Singapore: To Be or Not To Be, Kenya? The Verdict — Three Cases, One Stool, and a Choice We Cannot Avoid

The Stick in Action: Three Cases That Defined a Culture
Theory is elegant. But culture is made in specific, documented moments when the system is tested by powerful people who expect to be the exception. Singapore has had several such moments. Here are three that define the culture across every level of government.

1. Ministerial Level: Teh Cheang Wan (1986)
This is the most chilling and consequential case in Singapore’s anti-corruption history. Teh Cheang Wan was the Minister for National Development — not a junior official, but a senior cabinet minister and a personal ally of Lee Kuan Yew himself.

The CPIB investigated him for accepting two bribes of S$500,000 each — totaling S$1 million (KES 102 million) — in exchange for helping property developers retain government land and secure approvals. When the investigation began, Lee Kuan Yew, despite their long personal relationship, refused to meet him or intervene. The Stick here was not just legal; it was the complete withdrawal of political protection, social standing, and the friendship of the most powerful man in Singapore.

Faced with the certainty of a public trial, a humiliating conviction under the Presumption of Corruption law, and the total collapse of his legacy, Teh took his own life before the case reached court. His suicide note to Lee Kuan Yew included the words: “As a gentleman, I should accept the highest penalty for my mistake.”

The legacy of this case reached beyond the man. It led directly to legislation ensuring that even if a corrupt official dies before conviction, the state can pursue and seize ill-gotten wealth from their estate. Death is not an escape clause.

2. The Modern Standard: S. Iswaran (2024)
If the Teh case defined Singapore’s zero tolerance for outright bribery, the Iswaran case defined its zero tolerance for something subtler: the mere appearance of a transactional relationship between a minister and someone with business before the government.

S. Iswaran was a former Transport Minister — a senior, seemingly untouchable figure. He was found to have accepted luxury items worth over S$400,000: Formula One tickets, private jet flights, and luxury hotel stays, primarily from billionaire businessman Ong Beng Seng, with whom he had official dealings. As we noted in Part One, Ong Beng Seng was not, in his own cultural mind, bribing a minister. He was maintaining guanxi. Singapore said: we understand precisely why it feels natural. We are making it a crime precisely because we understand it.

The state originally pursued full corruption charges. These were downgraded to the lesser Section 165 offence — receiving anything of value from someone with official business before you, even without proving a specific favour in return. Rather than let Iswaran walk on a technicality, the state chose the charge it could prove. No exit. The judge sentenced him to 12 months in prison — harsher than the prosecution had requested — stating that “holders of high office have a higher impact on public interest.” The Stick swings harder for those at the top, not lighter.

The message to every Singaporean minister is unambiguous: your million-dollar salary exists precisely so you never need to accept a ticket, a flight, a bottle of whiskey, or a bicycle from anyone who has business with your office. The Carrot renders every gift from a businessman not a favour, but a trap.

3. The Management Level: Teo Ek Huat (2017)
The Stick does not reserve itself for ministers. It reaches deep into the technical departments of the civil service, which is exactly what makes the culture pervasive rather than performative. Teo Ek Huat was a Deputy Director at the Building and Construction Authority — mid-level management, not a headline name. He solicited and received approximately S$1.1 million in “loans” from contractors on projects he supervised, using the money to fund a gambling addiction.
The Presumption of Corruption clause dismantled his defence. He could not demonstrate legitimate, arm’s-length personal loans. He was sentenced to over five years in prison and ordered to pay S$1.1 million in penalties. Inability to pay means additional prison time. And beyond the sentence, he lost his entire accumulated government pension — a financial blow far greater than the S$1.1 million he had taken. The lesson: the Stick does not negotiate. It asks one question: Did the math of your lifestyle exceed the math of your salary?

Screenshot

The Private Sector Is Not Exempt
For every corrupt official, there is a businessperson holding a cheque book. Singapore understands this arithmetic and refuses to treat the bribe-giver as a victim. In Singapore, the giver and the taker are equal partners in crime. Attempted bribery — an offer that was rejected — is still a criminal offence. If a Singaporean company bribes officials in Brazil, as Keppel O&M did, Singapore coordinates with foreign jurisdictions to pursue it. Keppel ultimately paid US$422 million — KES 54.6 billion — in combined fines. No company is too big to jail. The private sector, therefore, polices itself. Not from virtue, but from rational self-interest. Singapore deliberately engineered that self-interest into the law.

The Synthesis: Three Legs, One Stool
If I had to explain this entire system to someone in thirty seconds, from an African perspective, the logic is this: Singapore assumes human beings are rational actors. It makes the legal path to prosperity wide, well-lit, and financially rewarding. Then it makes the illegal path an almost certain pathway to financial ruin and social humiliation. Most rational people, facing that choice, choose the legal path. Not because they are saints. Because they can do the math.

