E. M. ASTAFIEVA

Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Keywords: Singapore, corruption, Anti-corruption law, Anti-Corruption Bureau, civil servants ' pay increase program, administrative management optimization program

Southeast Asia is the most dynamically developing region in the world1. However, most countries in the region face serious challenges related to the harmful impact of corruption on governance efficiency, social structure and economic development. As many experts point out, "as a feature of the Asian way of life, corruption distorts the decision-making process"² and "directly affects the lives and well-being of billions of people and thousands of organizations"³.

And only one country in the region, Singapore, has finally managed to defeat corruption. It took her more than 40 years. But at the same time, it managed not only to avoid mass shootings of officials, as in China, but even to do without particularly harsh repression.

To solve the problem of corruption, States develop various approaches, within which three main models can be distinguished. The first model involves the adoption of anti-corruption laws without the creation of specialized agencies to enforce these laws, i.e., anti-corruption is carried out by the police, the Prosecutor General's Office and the courts.⁴ The second model implements anti-corruption laws through a network of anti-corruption agencies. For example, in India, the Anti-Corruption Law is implemented by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Central Vigilance Commission, and state-level anti-corruption bureaus and vigilance commissions.⁵ The same model applies to the Philippines, where the fight against corruption was carried out through 18 anti-corruption committees, after the establishment in 1950. Integrity Council ⁶.

The third model was initiated in Singapore when the Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBI) was established in October 1952. Malaysia followed Singapore's example by forming the Anti-Corruption Agency ⁱⁿ October 1967.7 Hong Kong was the third country to adopt this model , with the establishment of the Independent Anti-Corruption Commission (IPCC)ⁱⁿ February 1974.8

The success of the BBK and NCBC in fighting corruption in Singapore and Hong Kong, respectively, has made the third model popular among other Asian countries. An Anti-Corruption Commission was established in Thailand in February 1975, but due to inefficiency, it was replaced in November 1999 by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. In South Korea, the Korea Independent Anti-Corruption Commission was established in ^January 2002.9 Finally, Indonesia followed the same path by establishing the Anti-Corruption Commission in ^December 2003.10

However, despite the fact that the third model of combating corruption is the most common, not all Asian countries that have taken this path have been successful in the anti-corruption fight.

If we talk about the effectiveness of anti-corruption agencies in general, they must meet certain requirements. First of all, the employees of these organizations themselves must be incorruptible and independent from both the police and political influence. Comprehensive anti-corruption legislation, adequate funding and staffing are needed. The fight against corruption must be conducted impartially and with strict compliance with the law. Finally, the State must have a clear commitment to fighting corruption - the political will that "has been a key factor in efforts to transform Singapore's corruption-infested past, as it forms all the critical sub-structures on which all anti-corruption structures rest."¹¹ It is "a strong political will, according to the Deputy Director of the Singapore Anti-Corruption Foundation." DBK Ko Tek Hina is the foundation on which the four pillars of the fight against corruption are based: effective anti-corruption laws; an effective anti-corruption agency; effective justice and effective public administration-

Drawing by the famous cartoonist of The Malayan Tribune, Jan Ki Leon, November 16, 1945.

state administration"¹². Singapore has made remarkable strides in the fight against corruption, and is currently ranked among the ten least corrupt countries in the world, according to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index13. The history of the anti-corruption struggle in Singapore is quite long and instructive in many ways. Whether Singapore's experience is applicable to other countries is largely debatable. But the fact that any positive experience is worth studying is indisputable. Therefore, we will turn to the consideration of this issue, starting from the end of the XIX century.

THE PROBLEM OF CORRUPTION IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

During the British colonial rule, corruption in Singapore flourished, and the reasons for this phenomenon were the same for all countries in the region-low salaries of civil servants, weak police, and lack of anti-corruption legislation. However, already in 1871, with the adoption of the Straits Settlements Criminal Code, corruption was recognized as a crime. The report of the 1879 Straits Settlements Commission of Inquiry into police inefficiency pointed to corruption among inspectors as well as junior police officers. Five years later, in 1886, another commission investigating the spread of gambling in Straits Settlements confirmed the existence of systemic police corruption in Singapore and Penang.¹⁴

An analysis of 172 cases of corruption in the Singapore police force between 1845 and 1921 showed that the most common form was bribery (63.4%). Direct criminal activity came in second place (24.4%), followed by extortion (5.8%), government corruption (5.2%), and finally protection of illegal activities (1.2%) ^.15 Despite the commission's findings, the British colonial administration did not take any active action until 1937, when the law was passed. Singapore, Malacca and Penang Anti-Corruption Act ¹⁶.

