark distinction between the case of Lee and Razak mirrors the profound difference of Malaysia and Singapore – an anti-corruption culture, or the absence thereof.
Anti-Corruption Model of Singapore
Singapore and Malaysia are the top two countries that registered the cleanest corruption perception index in all of Southeast Asia according to Transparency International (2016) with Singapore ranking number 7 globally and number 1 in Southeast Asia having a score of 84/100. Malaysia is a far second in the region with a global ranking at the 50th spot on a 49/100 score.
Since the independence of Singapore from the British rule in 1959, the Peoples Action Party (PAP) under the leadership of Lee Kuan Yew committed its government to resolve corruption. Transitioning from its colonial past, the government had to clean its bureaucracy from corruption that was prevalent during the British occupation with very weak laws to prevent it, inadequate powers of the government to arrest it and widespread bribery resulting from people’s poor knowledge of their rights (Koh Teck Hin, 2011). For almost six decades now, corruption control and prevention had been a central doctrine of the Singaporean government. But it came with huge reforms and commitment not only on the part of the government but also on the people.
The anti-corruption campaign can be heard from former PM Lee Kuan Yew repeatedly in the past, who constantly reminded the people that, “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. Singapore can survive only if Ministers and senior officers are incorruptible and efficient [....] Only when we uphold the integrity of the administration can the economy work in a way which enables Singaporeans to clearly see the nexus between hard work and high rewards.” (as cited in Koh Teck Hin, 2011). This was the mantra years ago. This remains to be the mantra until today in Singapore showing that strong political will can eradicate corruption in both public and private sector.
Today, Singapore’s Anti-Corruption Framework rests on four (4) pillars underpinned by a dominant philosophy of strong political will. According to the official website of the Government of Singapore (2018), the fight against corruption is based on having effective laws, independent judiciary, effective enforcement and a responsive public service – all anchored on a strong leadership.
What PM Lee Kuan Yew started around 60 years ago has become so ingrained in the Singaporean’s way of life and culture. The political will to promote an ethos of zero tolerance against corruption resulted from a leadership that was committed to building an incorruptible society. Concretely, this was translated to the legislation of key measures to address corruption. Singapore has Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) as a tool to hold persons accountable for corrupt practices such as bribery in both the public and private sectors. This is enforced by an agency called the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) which is under the office of the Prime Minister. CPIB has earned a reputation of implementing vigorously anti-corruption laws in consortium with other agencies in Singapore. Those who are caught violating the laws are then prosecuted before an independent judiciary which is insulated from being politicized. Recognizing the seriousness of corruption cases, Singapore’s Supreme Court had consistently ruled based on a deterrence principle by imposing heavy fines and imprisonment to those found guilty of corruption. Corruption in the bureaucracy is also mitigated on account of meritocracy in public service. Aside from making government service a high-paying job, regular assessments of the agencies to improve efficiency also lessens the propensity for public officials to corrupt.
This is also the reason why despite some aggregates of state coercion through PAP’s monopoly of power, suppression of political opposition, curtailment of certain freedoms and alienation of the civil society organizations, the Singaporeans have submitted themselves to the central rule of PAP in exchange for the assurance that they will live a good life. The people are enjoying the economic spoils of a corrupt-free bureaucracy and in return live their lives upholding the highest standards of transparency, accountability, and integrity, even in their private realms.
Anti-Corruption Model of Malaysia
On the other hand, Malaysia’s comprehensive framework to combat corruption is inspired by Hongkong’s anti-corruption system. Just like Singapore, Malaysia also sees effective enforcement, responsive legislation, and independent judiciary as key to addressing corrupt practices in the bureaucracy. Central to the framework of Malaysia is the role of Malaysia Anti-Corruption Council (MACC) in instituting reforms through their three-pillar approach (Hershman, undated) of bringing government, civil society and business in concert to fight corruption. Created in 2009, the MACC ensures that public and private partnerships are sealed with “Integrity Pacts” that are signed publicly to encourage compliance on all parties concerned. The MACC takes the lead in enforcing their Anti-Corruption Act of 1997.
Another key element in Malaysia’s anti-corruption model is the reform in the judiciary. The judiciary created anti-corruption courts with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving corruption. If in the past, it took years before cases reach the court, now courts are mandated to dispense justice within 12 months only. Apart from this, Malaysia is also modernizing their public service by introducing electronic database procurement processes which is aimed at improving transparency, accountability and auditing capabilities (Hershman, undated) hoping to lessen opportunities for corruption.
In the hope of educating the bureaucracy and the general public, Malaysia also established an Anti-Corruption Academy that is primarily responsible for providing training programs in various fields, such as investigation, prosecution, intelligence, prevention, consultancy and management (MACC Official Portal). The academy also visits schools as part of corruption prevention education campaign.
However, despite strides in certain reforms undertaken, Malaysia still confronts the same problem of corruption with less evidence on the effectiveness of the corruption prevention mechanisms, the case in point being, PM Rajak’s entanglement with the 1MDB controversy. The questions on where the flaws are coming from need to be addressed immediately. To this end, Kapeli and Mohamed (2015) concluded that if the current situation in Malaysia will not change, the vision of improving their rank in the corruption perceptions index of Transparency International from 50th to 30th by year 2020 remains to be a vision, and far from being real.
