By Sanjeewa Jayaweera Courtesy The Island

In a statement issued on July 12,, Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) said, Singapore adopts a strict zero-tolerance approach towards corruption. The CPIB investigates all cases without fear or favour and will not hesitate to take action against all parties involved in corrupt practices.”

The statement was issued following the arrest of the senior member of the governing party and cabinet minister S Iswaran holding the Transport and Trade Relations portfolio. He is a 22-year veteran lawmaker for the ruling People’s Action Party, having held a long list of other leadership posts.

He is under investigation for unspecified corrupt acts, although the CPIB’s statement didn’t elaborate further, only saying that Iswaran is assisting” in the probe. Along with Iswaran, a high-profile business tycoon Ong Ben Seng, was also arrested, and it is believed that the arrests are interlinked.

Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong acted decisively by asking Minister S Iswaran to take a leave of absence until the investigations are completed. This he did no sooner than the CPIB informed him that the Minister was under investigation. According to news reports, the Prime Minister told the Minister to go on a leave of absence about a week before his arrest.

The last time a Minister in Singapore was investigated for corruption was in 1987 when the Minister for National Development, Teh Cheang Wan and a close associate of the then Prime Minster Lee Kuan Yew committed suicide rather than face corruption charges.

In June of this year, there was a further controversy involving Singapore’s Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and Law Minister K Shanmugam regarding the circumstances and finances surrounding their rental of state-owned colonial bungalows in an exclusive area. The properties had been renovated at state expense. Competition to rent any property in land-scarce Singapore is enormous, raising public irritation and unprecedented questions about how two civil servants got into them. The CPIB investigated the transactions and cleared both Ministers of any wrongdoing.

It is pertinent that the Singapore government does not provide any official accommodation for the Ministers. How different to our policy, where Presidents, Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers and even former Presidents are provided with official accommodation at a great expense to the country’s taxpayers. It seems the poorer the nation, the greater the extravagance lavished upon those in power and even those who held power!

As I write, the Speaker of the Singapore Parliament and a female member of the Parliament have tendered their resignations due to a relationship deemed inappropriate. It is believed that the Speaker having a relationship with a Member of Parliament would result in a conflict of interest.

Over several decades, Singapore has cultivated an image of ruthless concentration on rooting out public corruption and scrupulous attention to governmental efficiency. The recent events would undoubtedly cause those in power a certain degree of embarrassment. However, to their credit, they have acted decisively and transparently with no effort to suppress the controversies nor spare those being investigated.

Thousands of Sri Lankans have visited Singapore or at least read about the country and admired how it is governed, the respect for law and order, and the country’s prosperity. Many videos of snippets of wisdom articulated by former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew are circulating on social media amongst Sri Lankans, lamenting how we have lacked politicians with such statesmen-like qualities. He is quoted to have once said, Sri Lankan elections are an auction of non-existing resources”. This simple fact has been consistently ignored for decades by our politicians in their pursuit and greed for power. We are now paying the ultimate prize for the folly of our politicians.

The commonsense approach of the Singapore government was well illustrated in an article of mine that was published on September 12, 2021 and titled SRI LANKA SHOULD CLOSE DOWN MOST OF OUR OVERSEAS MISSIONS AS A STEP TOWARDS REDUCING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.” https://island.lk/sri-lanka-should-close-down-most-of-our-overseas-missions-as-a-step-towards-reducing-public-expenditure/. I highlighted how Sri Lanka maintains over 60 resident missions, including consulates as opposed to Singapore having only 36 overseas missions. Although former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa closed down three overseas missions, the current President and the Foreign Minister have not seen the need to close down any additional missions despite the country declaring itself bankrupt and subjecting the citizens to extremely high taxes. This failure just about sums up our politician’s lack of vision, common sense and empathy.

Sri Lanka has grappled with the ill effects of corruption for many decades. Undoubtedly, post-1977, when the economy was liberalized, corruption took off. In an article written by Victor Ivan in 2019, titled Roots of Corruption and Bribery”, he states, The magnitude of the growth of bribery and corruption in Sri Lanka can be considered as an ugly and destructive epidemic created and nurtured by the rulers of the country from 1977, rather than a phenomenon that occurred naturally and spontaneously. Even though the regime of Mahinda Rajapaksa can be considered a period in which bribery and corruption reached a maximum height, it was indeed President J.R. Jayewardene who introduced large-scale corruption to the country at the State level.”

Victor Ivan also stated in the article, Prior to 1977, parliamentarians weren’t allowed to do business with the government. That was the tradition that prevailed up to then. The MPs who had done business were deprived of their parliamentary seats. This is a prime principle being practiced in all countries where there is a democratic system of government. Accordingly, the MPs were prohibited to serve as Government contractors, Government suppliers, act as Government license holders, or become buyers of public properties or sellers of properties to the government.

The best illustration of this practice is Albert Silva, a UNP candidate elected to the Galle constituency in 1977. He lost his parliamentary seat by a Court ruling on the ground that he held a kerosene permit issued by the government in his name. President Jayewardene did not abolish the law pertaining to this. But, he disregarded the tradition and suppressed the imposition of the law, making it virtually inoperative. By doing that, he granted the MPs of the ruling party the freedom and the right to conduct business with the government without restrictions. So they were allowed to serve as Government contractors, Government suppliers, become Government license holders, and buyers of public properties and sellers of properties to the government.”

It is anybody’s guess when Sri Lanka’s Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) will take action similar to those taken by their counterparts in Singapore. The question is whether they have a similar mindset as The CPIB, whose declared policy is We investigate all cases without fear or favour and will not hesitate to take action against all parties involved in corrupt practices.” And, Importantly, does the President of Sri Lanka have the nerve to send a cabinet minister or a state minister on a leave of absence pending an investigation?

The decision to grant a further extension of service to the retired Inspector General of Police indicates that the President is unable to take decisive action. It seems that a compromise has been agreed upon to placate the subject Minister. How differently things are done in Sri Lanka when compared to Singapore?