However, the introduction of this law did not improve the situation. On the contrary, the situation with corruption worsened during the Japanese occupation (February 1942 - August 1945). The reason for this was galloping inflation, which put almost the entire population on the verge of survival; civil servants who received meager salaries were no exception. The only way to survive was to trade on the "black" market. The only way to get a job was by making friends. Nepotism and corruption were commonplace. "Bribery, blackmail, and extortion grew out of the mechanisms of violence and fear through which the Japanese ruled the occupied territories." ¹⁷

Since the end of World War II, the situation with the spread of corruption among civil servants in Singapore has only worsened. Low wages, inflation, insufficient control by the management, impunity-all this opened up unlimited opportunities for corruption. At the same time, the probability of being caught was almost zero. ¹⁸ In other words, in the post-war period, corruption became a way of life for many Singaporeans and employees of the British military administration, derisively nicknamed the "black market administration" ^.19 Corruption flourished not only in the police, but also in many public services, including customs, immigration and security services. tax information. Any official who was responsible for issuing licenses, permits, or collecting taxes enjoyed his position.

In 1950, Police Commissioner J. P. Pennefather-Evans filed an official report on corruption in government departments. A few days later, the head of the Anti-Corruption Department (OBK)

The Singapore Department of Criminal Investigation noted in its report the deterioration of the situation with corruption. These official documents led to criticism of the activities of the Regional Election Commission and the British administration for "weak and unsuccessful attempts" to fight corruption. On February 20, 1952, Elizabeth Choi, a member of the Second Legislative Council, called on the British authorities to take decisive measures to eradicate corruption. She put forward a proposal to separate the Regional Election Commission from the police and increase its staff, and also pointed out the need to tighten anti-corruption legislation.²⁰

Indeed, the British administration has been unable to curb corruption because of the inefficiency of the law and the weakness of the anti-corruption department. The law was ineffective, as it limited the powers of OBK officers to detain, search, and investigate police officers before obtaining a warrant for their arrest. A two-year prison sentence and / or a $ 10,000 fine could not deter corrupt behavior ²¹.

OBK's activities were ineffective for three reasons. First, it was a small police unit, consisting of only 17 people, which was given the almost impossible task of eradicating corruption in the police and other government departments. Second, the Criminal Investigation Department's priority was serious criminal offenses, while corruption offenses had a lower priority. Thus, the OBC had to compete with other departments of the department for very limited resources.²² The third and most important reason for the inefficiency of the OBK was the spread of corruption in the police itself. In October 1951, a gang consisting of three police detectives stole a shipment of opium weighing 1,800 pounds and worth 400,000 sing. dollars. A special investigation team appointed by the British administration has once again established the facts of widespread corruption in the police. The opium theft scandal has forced the British authorities to recognize the need to create an anti-corruption agency independent of the police. Thus, in October 1952, the Corruption Investigation Bureau (DBK)was created instead of the OBK.²³

CHANGE OF STRATEGY IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION

In the 1950s, bribes and kickbacks were part of Singapore's daily life. "The power given to people who cannot live a decent life on their salary created incentives for its misuse." ²⁴ Citizens were forced to pay bribes to obtain licenses, permits, immigration documents, public housing, and a coveted place in schools. Lim Yoo Hok's government was corrupt "from head to toe." According to some sources, on the eve of the 1959 general election, the Minister of Education Chewie Ki received $ 1 million from the Americans "to fight the communists". sing. dollars.

