Benjamin Bestgen

There is no denying that being a politician or civil servant also comes with power and privileges. The more senior one’s position is, the greater the power and privileges tend to be. And with that come risks and temptations. You will be treated with more deference. Fewer people say no to you. You will receive invitations, gifts and donations from all sorts of people and organisations who want your attention, influence or patronage. Former independent MP Martin Bell described how this can grow over time into a sense of expectation and entitlement.

Even if you aren’t from a privileged social background already, you will increasingly come into contact with very powerful and wealthy individuals. Some clearly only contact you because of your office. Others are or become personal friends.

The boundaries between your personal life and official position can no longer be neatly separated. But of course, friends may still go on holiday together, have dinners, attend cultural or sports events, let each other stay at their houses perhaps, do each other the odd favour and kindness. Surely even senior politicians and civil servants are permitted friends and an enjoyable personal life?

A problem of trust

The perception that politicians don’t adhere to the same rules as everybody else and are beholden to wealthy donors and special interest groups is rife in the UK. Most recently, it exploded under the arguably corrupt Johnson government, with Partygate and pandemic profiteering being only a fraction of the questionable deeds involving senior politicians. The subsequent governments of Truss and Sunak failed to enact credible reforms against self-serving politicians. And most recently, Prime Minister Keir Starmer attracted negative attention for accepting significant gifts from donors, including designer clothes for him and his wife, eye-wear, football and concert tickets.

On top of that, the rules for officials and politicians to declare gifts and donations in the UK seem poorly understood. Most crucially, they don’t tackle the perception that politicians can be readily influenced by wealthy donors who get privileged access. Binding rules around second jobs, taking jobs after politics and allowances are equally opaque or don’t exist.

Few people would begrudge a politician the occasional meal invite or token appreciation. But the perception over the past decade in British politics is increasingly one of self-indulgence, sleaze and growing corruptibility.

Learning from Singapore

In October 2024 (Public Prosecutor v S Iswaran [2024] SGHC 251), Singapore’s former transport minister, Subramaniam Iswaran, stood accused of corruption in relation to his dealings with two prominent businessmen. The accused was ultimately able to avoid corruption charges, as the prosecution considered them too difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, Mr Iswaran pled guilty and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment by Singapore’s High Court for:

• inappropriately accepting gifts and benefits of value while in office, from persons with whom he was connected through his official duties; and
• obstructing the course of justice by attempting to get invoices for certain items and pay for them but only once he learned that he was being investigated.

Some of those gifts included an expensive bicycle, Formula 1 tickets, flights and rooms in a high-end hotel as well as premium wines and spirits.

Justice Vincent Hoong exceeded both the sentencing recommendations by the defence and the prosecution, describing them as “manifestly inadequate”. He noted that even the perception that someone could cultivate goodwill with a public official by giving them gifts is already damaging to the people’s trust in public institutions. Mr Iswaran’s actions certainly caused harm to the public interest in good governance. A key aspect to safeguarding the public interest is therefore deterrence of such behaviour.

The judge also found that while Mr Iswaran didn’t actively seek out the gifts and benefits, he wasn’t merely a passive receptor either. He acted with deliberation when accepting them, such as clearing his calendar to enjoy the trips or ensuring event tickets were going to his friends and family. Justice Hoong stated that Mr Iswaran’s expressions of remorse came too late and were not credible. In the eyes of the court, Mr Iswaran displayed a sense of entitlement and expectation to be acquitted.

And lastly, the court noted that Mr Iswaran’s undeniable long and honourable service to Singapore’s governance is legally at best of neutral value. The more senior and experienced someone is, the greater the culpability for wrongdoing: a record of distinguished service does not entitle the accused to get a lighter sentence for serious misconduct in office.

How does Singapore deal with perks in politics?

Firstly, Singapore’s public servants are famously well remunerated. To guard against corruptibility and ensure that public sector work is attractive to professionals of high calibre, Singapore is prepared to pay. The government also issues prestigious scholarships to promising graduates and offers fast-tracked career options for top talent, akin to the private sector.

Secondly, remuneration is transparent and all rules clear to everyone. The guiding document, Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government states that remuneration must be clean, with no hidden perks. Any gifts above SGD $50 must be declared and can only be kept if the public official pays the value to the government. The process of declaring gifts is extensive and onerous, leading to a general recommendation that public officials simply shouldn’t accept gifts. Failure to declare is a criminal offence.

Thirdly, Singapore successfully created the cultural perception that taking public office is prestigious work and requires people of high skill and integrity. The public sector prides itself on its professionalism. In contrast, given the “Punch & Judy” style of UK politics and the kind of politicians Britain allows to take high office, things like professionalism, skill and integrity appear decidedly optional.

Presumption of corruption

A fourth feature is section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960. It states that corruption is presumed when any gratification is given to or received by any government employee from anyone who has or seeks to have dealings with a person in government or public service. The onus is on the accused to rebut that presumption.

An automatic presumption of corruption can serve as a powerful disincentive to accept any gifts or favours. The existence of such a presumption also demonstrates that Singapore is all too aware of the risk of corruption and undue influence that inevitably comes with gifts, donations and favours given to public office holders.

Introducing a similar provision into the laws of the United Kingdom might help to discourage self-serving behaviours, rebuild trust in politics and focus politicians’ minds back on the public interest.

Benjamin Bestgen is a solicitor and notary public (qualified in Scotland). He holds a Master of Arts degree in philosophy and tutored in practical philosophy and jurisprudence at the Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main and the University of Edinburgh. He is the author of “Practical Jurisprudence – Attempts to make legal philosophy interesting” (2022).