Consider new safeguards to keep Singapore free of corruption

TO SAY Singaporeans were shocked is an understatement. For nearly two weeks, there seemed to be no lack of headline-grabbing revelations: from a high-level graft probe involving a minister and a billionaire, to not just one but two extramarital affairs involving Members of Parliament from both the ruling and opposition parties. These came soon after two other ministers were cleared of wrongdoing in their renting of state property for personal use.

Interest in the extramarital affairs is understandably high, and both the ruling People’s Action Party and opposition Workers’ Party have lost key party members consequently. Yet this should not distract the public from ongoing investigations by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB).

While opinions differ on whether an individual’s personal indiscretion should have professional implications, corruption is more than just a moral failing: it is a disservice to the nation and the public servants who have worked hard to maintain Singapore’s squeaky clean image over the decades.

Thus far, no charge has been filed and the probe does not seem to have hurt foreign investors’ confidence in Singapore. The early and upfront announcement of the investigation should also provide reassurance. But any finding of actual corruption could potentially stir public emotions.

That’s why getting to the truth of the matter is of paramount importance; an endeavour to which the authorities are no doubt committed. Arguably just as important are the optics of transparency and consistency.

Indeed, one wonders if the jadedness and cynicism that some Singaporeans already feel towards political figures, given current events, could bleed into the upcoming presidential election and be a liability for candidates deemed close to the establishment.

There has already been chatter about the timeline of CPIB’s statements. The anti-graft body said on Jul 12 that Transport Minister S Iswaran was “assisting the CPIB with an investigation”, only to add two days later – after media queries – that he had actually been arrested and released on bail on Jul 11, a day before the initial statement.

Some netizens took issue with the delayed disclosure of his arrest, though the authorities have since clarified that revealing such information is CPIB’s decision to make.

Separately, the annual Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) report uncovered several issues. These included troubling lapses in grassroots organisations (GROs) that involved “inappropriate money management practices”, where “significant sums of money were transferred to the personal bank accounts of a few staff” to facilitate cash distribution and reimbursements. The GROs have since stopped the practice, and no wrongdoing was ultimately found. Nevertheless, the risk of wrongdoing is high, as AGO itself acknowledged.

It is reassuring that state agencies have managed to uncover these various cases. But the real question is whether there are more such cases that have yet to come to light, and – depending on how exactly CPIB uncovered the case involving Iswaran – whether there is a risk that other potential cases may escape CPIB’s attention.

Regardless of the outcome of the probe, it might be timely to strengthen the code of governance, or even consider new ideas to keep public servants in line. Whistleblowers are another important line of defence. But for them to be willing to come forward, there must be a robust framework that shields them and ensures their claims are investigated seriously and independently. Singapore’s reputation as a corruption-free country is a valuable asset to protect.