 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Corruption and Singapore By Antonio C. Abaya Written March 15, 2005 For the Manila Standard, March 17 issue Let me restate the results of the latest survey on corruption (or perceptions thereof) in Asia by the Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd. or PERC, as banner-headlined by the Philippine Daily Inquirer of March 09: Indonesia (the most corrupt) with 9.10 points out of a possible 10; the Philippines 8.80; Vietnam 8.65; India 8.63; China 7.68; Thailand 7.20; Malaysia 6.80; South Korea 6.50; Taiwan 6.15; Hong Kong 3.50; Japan 3.46; and Singapore a squeaky clean 0.65. Those who have been monitoring these annual PERC surveys, as I have, for the past 15 years or so, know that the most significant change this year is the jump of the Philippines from fourth to second place, a development which seems to have escaped the notice of the Inquirer reporter and editors, or was deliberately ignored by them as part of news management (a.k.a. prior censorship) under the Arroyo Government. For the past 15 years or so, the Philippines had occupied fourth place in these ratings, topped by China, Indonesia, Vietnam and/or India. Up to the mid- or late-1990s, newly capitalist China was rated the most corrupt country in Asia, and Singapore the least corrupt. Then, all of a sudden, China dropped from first to fifth place, a quantum improvement which the Chinese leaders were able to achieve by having convicted grafters, no matter how prominent in the bureaucracy or the Party, shot with a bullet to the head in public executions before assembled masses of people. During all this time, Singapore retained its sterling reputation as the least corrupt country in Asia, not by shooting convicted grafters in public executions, but by the scrupulously honest personal example set by Lee Kwan Yew, prime minister from 1959 to 1990, and by the efforts of the hard-hitting agency that he used to monitor and suppress corruption. In his book From Third World to First: The Singapore Story 1965-2000, Lee wrote that at the start of their governance, corruption was rampant. Custom officials at the airport, traffic policemen on the streets, even admission clerks in hospitals: all cadged bribes from those who needed to be in their good graces. �Petty power invested in men who cannot live on their salaries is an invitation to misuse that power,� Lee wrote. When they took their oath of office in June 1959, Lee and his team �all wore white shirts and white slacks to symbolize purity and honesty in our personal behavior and our public life. The people expected this of us, and we were determined to live up to their expectations.� The principal agency charged with fighting corruption was the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), directly under the Office of the Prime Minister, which had originally been set up by the British in 1952 to deal with increasing corruption, especially at the lower and middle levels of the police, hawker inspectors and land bailiffs who had to deal with squatters. Lee chose to concentrate instead on the big fish. He had the outdated 1937 anti-corruption law amended to give wide powers to investigators �including arrest and search and investigation of bank accounts and bank books of suspected persons and their wives, children or agents�.The comptroller of income tax was obliged to give information concerning anyone investigated. The existing law that the evidence of an accomplice was unworthy of credit unless corroborated was changed to allow the judge to accept the evidence of an accomplice. �The most effective change we made in 1960 was to allow the courts to treat proof that an accused was living beyond his or her means or had property his or her income could not explain as corroborating evidence that the accused had accepted or obtained a bribe. With a keen nose to the ground and the power to investigate every officer and every minister, the director of the CPIB, working from the Prime Minister�s Office, developed a justly formidable reputation for sniffing out those betraying the public trust�.� There is no space here to detail the cases that the CPIB pursued to their logical conclusions. Suffice it to say that the CPIB investigated, among others, four Cabinet ministers-members of parliament (all of whom were personal friends or party colleagues of Lee�s) from the 1960s to the 1980s. One was disgraced and ostracized; the second was found guilty and jailed; the third jumped bail and fled to Thailand; and the fourth committed suicide, leaving a note for Lee: �Prime Minister: I have been feeling very sad and depressed for the last two weeks. I feel responsible for the occurrence of this unfortunate incident and I feel I should accept full responsibility. As an honorable oriental gentleman I feel it is only right that I should pay the highest penalty for my mistake. Yours faithfully. Sgd.� In one of my trips to Singapore in the mid-1990s, the Singapore Embassy here arranged for me to get a briefing from the director of the CPIB, a Mr. Yeoh. The CPIB offices are located on the sixth floor of a car park building on Hennessy Road. As you step out of the elevator, you come face to face with the CPIB facade. Not your usual officious-looking varnished mahogany or oak paneled government office door, but the starkly intimidating, wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling iron bars of a prison cell. The psychological message is unstated but obvious: �Abandon hope, all ye who are summoned here.