Having come to power after winning the 1959 general election, the government of the People's Action Party (MHP), led by Lee Kuan Yew, took a course to fight corruption, which it saw as one of the main obstacles to the country's development. The new Prime Minister became a real symbol of the fight against corruption, whose slogan was: "If you want to defeat corruption, be ready to send your friends and relatives to jail."

"Our first goal in Singapore," Lee Kuan Yew wrote, " is to form a government that is an effective policy tool. This requires strong, fair and impartial leaders who have the moral strength to lead people with respect. ... Responsibility for the people under their leadership requires that [leaders] do not indulge in a life of luxury, while our people are mired in poverty and backwardness. We

ensure full accountability and separation between personal assets and public funds. Corruption, like a cancer, must be eradicated immediately after detection. " ²⁵

The HDP Government faces a very difficult task-to change the public's attitude to corruption. "When taking the oath of office," Lee Kuan Yew wrote, "we all wore white shirts and trousers to symbolize the integrity and purity of our conduct in private and public life." ²⁶ Due to the imperfection of the anti-corruption law and the inefficiency of the DBK, the leaders of the HDP initiated a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy in June 1960. On February 13, 1960, at a meeting of the Legislative Assembly devoted to the second reading of the Anti-Corruption Law, Interior Minister Ong Ban Boon stated that, in accordance with the tasks set by the new government, anti-corruption legislation should be aimed at eliminating bribery and corruption in the country and, above all, in the public services sector. "The Government is determined to take all necessary legislative and administrative measures to reduce opportunities for corruption... and severely punish those who are susceptible to it and who engage in it without a twinge of conscience." ²⁷

To be effective, anti-corruption legislation should clearly define the nature of the crime and the punishment for it, as well as the powers of executive bodies to fight corruption. At the same time, since society is in constant development, it is necessary to periodically review laws so that they correspond to modern conditions.

The new Anti-Corruption Law (PCA) was adopted on ¹⁷ June 1960.28 The definition of corruption included receiving "benefits" in any form. To strengthen the deterrent effect of the Law, the term of imprisonment for corruption crimes was increased to five years, and the amount of the fine - up to 10 thousand sing. dollars. In addition to the penalty imposed by the court, a person found guilty of receiving illegal "benefits" was required to pay an amount equal to a bribe to the treasury.

One of the most important changes concerned expanding the powers of the Anti-corruption Bureau's employees. DBK investigators were granted the right to: "search, seize and investigate bank accounts and bank documents of suspects and their wives, children and agents" ²⁹. According to the amendments to the law, it was no longer necessary to prove the possibility of performing a service by a person who received a bribe. Tax officials were required to provide investigative authorities with any requested information. The established fact that the accused was living beyond his means was proof that he had received a bribe.³⁰ The statements of accomplices were added to the case file, and the informants were given protection.³¹

In order to ensure the continued effectiveness of anti-corruption legislation, the Government made necessary amendments to the PCA in 1963, 1966, and 1981. Thus, in 1963, the anonymity of witnesses in corruption cases was eliminated. In 1966, the law on corruption was amended, according to which a person could be found guilty of corruption without actually receiving a bribe, but only by showing an intention to do so. This was probably due to a major corruption scandal in 1966, when the director of Malaysian Airways Tan Kia Gang (until 1963, Singapore's Minister of National Development) was accused of corruption. The fact of receiving a bribe was not revealed, but according to witnesses, he clearly expressed his intentions. And, although the guilt of the former minister was not proven, he was dismissed from all his posts.³²

In the same year, 1966, the PCA was amended to apply to Singaporeans who worked in embassies and other government agencies abroad: corruption crimes committed abroad were considered to have been committed within Singapore.³³

Another major corruption scandal occurred in 1975 and was associated with the name of the Minister of the Environment Wee Tun Boon. He was convicted of accepting a bribe from a contractor in the form of a mansion worth 500 thousand sing. dollars, as well as two loans in the name of his father in the amount of 300 thousand sing. dollars, issued under the guarantee of the same contractor. It was also proved that the same contractor received a bribe in the form of payment for a trip to Indonesia for the entire family of the minister. Wee Tung Boon was sentenced to four and a half years in prison, but spent only one and a half years in prison.³⁴

Another tightening of the law took place in 1981; the purpose of these changes was to strengthen the deterrent effect. Those convicted of corruption who were unable to return all the money received in the form of bribes were sentenced to more severe punishments.³⁵ Eight years later, in 1989, the maximum fine for corruption was increased from 10 thousand to 100 thousand sing. dollars. For misleading the investigation or yes-

for false statements, a prison sentence and a fine of up to 10 thousand sing. dollars were imposed. The punishment for members of parliament and other high - ranking civil servants has become more severe-a fine of 100 thousand rubles. sing. dollars and a prison sentence of up to seven years ³⁶.

