The Elimination of Poverty in Singapore: Public Accountability and Corruption

Public Accountability:

Singapore requires the Government to account to Parliament regarding their funding use. The thought behind this action is that the resources do not belong to him and therefore he or she must report to the owner of the resources in this case Parliament represents the people of Singapore. The Auditor- General audits the spending habits of Town Councils, ministries, statutory boards, and then reports the results to Parliament through the President on the audit findings. The President appoints the Auditor to ensure that the public funds are accounted for used effectively, efficiently, and economically, and complied with related laws. Once, the Auditor General reports to the Parliament the report is made public once it is tabled in Parliament.

Anti Corruption in Government:

History:

When Singapore became a self-governing state in 1959, the historical government service proved to be filled with corruption (Ali, 2000). This rampant corruption presented problems for the new governing state due to the previous weak laws, uninformed people who were unaware of their rights, unfair pay differences for public officers (who resorted to corruption to make ends meet), and difficulty gathering evidence to make cases (Ali, 2000). Political leaders quickly instated laws that gave more powers to Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) so that they could carry out their duties effectively (Ali, 2000).

Legal Measures to Prevent Corruption:

Legislative Measures
Administrative
Preventive Guidelines
Actions taken against corrupt government officers
Court Punishment for corruption
Departmental Punishment for Corruption
Roles of Government Agencies

Today:

In Singapore, the laws are being regularly reviewed in order to prevent future corruption. Regular talks are given by the CPBI to public officers about the consequences of corruption (Ali, 2000). If a Public Officer is convicted of corruption he or she can face a fine up to $100,000, the offender can be sentenced to imprisonment to up to five years, repay any bribe received, and the court can seize properties as well (Ali, 2000). Departmental Punishment for corruption can also be dismissed from service, have rank reduced, receive a fine, be forced into retirement, or receive deferment/stoppage of increment (Ali, 2000).

Impact on Poverty:

Corruption acts as a regressive tax on the poor that robs resources from already hard-pressed households. For those who cannot afford to bribe are left even worse off without access and turned into forgotten citizens. Singapore’s actions have prevented corruption in the governmental offices. The corruption of government affects the development of initiatives at the core by skewing decision-making, budgeting and implementation processes. For a country, the results produce multiple and destructive forces: increased corruption reduced sustainable growth and slower rates of poverty reduction.

The Economist stated “of all the ills that kill the poor, none is as lethal as bad governance”. According to the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index’s report in 2009, currently 6 of the 10 most corrupt countries are located in Asia, with costs exceeding over $9 billion every year per country. High corruption levels are correlated to increased poverty which leads to a decrease on human rights, resulting in poor education, health, trade, and environmental quality (Keuleers, 2005). If other countries emulate the anti corruption structure of Singapore, there would be many positive impacts. The people would benefit by having improved quality of life, their country will increase in prosperity, decrease poverty, and move forward with globalization/trade.