Singapore itself describes the architecture as a three-legged stool: Laws, Leads, and Livelihood. Laws are the Stick. Leads are the CPIB and the institutional infrastructure that enforces the Stick. Livelihood is the Carrot — the salaries, the CPF, the pensions, the housing, the stake in national success. Remove any one of the three legs, and the stool collapses. A well-paid civil service with no enforcement becomes an entitled elite, as is the case in Kenya. An aggressive enforcement agency without competitive pay creates a low-morale, vindictive bureaucracy. Kenya Police anyone? Strict laws without an independent investigative body become political weapons. Singapore keeps all three legs in balance.

The Culture of Shame is the fourth, unwritten leg. Singapore is small. Everybody knows everybody. A corruption conviction does not just end your career — it follows your children to school. It appears at every dinner party. It is discussed at every funeral. Ostracization. Very traditional African. Social accountability is not an enforcement mechanism that can be legislated. It grows, slowly, from a culture of genuine zero tolerance at the top. When the Mbuta — the big fish — is not protected, the Omena — small fish — learn the hard way that neither will they be.

So: To Be or Not To Be, Kenya?
Let us return to the original question. Can Kenya, can Africa, become Singapore? The answer, as with all serious questions, is… it depends…

It does not depend on whether we are intelligent enough. We are. It does not depend on whether we have the cultural capacity for collective discipline. We do — our grandmothers built chamas and stokvels and susus and iqubs without a single government mandate, and they worked because the community enforced them. It does not depend on whether the ideas are foreign. They are not. The CPF is UTU/Ubuntu with a bank account. The CPIB is the village elder with a warrant card and no political master.

What it depends on is political will. Specifically, the willingness of those in power to build a system that will, inevitably, investigate and prosecute them or their allies. Lee Kuan Yew refused to intervene when his minister and ally Teh Cheang Wan was investigated. That single act of non-intervention was worth a thousand anti-corruption speeches. It said: the system is bigger than my friendships.

“We do not lack the wisdom. We lack the willingness to protect the wisdom from those who benefit most from its absence.”
 — The African Governance Problem

Here is the hard truth. The Singapore model is not impossible for Kenya or for Africa. It is uncomfortable. There is a difference. Impossible means you cannot do it. Uncomfortable means those currently in power would not survive it. And they know it. That is why every Kenyan politician loves to talk about Singapore’s skyline and falls conspicuously silent about Singapore’s CPIB.

The citizens of Singapore did not suddenly become more honest than Kenyans in 1965. They became subject to a system where honesty was structurally rewarded and dishonesty was structurally catastrophic. Over time — over decades — the system reshaped the culture. Culture does not precede the system. Culture follows it.
And here is the thing that should keep every Kenyan leader awake at night. We are not being asked to copy a foreign country. We are being asked to honour a Kenyan one. Tom Mboya wrote the philosophical blueprint in 1965. The chama encoded the economic principle for centuries before that. The village elder practised accountability long before there was a name for governance. We have never lacked the wisdom. We have consistently lacked the political courage to protect it from those who benefit most from its absence.

The Ndegwa Commission of 1972 did not just legalise a conflict of interest. It was a declaration of intent by the political class: we will not build the cage that holds us. Every subsequent commission, every anti-corruption agency without teeth, every EACC press conference followed by no prosecution, every “anti-corruption drive” that evaporates before the next election — all of it is the Ndegwa Commission in different clothing.

So the question “To be or not to be Singapore” is, at its core, not a question about economics or governance architecture. It is a question about whether any Kenyan president, any Kenyan parliament, any Kenyan generation of leaders will voluntarily build the cage that will hold them. Whether they will look at the CPIB’s warrant-free search powers, the Presumption of Corruption, the Unexplained Wealth clause, the CPF forfeiture provisions, and say: yes, apply all of this to us, starting today.

The day that happens — the day the political class of an African nation decides to build Mboya’s vision with Singapore’s institutional discipline and sit inside it themselves — that country will not merely become the Singapore of Africa.
It will become something rarer, something Singapore never was: proof that UTU/Ubuntu, applied with political courage, can build a nation that serves its people rather than consumes them. That is a story worth telling. That is a story worth dying for. Tom Mboya knew it. The three bullets on Government Road knew it too.
“Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu. A person is a person through other persons. The opposite is also true: a corrupt official is a corrupt official through a system that permits it. Mboya tried to build a different system. This time, let us finish what he started.”

All Singapore case details, legislation, and salary benchmarks are drawn from publicly available official sources. The Iswaran sentence was handed down in October 2024. Salary figures for Singapore’s Prime Minister are based on the most recently published parliamentary data.

Follow This Is Africa on Twitter and Facebook to join the conversation.