Anita Carolina


This study is designed to cast light on the issue of corruption from diverse viewpoints, which is so deeply rooted in every aspect of life these days. Anti-corruption approaches on the part of the government are not expected to be so successful because the problem is too complicated. That is why appropriate comprehension of the issue is required first. This study explores the anti-corruption and corruption-preventive systems in Asia, especially in Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand and Indonesia. Moreover, this study compares how those countries combat corruption with the aim of ascertaining why Singapore and Hong Kong are more effective in curbing corruption than Thailand and Indonesia. Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand and Indonesia have relied on a single anti-corruption agency (ACA) to implement the anti-corruption laws.

This study concludes that the critical difference between success and failure in combating corruption in Asian countries is the political will of the government. Singapore and Hong Kong are more effective in corruption control because their governments have demonstrated their commitment by enforcing the comprehensive anticorruption laws impartially and providing the CPIB and ICAC with adequate personnel and budget to enable them to perform their functions effectively. In contrast, Thailand and Indonesia are less effective in curbing corruption because their governments lack the political will as reflected in the higher staff-population ratios and lower per capita expenditures of their ACAs and the selective enforcement of the anti-corruption laws. In addition to political will, the favourable policy contexts of Singapore and Hong Kong have enhanced the effectiveness of the CPIB and ICAC. On the other hand, the unfavourable policy contexts of Thailand and Indonesia have hindered the effectiveness of their ACAs.


Corruption; Anti Corruption Agency; System Anti Corruption; Political Will


Assegal, Ibrahim S. et al. 2002. A Gloomy Picture of the Attempts to Eradicate Corruption: Reflection of the Policies, Laws and Institutions of Corruption Management in Indonesia, 1969-2001. In Richard Holloway (Ed.), Stealing from the People, hal.16

Corruption Perception Index. 2010. Diakses 4 Mei 2011.

CPIB. 2010. “Our History: Stamford Road Days (1962-1984).” Diakses 4 Mei 2011.

CPIB. 2011. Report 2010: Singapore. ManagePage/1245/CPIB%20Report%202010.pdf. Diakses 5 Mei 2011.

De Speville, Bertrand. 1997. Hong Kong: Policy Initiatives against Corruption. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Heilbrunn, John, R. 2004. Anti Corruption Commissions: Panacea or Real Medicine to Fight Corruption?. World Bank Institute.

ICAC. 2011. Annual Report. Hong Kong: 2010.

ICAC. 2010. Annual Report. Hong Kong: 2009.

Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK). (2009). Annual Report 2008. Jakarta: KPK. Diakses 4 Mei 2011.

Lee, Kuan Yew. 2000. From Third World to First, The Singapore Story: 1965-2000. Singapore: Times Media.

Masyarakat Transparansi Indonesia. 2007. Diakses 4 Mei 2011.

Phongpaichit, Pasuk, et. al. 1997. Corruption in the Thai Bureaucratic System (Executive Summary). Bangkok: Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Quah, Jon S.T. 2011. Curbing Corruption in Asian Countries: An Impossible Dream? Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

Quah, Jon S.T. 2007. Combating Corruption Singapore-Style: Lessons for Other Asian Countries. Baltimore: School of Law, University of Maryland, 2007.

Quah, Jon S.T. 2010. Public Administration Singapore-Style. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

Republic of Singapore. 2011. Singapore Budget 2011: Annex to the Expenditure Estimates.

Singapore: Budget Division, Ministry of Finance.

Senior, Ian. 2006. Corruption—the World’s Big C: Cases, Causes, Consequences, Cures. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.

UNDP. 2010. Institutional Arrangement to Combat Corruption: A comparative Study.

World Bank. 2009. Doing Business 2010. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Diakses 4 Mei 2011.

World Bank. 2010. Diakses 4 Mei 2011.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License

Faculty of Economics, University of Trunojoyo Madura
© 2016