Combating Administrative Corruption: A Comparative Study of Frameworks in New Zealand and Singapore

Mahdi Abolfazly(1*)

(1) Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM)
(*) Corresponding Author


The purpose of this study is to provide a comparative analysis of New Zealand's and Singapore's frameworks for combating administrative corruption. The administrative corruption combating frameworks of these two countries have similarities in some points, such as zero tolerance against administrative corruption, existing effective laws, strong law enforcement, and independent judiciaries. Although New Zealand has been experiencing a corruption-free society since it was colonised by hunters and whalers (which started in the 1700s) from America, Australia, and Europe (mostly from Great Britain), Singapore began to combat corruption after being separated from Malaysia in 1965. Moreover, New Zealand places more emphasis on international anti- corruption laws, while Singapore relies intensively on domestic anti- administrative corruption laws. In addition, New Zealand has the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), and Singapore has established the Corrupt Practises Investigation Bureau (CPIB) to investigate cases related to corruption.


Administrative Corruption, New Zealand, Singapore, Comparative analysis, Anti-Corruption frameworks

Full Text:


Article Metrics

Abstract views : 363 | views : 254


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Readers of Juris Gentium Law Review

Copyright © 2020 Juris Gentium Law Review. All rights reserved.