The Singapore Corruption Act has some features that I would like to discuss separately. First, it empowers DBK to deal with cases of corruption not only in the public sector, but also in the private sector. Secondly, the law prescribes the "presumption of corruption" clause (a kind of presumption of guilt), according to which a person accused of corruption must provide evidence of the origin of their income; if the court is not satisfied with these explanations, this income will be considered corrupt. Third, the recipient of a bribe is found guilty, even if he did not have the power, right or ability to carry out the promised action. Fourth, the law also prohibits the tradition of giving or receiving "red envelopes". Prior to the adoption of this amendment, the DBK was swamped with cases during the Chinese New Year, revealing bribes disguised as gifts.³⁷

Another important feature is that the accused, in addition to the court verdict and compensation for the amount of the bribe, can be charged the same amount as a civil debt. For example, a manager of a multinational corporation was found guilty of accepting a bribe. He was sentenced to 10 months ' imprisonment and a fine of about 300,000 sing. dollars. After the verdict, the corporation filed a civil claim for compensation in its favor. The manager appealed to the court of appeal against the claim on the grounds that he had already paid the fine and was unable to pay the corporation's claim, as this amounted to a double penalty. However, the Court of appeal rejected his request and ruled that the corporation's civil action was legitimate. Thus, the manager is still responsible for paying the corporation's claim ³⁸.

It is necessary to mention a number of other laws related to corruption. First, it is the 1989 Law on Confiscation in Cases of Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (the Confiscation Law). According to the provisions of this law, confiscation of the income of persons convicted of corruption and other serious crimes is provided, if the legal origin of these incomes is not proved. Secondly, the Law on Parliamentary Powers was adopted, which excludes receiving benefits from lobbying someone's interests, as well as a special law obliging candidates participating in elections to report all donations they received.

The introduction of the Confiscation Act in 1989, which allows the court to issue an order to confiscate the property of a deceased defendant, was associated with a high-profile corruption case in 1986, when Tae Jong-wan, the Minister of National Development, was accused of taking bribes worth 800 thousand sing dollars. In the course of the investigation, he committed suicide; ³⁹ A special commission was set up to examine the case, and the aforementioned law was adopted on 3 March 1989. Provisions designed to curb corruption are also spelled out in laws regulating the activities of various state services, in particular, the Law on Customs Service contains provisions that provide for punishment for accepting a bribe.

Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made an official statement on the government's intention to review the anti-corruption legislation again on January 13, 2015. He noted the need to increase the staff of the Anti-corruption bureau by more than 20%, and also stressed that civil servants should defend their " zero tolerance policy for corruption." And while Singapore is a "glaring exception" in a world plagued by corruption, this should not be taken for granted. Recent high-profile corruption scandals involving law enforcement officials in sex trafficking, as well as embezzlement of funds by one of the heads of the anti-corruption bureau's office, have affected the country's corruption perception index ⁴⁰. This probably resulted in Singapore dropping from 5th to 7th place in Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index.

The latest of the corruption scandals mentioned by Lee Hsien loong was related to the investigation of former DBK Assistant Director Edwin Ieo Seo-hsiung. According to the prosecution, between 2008 and 2012, he embezzled 1.7 million sing. dollars, and part of the stolen funds he spent on gambling at the Marina Bay Sands Casino in Singapore. This incident led to the introduction of new rules for civil servants, including police officers and DBK employees, which require civil servants to report every visit to a gambling establishment within seven days.⁴²

In addition to all the above-mentioned measures, the Singapore Government has adopted strict rules and standards of conduct for public officials. In particular, according to these rules, a civil servant does not have the right to borrow from any person with whom he has a relationship in the service. Unsecured debts and obligations should never exceed his salary by more than three times. They may not use any proprietary information to their advantage.

