Corruption is a serious problem in many countries around the world, according to Transparency International's 2012 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) and the World Bank's 2011 Control of Corruption governance indicator. However, some countries like New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Singapore and Hong Kong, have consistently performed better on these two indicators than other countries. While some research has been done in the form of case studies on combating corruption there has been no comparative study on how these five countries have succeeded in curbing corruption and the lessons to be learnt by other countries from their experiences. This book seeks to explain why these five countries have succeeded in combating corruption; and identify the lessons which other countries can learn from these successful experiences. Of interest to policy-makers, anti-corruption practitioners and civil society activists, the edited book will also be a useful resource for undergraduate and graduate courses on corruption and governance in universities as well as for training courses on anti-corruption strategies conducted by anti-corruption agencies and international organizations in various countries.

As corruption is a serious problem in many Asian countries their governments have introduced many anti-corruption measures since the 1950s. This book analyzes and evaluates the anti-corruption strategies employed in Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mongolia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. These countries are selected because they represent the three major patterns of corruption control with Japan adopting Pattern 1 (anti-corruption laws without any anti-corruption agency [ACA]); India, the Philippines and Taiwan employing Pattern 2 (anti-corruption laws with multiple ACAs); and, Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia, and Mongolia belonging to Pattern 3 (anti-corruption laws with a single ACA). Among the ten countries only Singapore and Hong Kong SAR have succeeded in minimizing corruption because of the commitment of their political leaders in curbing corruption, their favorable policy contexts, and the impartial implementation of effective anti-corruption measures. On the other hand, the other eight Asian countries have failed to curb corruption because of the lack of political will, their unfavorable policy contexts, and their reliance on ineffective anti-corruption measures.

Singapore was ranked first for the competence of its public officials from 1999 to 2002 by "The Global Competitiveness Report". While research has been done on various aspects of public administration in Singapore, there is to date no comprehensive study of the Singapore Civil Service and the statutory boards and their contribution to the attainment of national development goals. The aim of this book is to rectify this gap in the literature by providing a detailed study of public administration Singapore-style. Public administration Singapore-style is characterized by these features: macho-meritocracy; competing with the private sector for talent; low level of corruption; reliance on institutional and attitudinal administrative reforms; reliance on statutory boards to implement socio-economic development programs; effective policy implementation, improving service to the public; and using policy diffusion to solve problems. The book's main thesis is that the nature of public administration in Singapore results from the combined influence of Singapore's policy context and the various policies introduced by the People's Action Party government since it assumed office in June 1959, 50 years ago.

This pioneering book addresses an important gap in the literature by comparing the role of the public bureaucracies in policy implementation in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam. It highlights the importance of the policy context, especially the commitment of the government in allocating the necessary resources and the support of the implementers, as well as the public bureaucracy's effectiveness, as the critical factors responsible for effective policy implementation. The comparative analysis shows that the public bureaucracies in Singapore and Malaysia are more effective in policy implementation than their counterparts in Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam because of their favourable policy contexts and higher level of organizational effectiveness. The focus on policy context and the public bureaucracy's role in the policy-making process and its implementation of two ASEAN policies will be of interest to policymakers, civil servants, scholars and students concerned with enhancing policy implementation in the ASEAN countries.