Hong Kong vs Singapore (II): Combating Corruption
by singaporearmchaircritic
Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) are two of the most acclaimed anti-corruption commissions in Asia, often seen and studied as “role models” in combating corruption. Both were established by Crown administrators to check rampant corruption within the then colony’s police force, and have since enjoyed immense success in fighting graft.
That said, the two commissions are very different in many ways. The ICAC is staffed by 1,200 employees on contract; staff cannot enter Hong Kong government after they leave ICAC; turnover is low, with more than half having been with the Commission for over ten years. The CPIB is a leaner organization with a staff strength of only 102. While the ICAC adopts a three-pronged approach – investigation, prevention, communication – in tackling corruption, the CPIB focuses on investigation.
Balancing Forces (and the Lack of)
The most prominent distinction between the two, however, lies in their reporting hierarchy. The CPIB website only has a one-liner on this, that it is “under the charge of the Prime Minister’s Office.” On the ICAC website, there is an entire section on “checks and balances” that explains in detail how the Commission is monitored by a number of forces:
Although the ICAC reports directly to Hong Kong’s political chief and his policy making unit the Executive Council, there are numerous other forces that together form a robust system of checks and balances. The legislature (Legislative Council) confers and repeals ICAC’s power; an independent judiciary and the separate power of prosecution ensure that the Commission does not abuse its power. On top of internal monitoring, there are four advisory committees made up of civilians to oversee ICAC’s work. The Commission is also subject to public scrutiny through Hong Kong’s relatively free media as well as a committee to which complaints against ICAC may be directed.
In comparison, oversight mechanisms appear to be far less defined in the CPIB. That the CPIB comes under the charge of the PM’s Office is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it empowers the Bureau to “truly operate without fear or favour,” and “block any undue interference from any quarters,” as the former Director of the CPIB asserts. On the other, it may curtail the Bureau’s autonomy. Anti-corruption expert Heilbrunn writes:
Whereas some observers argue that putting the CPIB directly in the executive branch indicates a high level of commitment on the part of Singapore’s political leadership, it might also be seen as part of the structure of semi-authoritarian rule. Its reporting hierarchy reinforces the executive’s influence while reducing the CPIB’s independence.
On the Morality of the Government
What is most interesting to me are the contrasting convictions or assumptions about the government’s morality that underpin the way the two anti-corruption bodies are run.
To our Singapore government, its often prided “cleanness” is itself a justification for not having balancing forces, be it in the parliament or in other government institutions. Says the the former Director of the CPIB:
CPIB was never born out of a need to fight a corrupt government. We were created by an incorrupt government to fight corruption…Unlike many agencies which grew out of a need to fight a corrupt establishment, we never have to work antagonistically against the Government and the entire public service. But are civil movements or NGOs essential for the successful fight against corruption in Singapore? No, in fact, it would be an indictment of the effectiveness of CPIB if such organisations were to take root. After all, NGO is just a euphemism for lobby groups or pressure groups, established by those disenchanted or dissatisfied with the state of corruption.
Hmmm…try telling that to Hongkongers or the increasingly cynical Singapore netizens. We are all humans and we are all fallible. Lest we forget, Satan is an angel before his fall.
P.S. I posted a comment below on how Singapore’s elected President is empowered to “check” the PM, according to the Singapore Constitution 22G. Dear reader, please feel free to share your thoughts on how effective the President is as a balancing force against the PM.
Singapore Armchair Critic 
absolute power always corrupts absolutely – just a matter of time only.
How true indeed, and how strange that many simply refuse to recognize this universal truth.
Thus far, the CPIB has not disappoint though and it being a leaner organization and one track reporting structure means it can act quickly without interference from other parties. But you are right, so far it is not abused but its a matter of time before we have a PM that abuses the CPIB to pursue political manipulations.
“But you are right, so far it is not abused but its a matter of…”
How do you know for a fact? (given there is no check and balances against the PMO’s office).
The elected President of Singapore is actually empowered to “check” the PM’s discretion in CPIB’s investigation. See the Constitution of Singapore, 22G:
“Concurrence of President for Certain Investigations
Notwithstanding that the Prime Minister has refused to give his consent to the Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau to make any inquiries or to carry out any investigations into any information received by the Director touching upon the conduct of any person or any allegation or complaint made against any person, the Director may make such inquiries or carry out investigations into such information, allegation or complaint if the President, acting in his discretion, concurs therewith.”
On paper it certainly looks good, but the question is what will happen when the President really tries to exercise his power. Remember Ong Teng Cheong and his request for information about our national reserves? (http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-444.htm).
I remembered that Durai successfully sued for defamation years before he fell from grace. Did they defamed him without complaining to CPIB?
I knew a person who complained about Durai a very long time ago and was called up twice for long sessions of interrogations by CPIB. Nothing happened to Durai.
And was it a coincidence that GCT stepped down not too long after the NKF scandal?
Hey sorry I do not have insider information on the case, apart from what you get on the Internet…
That is certainty food for thought. Like in some corporations, the internal audit team (or similar) do not report to the CEO to prevent conflict of interest etc.
However, I would caution taking a simplistic view of Hong Kong in view of China’s interference, which seem to be increasing. In addition, the triads in Hong Kong is still a force to reckon with despite crackdown by the police.
I travel to China frequently for work, and has relatives in both HK and China, they do have their fair share of troubles. One simple example is the disregard of building zone regulation by the ex top honcho in Hong Kong.
I do not fear what I can see but what is hidden from me.
[…] Hong Kong vs Singapore (II): Combating Corruption […]