However, the existence of strict laws is not yet a guarantee of their effective application. Without an effective anti-corruption institution, enforcement of even the harshest laws becomes impossible. As mentioned above, the Corruption Investigation Bureau in Singapore is "on guard of the law". Its mission is to "fight corruption through swift, confident, decisive, but fair action"⁴³, the organization's motto is Swift and Sure.

The Bureau receives and reviews information on alleged cases of corruption; investigates abuses and violations with signs of corruption by public officials; and prevents corruption by examining the mechanisms and procedures of public services.⁴⁴ In addition, the Bureau's functions include verifying the integrity of candidates for posts in the Singapore civil service. The Anti-Corruption Bureau falls under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister's Office and consists of three divisions: Operational, General Affairs and Investigative.

In general, the bureau's overall strategic approach to the fight against corruption is to treat all corruption crimes equally, regardless of their severity. But "it's often easier said than done," says Ko Tech Kin, DBK's Deputy Director. " Success today is not a guarantee of success in the future. The problem is that corruption schemes are increasingly using the latest technologies to hide illegal income. " ⁴⁶

SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT'S PRACTICAL MEASURES TO REDUCE CORRUPTION

Despite the strictness of the laws, it is impossible to talk about the exclusively repressive nature of government measures in the fight against corruption. One of the most important tools of this struggle was the increase in the salaries of civil servants. Since 1972, the country has launched a program to ensure "competitive wages and favorable working conditions for civil servants". In March 1972, all civil servants received the "13th salary", comparable to the bonus in the private sector. In 1973, 1979 and 1982, the salaries of high-ranking officials were raised in order to "reduce the income gap with the private sector and minimize the leakage of personnel from the civil service to the private sector" ⁴⁷.

On March 22, 1985, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew provided an eloquent rationale for the Government's approach to fighting corruption. According to him, the choice is simple: "Pay political leaders the high salaries they deserve and get an honest, clean government, or underpay them and get corruption - a third world disease." The best way to fight corruption, according to Lee Kuan Yew, is "to move together with a market that is open, sound, and workable." ⁴⁸

In March 1989, Lee Hsien Loong, then the Minister of Trade and Industry, recommended a substantial wage increase for civil servants, as NIH-

low wages and slow promotion led to staff turnover, and people were reluctant to join the civil service. He noted that high salaries are necessary in order to " attract and retain talent." He concluded his speech in Parliament with a promise that the government would maintain the salaries of civil servants at the level of earnings in the private sector.⁴⁹

On October 21, 1994, a White Paper was presented to Parliament, which included recommendations for the introduction of formal salary indicators for ministers and senior officials (at the level of salaries of top managers of leading companies in Singapore), as well as additional levels of official salaries and the introduction of annual monitoring of public sector wages. The adoption of the long-term formula proposed in the White Paper not only eliminated the need for continuous justification for reviewing the salaries of ministers and senior officials, but also ensured that "effective public service and competent and honest political leadership are vital to Singapore's prosperity and success"^.50 Today, top-ranking government employees in Singapore receive perhaps the highest salaries compared to their counterparts from other countries.

Another method of fighting corruption is a program of administrative measures aimed at gradually reducing red tape. In 1995, Singapore launched the Public Service in ^the Twenty-first Century51 program, whose main objectives were to optimize administrative management and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public service delivery. Within the framework of this program, a whole range of measures was implemented, including the creation of Internet portals for accepting offers from the population and civil servants, as well as the creation of specialized "cross-agencies". At the same time, a program was launched to create an e-government system. Since 2000, several plans have been launched to implement this project52 aimed at increasing ^the efficiency of public services to the population. One of the initiatives to introduce e-services was the creation in 1999 of the portal "electronic citizen" ⁵³, which allows remote access to public services.