Anti-Corruption Culture and the Lack Thereof
We have seen that fighting corruption does not end alone in establishing structures and systems to police corrupt practices both in the public and private sectors. As shown in the Singapore experience, it requires the whole nation to live a life that is corrupt-free. Anti-corruption therefore, must be a culture, a way of life and not merely a system.
Both countries we have reviewed showed significant structural reforms in the areas of legislation, enforcement, adjudication and public administration. Malaysia and Singapore relied heavily on the centrality of effective law enforcement in combating corruption. The CPIB and MACC have conscientiously fulfilled their duties to carry out the spirit of their respective anti-corruption laws complemented by the speed and reputed independence of their judiciaries. But what is lacking in the Malaysian experience compared to Singapore is a well-entrenched culture against corruption that is pervasive in both the government and the average citizens. Understandably, Singapore began to induce this way of life through structures and systems reforms wayback in 1959 while Malaysia started taking corruption seriously through structural and systemic reforms only in 2008 when they created the MACC. It would be too hasty to believe that an anti-corruption culture has been deeply ingrained in Malaysia in a span of ten years.
What we also see lacking in Malaysia is the element of political will that underpins the whole reform strategy. The fact alone that its Prime Minister’s dubious involvement in a multi-million-dollar-laundering-activity casts doubts on the sincerity of Malaysia’s top leader to end corruption, he himself being accused. His adamant posturing to confront the issue head-on casts even more fogs on the integrity of his administration and leadership unlike PM Lee Hsien Loong’s boldness and courage to face parliamentary inquiry and humility to apologize for allegedly staining Singapore’s reputation.
The Deputy Director for Operations of Singapore’s CPIB, Koh Teck Hin (2011) made some interesting conclusions by way of lessons learned in their anti-corruption campaign. First, he said that an over-all climate against corruption must be created not only through “fixing the systems but also fixing the hearts and minds” of all. Second, he emphasized the interrelatedness of legislation, enforcement and adjudication as a package to address corruption. A weakness in any of them means a failure of the entire anti-corruption system. Lastly, he highlighted public support being key to anti-corruption campaigns by ensuring that enforcement and punishment for corruption is not selective on the basis of class or ethnicity but fair and firm. Through this, public assent to government’s campaign is highly manifest making every citizen an anti-corruption watchdog.
There is so much to learn from the Singaporean anti-corruption approach not only for Malaysia but for many other countries. While it is inconceivably difficult to replicate Singapore’s experience due to contextual differentiation, there is so much lessons that can be appropriated to various peculiar settings across the region, including Malaysia. But primordial to all is the cultivation of a national culture that abhors corruption. Hence the title of this article, “Differentiating the Anti-Corruption Culture OF Malaysia and Singapore,” and not IN Malaysia and Singapore.
Indeed, it takes a whole nation to build a corrupt-free society. But when favor is exacted to the advantage of a certain group of people, like the Bumiputeras of Malaysia, a culture of corruption is being reinforced making the task of ending this venality even more daunting. Perhaps, Malaysia can make the ultimate sacrifice of equalizing the society by removing the privileges afforded to the Bumiputeras. Who knows, this might just be the first legitimate step to a genuine reform in Malaysia.
References:
(Photo: Office of Prime Minister, Singapore)
Croissant, Aurel and Lorenz, Philip. (2018a). Malaysia: Competitive Authoritarianism in a Plural Soceity. Comparative Politics in Southeast Asia. An Introduction to Government and Political Regimes. Springer International Publishing AG. Switzerland. 2018. Pp. 141-170.
Croissant, Aurel and Lorenz, Philip. (2018b). Singapore: Contradicting Conventional Wisdom About Authoritarianism, State and Development. Comparative Politics in Southeast Asia. An Introduction to Government and Political Regimes. Springer International Publishing AG. Switzerland. 2018. Pp. 255-289.
Hershman, Michael J. (Undated). Anti-Corruption Program in Malaysia: A Comprehensive Approach. The World Post by Huffpost. Retrieved through https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-hershman/malaysia-anti-corruption_b_1619111.html
Kapeli, Nur Shafiqa and Mohamed Nafsiah. (2015). Insight of Anti-Corruption Initiatives in Malaysia. International Acocunting and Business Conference, 2015. Retreived through www.sciencedirect.com
Koh Teck Hin. (2011). Corruption Control in Singapore. The 13th International Training Course on the Criminal Justice Response to Corruption: Visiting Experts’ Papers. Retrieved through http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No83/No83_17VE_Koh1.pdf
Malaysia Anti Corruption Commission Portal. The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Academy. Retrieved through http://www.sprm.gov.my/index.php/en/korporat/divisions/malaysia-anti-corruption-academy-maca
Singapore Government Official Website. Anti-Corruption Framework of Singapore. Retrieved through www.sg.gov
Transparency International. (2016). Corruption Perceptions Index 2016. Retrieved through https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016
