Operational Risk:

Critical

Score:

13/100

Next Risk Category Right Arrow
Left Arrow Back to Singapore Overview

Disregard of Corruption in-Country

Collapse
Q51 0/100

Do the armed forces have military doctrine addressing corruption as a strategic issue on operations?

View Question
Military doctrine Score: 0 / 100
The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) recognise, the deleterious effects of corruption and have in place codes of conduct that espouse integrity among its many…
Explore
Transparency Score: NA / 100
This indicator has been marked Not Applicable, as there there is no specific doctrine that considers anti-corruption as a strategic issue for operations.
Explore
Q52 25/100

Is there training in corruption issues for commanders at all levels in order to ensure that these commanders are clear on the corruption issues they may face during deployment?

View Question
Score: 25 / 100
While it is clear that there are efforts to provide Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) personnel anti-corruption training at various stages in their career or…
Explore
Q53 0/100

Is corruption as a strategic issue considered in the forward planning of operations? If so, is there evidence that commanders at all levels apply this knowledge in the field?

View Question
Forward planning Score: 0 / 100
There are clearly stated and strict legislation and regulations against corruption in the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and…
Explore
Application Score: 0 / 100
There is no evidence of systematic planning in corruption issues for commanders other than occasional participation in seminars (internally or by external parties such…
Explore

Corruption within Mission

Expand
Q54 25/100

Are trained professionals regularly deployed to monitor corruption risk in the field (whether deployed on operations or peacekeeping missions)?

View Question
Corruption monitoring Score: 50 / 100
IAD deploys professional auditors overseas to conduct audits periodically for overseas deployments. Indications of potential corruption are reported to superiors for follow-up action. While…
Explore
M&E policy Score: 0 / 100
There is no evidence of specific guidance provided to deployed units to monitor corruption risks, other than the existing general orders and overarching regulations…
Explore
Transparency Score: 25 / 100
Cases of suspected corruption uncovered during checks and investigations are generally not made public due to their classified nature. However, should subsequent investigations by…
Explore

Contracting

Expand
Q55 NEI/100

Are there guidelines, and staff training, on addressing corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions?

View Question
Comprehensiveness Score: NEI / 100
There is not enough evidence to score this indicator. Contracting personnel remain subject to applicable anti-corruption regulations in overseas missions [1, 2]. However, there…
Explore
Training Score: 50 / 100
Personnel have received general corruption training at various stages of their career, but it is unknown if they received specific instruction on corruption risks…
Explore

Private Security Companies

Expand
Q56 NS/100

Are private military contractors employed and if so, are they subject to a similar level of scrutiny as for the armed forces?

View Question
Policies Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) do not employ…
Explore
Scrutiny Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. PMCs are subject to the same level of scrutiny by the Defence Science and…
Explore
Enforcement Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. When violations have been detected, the MINDEF has consistently acted swiftly to remedy the…
Explore