In the same way, a specialized Internet portal for commercial enterprises ⁵⁴ functions, where you can issue licenses and permits for various types of activities. Applications submitted online are automatically redirected from one office to another if necessary, and the deadline for receiving ready-made documents has been reduced from 21 to 8 days. Another service provided through the Internet portal is public procurement ⁵⁵. Competitive requirements are posted on the site, applications are submitted, the deadline is controlled by a computer, and the results of the competition are automatically published in open mode. Thus, the system of remote provision of public services makes it possible to practically eliminate the possibility of corrupt actions.

* * *

Summing up, it is necessary to emphasize once again that it is impossible to accurately copy the anti-corruption model of Singapore, which is due to its unique historical, geographical, economic, demographic and, especially, political context. The political context is the rigid authoritarian system of party rule in Singapore.

Strong party and state power, strict enforcement of laws, infringement of personal interests in favor of public interests - all this in the case of Singapore is the "price" for the success and prosperity of society as a whole.

-------------------------

¹ For the dynamics of the Southeast Asian countries ' economic development, see: Neil Renwick. Millennium Development Goal 1: Poverty, Hunger and Decent work in Southeast Asia, 32 Third World, 2011, p. 65 - 67.

^{Lee Kuan Yu} . 2 Singapurskaya istorya: iz "tretego mira v perviy". M., MGIMO - U MID Rossii. M. (in Rissian) (Lee Kuan Yu. 2005. Singapurskaya istorya: iz "tretego mira v perviy". M., MGIMO-U MID Rossii. M.) (in Rissian)

^{Philip M. Nichols.} 3 The Psychic Costs of Violating Corruption Laws, p. 12.

^{Quah J.S.T.} 4 Curbing Corruption in Asia: A Comparative Study of Six Countries. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 2003, p. 44.

⁵ Ibid., p. 66.

^{Quah J.S.T.} 6 Anti-Corruption Agencies in Four Asian Countries: a Comparative Analysis // International Public Management Review. electronic Journal at - http://www.ipmr.net; Volume 8. Issue 2. 2007, International Public Management Network, p. 73.

^{Quah J.S.T.} 7 Curbing Corruption.., p. 17.

⁸ Ibid., p. 140.

⁹ Ibid., p. 17 - 18.

^{Quah J.S.T.} 10 Curbing Asian Corruption: An Impossible Dream? Current History 105: 690, April, 2006, p. 178.

^{Koh Teck Hin.} 11 Corruption Control in Singapore // The 13th International Training Course on the Criminal Justice Response to Corruption Visiting Experts' Papers, p. 123.

¹² Ibidem.

¹³ Data of the Corruption Perception Index (CPI): Transparency International for 2104 for Southeast Asian countries (included in the rating). The first indicator is a place in the ranking, the second indicator is CPI: Singapore - 7/84, Malaysia-50/52, Philippines -

85/38, Thailand-85/38, Indonesia-107/34, Vietnam-119/31, Timor-Leste-133/28, Laos-145/25, Cambodia-156/21, Myanmar - 156/21. Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) - http://www.transparency.org/

^{Quah J.S.T.} 14 Police Corruption in Singapore: An Analysis of Its Forms, Extent and Causes. Singapore Police Journal, 10:1 (January), 1979, p. 24 - 26.

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 24.

¹⁶ Prevention of Corruption Ordinance (POCO).

^{Le G.B.} 17 The Synonan Years: Singapore Under Japanese Rule 1942 - 1945. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore and Epigram, 2005, p. 205.

^{Quah J.S.T.} 18 Bureaucratic Corruption in the ASEAN Countries: A Comparative Analysis of Their Anti-Corruption Strategies // Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 13:1 (March), 1982, p. 161 - 162.

^{Yoong S.W.} 19 Some aspects of corruption. National Youth Leadership Training Institute, Journal, 1972, p. 55 - 56.

^{Quah J.S.T.} 20 Administrative and Legal Measures for Combating Bureaucratic Corruption in Singapore. Singapore: Department of Political Science, University of Singapore, Occasional Paper N 34, 1978, p. 14.

²¹ Ibid., p. 9.