� POSTCRIPT. After the briefing, Director Yeoh gifted me with the CPIB regimental necktie, with a stylized lotus flower as motif. Why a lotus, I asked. It reminds us, he explained, that even in the filthiest muck, a beautiful flower can emerge. ***** Reactions to [email protected] or fax 824-7642. Other articles in www.tapatt.org. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Corruption and Singapore� Dear Mr. Abaya: I, too, read Mr. Lee's tome "From Third World to First" right after I took the Philippine Bar exam in 2001. I figured I would pick up some light reading after the heavy demands of preparing for the Bar. What I read in that book moved me to tears. It moved me to tears because I saw that we had (and I believe still have) an opportunity to make our country greater than it is. The only reason why we cannot seem to move beyond what we are is a lack of political will. I was born in the US, spent my formative years in Laoag City, went back to the States for high school and college, and returned to the Philippines to attend law school at Ateneo. This background taught me disparate lessons that I have sought all my life to reconcile. In the US, I learned that one person can make a difference so long as his message is strong and true. In the Philippines, I learned that money talks. I have always been interested in politics as a public service. If a politician does his or her job properly, it is the community that is supposed to benefit, not the politician. I thought that if I could get my message out there, and tell people what needed to be done, then surely, no amount of money would be enough to derail my cause. Naivete. Filipinos don't want substance. We adore style above all. One day I heard a story about a local aspiring politician who handed out leaflets while he was on his bicycle. My immediate thought was "here's a guy who is willing to do what it takes to get his message out there." My silent reverie was interrupted by the loud guffaws of another person who heard the story and said "poor sap can't even get a car? What more, it's a waste of his time and he should get and an entourage to do that for him. What a pitiful sight that must have been." It was then that I thought "I am an alien in a strange world." The answers to our problems are really quite simple. As a people, we just need the political will to make changes. The problem is that those who are in a position to do something are not willing to change their circumstances, while those who are willing to do something are not in a position to do anything meaningful. It is getting more and more difficult, if not impossible, to get into a position to do something if one is of pure intentions. Sincerely, Frederick F. Calope, [email protected] Margaret Wong & Associates, Co., LPA Cleveland, Ohio, March 18, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Would that this happened in the Philippines. Is it too outlandish to hope for? I mean like corrupt old acquaintances having to take responsibility for their actions? Or will it continue to be the getting rich military against the getting killed civilian activists? Angie, [email protected] March 18, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Do you have pleasant articles to share about my homeland? Kung meron, puede po ba isulat mo rin? I like the way you use your english and how you use it..... Ernesto A. Pilapil Jr., [email protected] Jintu Designs, March 18, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, It is nice to know from you the example of Singapore in fighting graft and corruption. It is clear from your article that Singapore wanted to solve corruption and did a great job. Yes, doing is the proof of saying. In my opinion, our country is not serious about solving corruption. Otherwise, it will be doing what its leaders are saying. Yours very truly, Virgilio C Leynes, [email protected] March 18, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, This is a great column! Keep up and more power! Bobit Avila, [email protected] March 18, 2005 Inside Cebu, Philippine Star Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, An Indonesian Official was said to have claimed that the reason why they and the Philippines were No.1 and 2 respectively in the PERC survey was that both countries are so poor they can not bribe as much as the countries that came after them in the survey. "But what about Singapore?" one asked. He said with a naughty wink:"Didn't you know that PERC is now based in Singapore?". That's a joke of course. But the sicker joke was that Philippines moved from 4th to 2nd because of an attempt to bribe PERC to be no.6 ! Boohoohoo... Seriously now, in fairness to the President, in my view she is sincere in her desire to curb corruption to the minimum (not necessarily totally eradicating it as we all must be aware of that improbability). But I believe she really wants to finish her term with a reformed government. We must admit she does not have a magic wand to do that as it takes more than her will to accomplish that awesome task. The support system which is the entire bureaucracy should move in the same forward direction in this endeavor. The other pillars, Judiciary and Legislative must do their critical part. At least by not being part of the problem! And the fourth estate should change their stance from being consumately prejudiced to at least being critical collaborators. That means, encouraging, and supportive of the President's efforts particularly in the 'lifestyle checks' while exposing real anomalies -but not acting as part of demolition crews for entrenched 'syndicates' in some gov't agencies. We should try to trust GMA's intentions or at least give her the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, we are just making it hard for her to accomplish her task to the detriment of all, specially the marginalized. Mabuhay and best regards, Mang Senyong E. J. Tirona, [email protected] March 18, 2005 p.s. My friends in Singapore agree that they have a 'fine country'. They are slapped a fine for each misdemeanor. