Corruption and its Cure: Is the “Singapore Phenomena” suitable for Armenia?

“Official” salaries of state officials hardly impress. The job as President, for example, pays 400,000 drams per month – a little more than $1,000. Salaries of the Prime Minister, Assembly Speaker, Chairman of Constitutional Court are even more modest, 310,000 drams – about $835.

“Official” salaries of state officials hardly impress. The job as President, for example, pays 400,000 drams per month – a little more than $1,000. Salaries of the Prime Minister, Assembly Speaker, Chairman of Constitutional Court are even more modest, 310,000 drams – about $835. Regional governors are paid about $610 monthly by the state.

By comparison the President of Georgia makes $2,400 monthly; Russia, $6,200; Ukraine, $6,500.

During a recent session, Minister of Justice David Harutyunyan (whose official salary is about $815) used Singapore (with a population of 4.4 million) as a model, pointing out that Prime Minister Li Syan Lun is paid $50,000 a year.

Political scientist Garegin Gabrielyan says the supposition that more money leads to less corruption pre-supposes that Armenian officials lack the moral will to resist bribery.

“This initiative of the government in fact admits that the Armenian official is not inclined to declare his profit, likes to hide his incomes, to take bribes, to be a patron of the clan-based economic way of life and from time to time to destabilize prices for basic products,” Gabrielyan says.

“It is remarkable that the parliamentary debate on the question of a 40% raise in salary established as fact their own involvement in the shadow business,” the political analyst notes. “At least, the motivation of expediency of a similar reform is officially presented exactly in the context of struggle against corruption among top bureaucrats of the republic. Mentioning a high salary of the prime minister of Singapore seems unconvincing against this background.”

But the Justice Minister’s example is of a country that has gone from one of the most, to one of the least corrupt. Nevertheless, the very history of the development of that country testifies that it was the political will of the authorities that became the pledge of the state’s prosperity.

Gabrielyan points out that as early as 1966, a state investigation of corruption (involving Minister of National Development Tak Kia Gan) led to his dismissal.

“How many similar precedents can we count during the 15-year history of independent Armenia?,” the analyst asks.

In February 2005, when asked why no Armenian ministers who have been dismissed on ethics issues have ever been criminally charged, President Robert Kocharyan stated: “A minister is not a materially responsible person. He does not distribute financial and material resources by his personal signature. It is difficult to prove his abuse of power in court as it has a mediated nature. The point is that everybody wants embezzlers of public funds and bribe-takers to be put into jail, but very few people are ready for it to happen based on their testimony. In such cases a court trial often loses perspective.”

Meanwhile, in 1975 Singapore’s environment minister Vi Tun Bun was convicted on criminal charges. For his assistance in the allocation of land for construction development he received two bank transfers of $300,000 each. After the investigation the culprit was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison and fined a large sum of money.

“A new question arises in this connection: who of Armenia’s high-ranking officials who had (illegally) allocated land was brought to criminal responsibility?” Gabrielyan asks. “It is also possible to cite other examples: the minister of national development of Singapore Te Ching Van received two bribes of $1 million for allocation of land for the construction of a residential estate. The official had pleaded not guilty until the last moment of the investigation, and when the date for the court trial was announced he committed suicide.”

It is in the soil of such uncompromising struggle that the seeds of today’s Singapore were sown.

“Alas, from the whole palette of Singapore experience Armenian authorities have chosen only high salaries and are trying to present to the population what is called the ‘Singapore phenomenon’ based on this separate factor,” Gabrielyan says.

If Armenia is to copy Singapore, it might be argued that the NA also hear the words of that country’s chief anti-corruption official, So Ki Hin: “I think that there can be only one recipe -- it is necessary to observe laws and to make their observance obligatory for all. Nothing can be done in fighting corruption without strong political will -- people must have belief that the country’s leaders are honest and not corrupt. If the president or the prime minister steal, then it is senseless to fight corruption on a national scale.”