^{Quah J.S.T.} 22 Curbing Corruptio.., p. 113.

²³ Ibid., p. 113 - 114.

^{Lee Kuan Yew} 24 Edict. soch., p. 154.

^{Lee Kuan Yew.} 25 Can Singapore's Experience be Relevant to Africa? Singapore: Singapore International Foundation, 1994, p. 5.

^{Lee Kuan Yew} 26 Edict. soch., p. 154.

²⁷ Cit. по: Quah J.S.T. Public Administration Singapore-Style: Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management. Volume 19, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2010, p. 176.

²⁸ Prevention of Corruption Act (РОСА).

^{Lee Kuan Yew} 29 Edict. op., p. 155.

³⁰ Ibid.

^{Quah J.S.T.} 31 Police Corruption.., p. 11 - 13.

³² See: Lee Kuan Yew Decree, op. cit., p. 157.

^{Quah J.S.T.} 33 Public Administration.., p. 177.

^{Lee Kuan Yew} 34 Edict. soch., p. 157.

³⁵ The Straits Times, 26 October 1981, p. 1.

^{Quah J.S.T.} 36 Public Administration.., p. 178.

^{Koh Teck Hin.} 37 Corruption Contro.., p. 124.

³⁸ Carrefour Singapore Pte Ltd v Leong Wai Kay, 2006, SGHC, p. 160.

³⁹ Teh Cheang Wan case: No way a minister can avoid investigations - http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/teh-

cheang-wan-case-no-way-a-minister-can-avoid-investigations

⁴⁰ Government to review laws on corruption, boost CPIB manpower: PM Lee - http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/government-to-review-laws-on-corruption-boost-cpib- manpower-pm-lee?page=7 JAN 13, 2015, 10:19 AM SGT

⁴¹ Singapore's Corruption Perception Index, as of 2014, was 84 points. For reference-100 points means that there is no corruption in the country, respectively, the lower the indicator, the higher the level of corruption - http://www.straitstimes.com/world/africa/singapore-slips-two-places-to-7th-in-ranking-of-cou ntries-seen-as-worlds-least-corrupt?page=23

⁴² Bribery & Corruption First Edition, Global Legal Group Ltd, London, p. 165 - www.globallegalinsights.com

⁴³ Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). Singapore. 2004, p. 2.

⁴⁴ Ibid., p. 3.

⁴⁵ For more information about the functions and powers of the departments, please visit the official DBK website https://www.cpib.gov.sg/about-us/organisation-structure

^{Koh Teck Hin.} 46 Corruption Control.., p. 127.

^{Quah J.S.T.} 47 The public bureaucracy in Singapore, 1959 - 1984. In: P. -S. You & C. -Y. Lim (Eds), Singapore: Twenty-five years of development. Singapore: Nan Yang Xing Zhou Lianhe Zaobao. 1984, p. 296 - 297.

^{Quah J.S.T.} 48 Wielding the Bureaucracy for Results: An Analysis of Singapore's Experience in Administrative Reform. Asian Review of Public Administration. Vol. VIII, No. 1 (July-December 1996) p. 6.

^{Lee H.L.} 49 Salary revision for the administrative, professional, and other services. Singapore: Ministerial Statement in Parliament. March 1989, p. 5.

⁵⁰ Republic of Singapore. Competitive salaries for competent and honest government: Benchmarks for ministers and senior public officers. White paper presented to Parliament on 21 October, Singapore. 1994Б. P. 1, 7 - 18.

⁵¹ PS21 - http://app.sgdi.gov.sg/listing.asp?agency_subtype=dcpt&agency_id=0000003599

⁵² For more information, see the official Singapore government website - http://www.egov.gov.sg/egov-mastcrplans/egap-i/programmes; jsessionid=9F2B0211F5583D85FA03511969BF002D; Programs eGA P I, eGAP II, iGov 2010, iGov 2015.

⁵³ e-Citizen - http://www.ecitizen.gov.sg/

⁵⁴ Online Business Licensing Service (OBLS) - https://licences.business.gov.sg/

⁵⁵ GeBIZ - https://www.gebiz.gov.sg/

Permanent link to this publication: