Hong Kong vs Singapore (II): Combating Corruption

[Confuseous]

Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) are two of the most acclaimed anti-corruption commissions in Asia, often seen and studied as “role models” in combating corruption. Both were established by Crown administrators to check rampant corruption within the then colony’s police force, and have since enjoyed immense success in fighting graft.

That said, the two commissions are very different in many ways. The ICAC is staffed by 1,200 employees on contract; staff cannot enter Hong Kong government after they leave ICAC; turnover is low, with more than half having been with the Commission for over ten years. The CPIB is a leaner organization with a staff strength of only 102. While the ICAC adopts a three-pronged approach – investigation, prevention, communication – in tackling corruption, the CPIB focuses on investigation.

- http://singaporearmchaircritic.word...ng-kong-vs-singapore-ii-combating-corruption/

 

[Kinana]

Staff of 1200 is too much. That itself is corruption.
However, I believe a staff of 102 is also too lean. I think it is bigger than that. Perhaps they outsource or get help for much of your work to other agencies.

 

[Cestbon]

1200 staff maybe few hundred as a spy in company.
Another 100 promote anti corruption.

Singapore 102 staff!
How many staff really work. 50 will sit in office. 20 busy in court.
That left another 30 to do the job.