|
 |
|
Source:
www.gov.sg |
|
Excerpted from |
|
MM Lee's speech at the Asian
Strategy and Leadership Institute's World Ethics and Integrity Forum
2005 |
|
|
".....The question is “Can Singapore always remain
clean?” |
|
"No political system in any country is immune from
corruption..... |
|
"Singapore has been consistently rated as the most
transparent government in Asia by Transparency International based in Berlin.
PERC based in Hong Kong have corroborated this. |
|
"However do not believe that Singapore does not
have corruption. Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau annual reports show
just how many cases of corruption or attempted corruption take place every
year, many that have to be investigated and prosecuted. |
|
"There were 145 substantial cases last year, 2004
and 175 in 2003. Fortunately they have not involved the higher echelons of
political office holders or civil service officers. |
|
"Singapore had an incipient problem under the
British. But under Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock (1956-59), some ministers were
corrupt and the rot looked like spreading. |
|
"When the present Singapore government took office
in 1959, it had a deep sense of mission to establish a clean and ethical
government. We made ethical and incorruptible leadership a core issue in our
election campaign. It was our counter to the smears of pro Communist Barisan
Socialis and their unions. |
|
"In office, we directed the Corrupt Practices
Investigation Bureau (CPIB), set up by the British in 1952 to deal with
corruption, go for the big takers in the upper echelons. |
|
"We also amended the law to put the burden of
proof on the defendant or accused if he/she had more assets than his income as
reported in his income tax returns, from his employment or business could have
given him. He has to disprove the presumption of guilt that they were gained
by corrupt means. |
|
"It is a constant fight to keep the house clean.
As long as the core leadership is clean, any back sliding can be brought under
control and the house cleaned up. |
|
"What the PAP government cannot ensure is that if
it loses an election, a non-PAP government will remain honest. Therefore we
have installed constitutional safeguards to meet such an eventuality. We
amended the constitution to have the president popularly elected not by
Parliament but by whole electorate and has a veto power on the spending of the
country’s reserves by the Cabinet. |
|
"The president now also has the power to overrule
any prime minister who stops or holds up an investigation for corruption
against any of his ministers or senior officials or himself. The Director of
the CPIB (Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau) has two masters to back him,
the elected prime minister, and if he refuses to move, the elected president,
who can act independently of the elected prime minister, to order that
investigations proceed. |
|
"The president also has the veto on appointments
to important positions like the Chief Justice, Chief of Defence Force,
Commissioner of Police, the Attorney General, Auditor General and other key
positions that uphold the integrity of the institutions of government. They
are key officers, essential for the government to function without being
subverted. |
|
"During a PAP government, the two-key system will
guard against any PAP prime minister and Cabinet who overspend for political
ends or a PM unwilling to act against a political colleague. The president
then steps in and acts. |
|
"If there is a non-PAP government and prime
minister, the Director of the CPIB will be protected by the president from
being subverted or undermined, otherwise the safeguards will not work. Then if
in the next elections a PAP government were to be returned to office, it can
clean up the system again. |
|
"If Singapore has the misfortune to elect a sharp
but crooked group of politicians who can win two elections in a row, I fear
they will be able to get their candidate elected as the successor president
and thereby subvert the constitutional safeguards..... |
|
"However when the core leadership is clean,
corruption can be gradually diminished. Both must be prepared to take on the
big ones in the highest echelons of the government. This is most painful to do
as I know from experience. |
|
"Wee Toon Boon was minister of state in the
Singapore ministry of the environment in 1975 when he took a free trip to
Indonesia for himself and his family members, paid for by a housing developer.
He also accepted a bungalow worth S$500,000 from this developer. |
|
"He had been a loyal non-communist trade union
leader and my staunch supporter from the 1950s. It was painful to have him
charged, convicted and sentenced to four years and six months in jail. |
|
"In November 1985 one of Teh Cheang Wan’s
(Minister for National Development) old associates told the CPIB that he had
given Teh two cash payments of S$400,000 each in 1981 and 1982, to allow a
development company to retain part of its land which had been earmarked for
compulsory government acquisition, and to assist the developer in the purchase
of state land. Teh denied receiving the money. |
|
"He tried to bargain with the senior assistant
director of the CPIB for the case not to be pursued. The cabinet secretary
reported this and said Teh had asked to see me. I told the Cabinet Secretary
that I could not see him until the investigations were over. A week later, on
the morning of 15 December 1986, my security officer reported that Teh had
died and left me a letter: |
|
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 honourable oriental gentleman I feel it is only
right that I should pay the highest penalty for my mistake. |
|
Yours faithfully, |
|
Teh Cheang Wan |
|
|
"Teh preferred to take his life rather than face
disgrace and ostracism. I never understood why he took this S$800,000. He was
an able and resourceful architect and could have made many millions honestly
in private practice. |
|
"Corruption has to be eradicated at all levels of
government. But if there is corruption at highest levels of a government, the
problem can become intractable. To clean up may require some key members of
the core leadership to be removed..... |
|
"An important factor is the salary of Ministers
and government officials. They have enormous powers to grant or deny permits
that can make or break businesses. When ministers and senior civil servants
are paid salaries that are derisory compared to those of their counterparts in
the private sector, officials and ministers will be tempted to take gifts. |
|
"Whether it is policemen, immigration officers,
customs officers or officers in charge of dispensing licences, it is dangerous
to have them grossly underpaid. Over the last 40 years, Singapore has moved
towards paying political and civil service officers 70-80% of what their
equivalents are earning in the private sector, the formula is based on an
average of 6 professions, their salaried incomes based on the income tax
returns. This has enabled ministers and officials to live according to their
station in society without extra sources of illicit income. |
|
"Singapore has to keep fighting corruption
wherever it exists and however difficult it may be politically. The system
works because everyone knows the Singapore government is prepared to act
against the most powerful in the land. |
|
"In 1995 Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong ordered an
investigation into purchases of two properties each made by my wife on my
behalf and by my son Lee Hsien Loong, then deputy prime minister. The
developer had given them unsolicited 5–7 per cent discounts on these
purchases, as he had given to 5–10 per cent of his buyers at a soft launch to
test the market. |
|
"Because my brother was a non-executive director
of the company, a rumour went around that my son and I had gained an unfair
advantage. The Monetary Authority of Singapore investigated the matter and
reported to Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong that there was nothing improper. |
|
"Nevertheless I asked the prime minister to take
the matter to Parliament. In the debate, opposition MPs, including two
lawyers, one a leader of the opposition, said that such discounts were
standard marketing practice and was not improper. This open debate made it a
non-issue in the general elections a year later. |
|
"Leaders must be prepared for such scrutiny to
keep the system clean. |
|
"We have to keep our own house clean. No one else
can do it for us." |
|
Full Text of Speech |
|
Source:
Singapore Government Press Release 28 Apr 2005 |
Can Singapore always remain clean?: MM Lee