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, You may or may not remember me, Joe Faustino, a few years your junior at Ateneo de Loyola post Padre Faura. I would like to tell you about my wife's uncle, a Singaporean land surveyor married to a public schoolteacher. The couple owns and lives in one of relatively few single houses in Singapore, i.e., not row houses or linked townhouses. Early in the 1980s, two neatly dressed gentlemen knocked on their door and introduced themselves as official inspectors of the CPIB. They told my wife's uncle and aunt: "You are both employees of the government. From what we can estimate from your combined incomes, you cannot afford a residence like this." The couple easily proved they could own it. The wife produced papers that showed she had inherited enough money from her parents to buy such a house. End of investigation. This proves about Singapore: 1. The government has intelligence to know whom to investigate about unexplained wealth. 2. They do investigate every case of seeming unexplained wealth. 3. The government does not know everything and will be amenable to proved wrong. 4. Government investigators do not harass the accused or ask for bribes. 5. Therefore, the Singapore government is very efficient about collecting taxes. Jose Faustino, [email protected] Asian Institute of Management Makati, March 18, 2005 MY REPLY. Of course, I remember you, Joe. Good hearing from you. The experience of your wife�s uncle with the CPIB underscores the efficiency and honesty of Singapore�s bureaucracy. Thank you for sharing it with us. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Antonio Abaya, Now that the Philippines is number two in the latest survey on corruption in Asia according to the Hong Kong-based PERC and only .30 point behind the leader of the pack, it would only take a sneeze to make it to the top if the Philippines will not take a serious approach to curbing corruption. China's one bullet to the back of the head approach is a bit ultra-draconian but it did the job. Singapore's approach is the more preferable solution but the Philippines do not have the figurehead of Lee Kwan Yew to bulldozer corruption to the ground. So in my honest opinion, the best solution is to clean the entire system from the day we elect our government officials. I am scratching my head and at the same time pointing a finger at the Commission on Election. I have been asked many times by my Canadian friends how an individual who rapes a girl, ends up in jail and can still run two times as a congressman in our country. How on earth is he going to serve his constituents if he is jail? This is a classic example of fatuity and also speaks a lot about how we select our government officials. If we want an 'honest to goodness' government, then we should select individuals with high moral integrity and completely free of criminal past. The revolving door policy of allowing convicted government officials with long list of offenses such as sedition, plunder, graft, etc. to run again and again will only strengthen corruption. If nothing else works, then they should burn them at stake. Sincerely yours, Emil Diaz, Jr., [email protected] Vancouver, Canada, March 19, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi! thank you so much for such a very wonderful and insightful article. We Filipinos should read the Elder Lee's book if we earnestly want to combat corruption. It's a shame that the measures our government take in all aspects of management ensures the entrenchment of corruption in the bureaucracy. It's a shame that with our feudalistic culture, it will take another self-styled Marcos to produce a drastic change. I sincerely hope you write more articles like this. We need it. More power to your column. Julius de la Cruz, [email protected] March 20, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Good article. anything more than 0.65 no excuse! E. T. Chok, [email protected] March 17, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
| It's because Singapore is a dictatorship, ran by Lee Kwan Yew from 1959 to 1990. Besides, Singapore is geographically small, an island port where international shipping holds base. No Barangay Captain, Tanods, Kagawads like the Philippines which are the conduits of corruption. Singapore I believe is one of the highest literacy rate in the region, and Lee Kwan Yew ruled with an iron hand, Chewing gum is banned in Singapore, Singaporeans are not allowed to marry foreign workers, and so on. although we are corrupt we still ranked as the sixth most happy and contented people in the world. One way or another, we did bribed our way, or consulted a Ninong for some favors like getting a job, or getting out of trouble. Human nature, we are survivalist. In the Philippines, the changes should strat from the bottom to the top. We always change the top but the bottom remains the same. Don't feel overwhelmed, this is a worldwide problem, happens everywhere. People are always motivated by needs, the strong will always rule the weak, the wise will take advantage of the dumb, the rich will be richer and the poor will be poorer. Be an exception to the rule. If Tony is comparing Pinas and S'pore, its not apples to apples. Ruelle Castanos, [email protected] March 29, 2005 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |