Last week at a Jakarta economic forum, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto revived a familiar Southeast Asian argument that only a strong state can uproot corruption, framing tougher executive power as a practical tool against graft.
“Some groups keep complaining, saying things like ‘Prabowo is authoritarian’,” he told attendees at the 2026 Indonesia Economic Outlook forum.
“But if you ask the people, perhaps a little bit of authoritarianism is needed to fight those corrupt people… Corruption is still widespread. We must eradicate corruption from the soil of Indonesia,” he added.
His remarks followed the publication of Transparency International’s latest Corruption Perceptions Index on February 10, in which Indonesia came 109th out of 182 countries, sliding down 10 places from the previous year.
This isn’t the first time that Prabowo has touted a strongman appeal against corruption. It is also not the first time he has angered critics by appealing to the country’s authoritarian past.
Prabowo is a former general accused of committing human rights abuses who became president in 2024. Since then, he has regularly portrayed former Indonesian dictator, Suharto, once his father-in-law, as a national hero.
Southeast Asia rises up against corruption
Last summer, youth-led nationwide protests erupted in Indonesia over state corruption and wealth inequality. Rights groups say the police response was heavy-handed with multiple deaths, and that protesters also faced online intimidation.
Large protestsagainst corruption also took place in the Philippines and Timor-Leste around the same time.
“In many countries across Asia-Pacific, good governance is being undermined by weak law enforcement, unaccountable leadership and opacity in political funding,” Ilham Mohamed, Asia-Pacific adviser for Transparency International, said in a statement.
“With young people demanding better, leaders must act now to curb corruption and strengthen democracy. Meaningful reforms can rebuild public trust and show those in power are finally listening,” he added.
But Prabowo’s recent comments have revived debate on concentrating power and its effects on combating corruption, with some arguing that authoritarianism is actually a recipe for selective enforcement.
Yassar Aulia from the Indonesia Corruption Watch told the Jakarta Post that “a successful anti-corruption drive does not require podium rhetoric or authoritarian leadership.”
To many Indonesians, however, Prabowo’s stance seems to make sense. A recent poll by Indikator Politik put his approval rating near 80%, with perceived strong anti-corruption steps cited as a leading reason.
Singapore as a model against corruption
Most of the top countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index are Western liberal democracies. But one of the three least corrupt nations, according to the list, is Singapore, the city-state that is both very rich, and very tightly managed.
Singapore is ranked “partly free” with 48 out of 100 points in Freedom House’s democracy index, putting it on par with Honduras and Guatemala. Since Singapore’s independence in 1965, it has been ruled by the People’s Action Party (PAP).
But Singapore has also built a reputation for aggressive law enforcement, anchored by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and tough penalties. It also ranks near the top in the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index.
Some other tiny but authoritarian states, such as Hong Kong and Brunei, also score relatively well in anti-corruption indexes. The former UK colony remains in the top 20 in the Corruption Perceptions Index even after having its political system effectively taken over by the Chinese Communist Party. Brunei, an absolute monarchy that last held an election in 1962, ranks 31st globally and the second-highest in Southeast Asia.
Even Communist-run Laos, one of the most authoritarian states in the world, ranks higher than democratic Thailand and the Philippines. Vietnam, another one-party, communist-run state, was rated less corrupt than democratic Indonesia.
Vietnam going against top political leaders
In 2016, the Communist Party of Vietnam began ramping up its “blazing furnace” anti-graft campaign, which has helped bring down senior figures, including former Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc and president Vo Van Thuong.
In Timor-Leste, student-led protests last year forced lawmakers to scrap plans for lifetime pensions and other perks. In the Philippines, violent protests erupted over accusations that officials looted state funds earmarked to fight flooding.
Attempts to impeach Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr over corruption allegations failed last month. However, Vice-President Sara Duterte was impeached by the lower house of parliament last year over allegations including misuse of confidential funds, unexplained wealth and threats against the president, although this was eventually overturned on a technicality. Duterte, who last week announced her presidential candidacy for 2028, now faces fresh impeachment complaints.
Ratna Juwita, an assistant professor at Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta and a visiting research fellow at the University of Groningen, told DW that anti-corruption efforts are “less dependent on political systems and more on factors such as the rule of law, meritocracy, and the internalisation of integrity through education and social norms.”
“Democracy alone does not guarantee strong anti-corruption mechanisms, as formal democratic institutions can sometimes coexist with patronage networks and elite capture,” she added.
Why Singapore is an outlier
Singapore is widely regarded as something of an outlier, as a de facto one-party state that routinely ranks among the best in the world for the rule of law and transparency.
Common explanations center on its size. As a compact city-state of around 6 million people, Singapore has fewer layers of government to police and a more centralised bureaucracy that is easier to audit and discipline.
It could also be because of Singapore’s leadership. Lee Kuan Yew, its “founding father,” made clean government a core legitimacy claim.
However, it also comes down to what metrics and measurements are being assessed, Joseph Pozsgai, an expert on anti-corruption at the Osaka University, told DW.
The bellwether Corruption Perceptions Index doesn’t include data on illicit financial flows, money laundering, or private-sector corruption, Pozsgai noted.
More importantly, he added, the index reflects a specific way of understanding corruption, “one that is a lot more concerned with bribery than with the abuse of public power from a traditional republican perspective.”
He noted that, somewhere in the 1970s, economists and policymakers began to view corruption more as a matter of individual responsibility and financial benefits, and became less concerned with the integrity of public life and the way officials serve the public interest.
“An older approach to anti-corruption would see [corruption] inherently linked to democracy, simply because limiting access to political contestation and vertical accountability is a form of abuse of power for private gain,” Pozsgai told DW.
As such, Singapore looks “rather clean from a common anti-corruption angle, but it also represents a case where the political elite is able to preserve and enjoy power in ways that are evidently ‘abusive’ from the perspective of civic rights,” he added.
Several Southeast Asian states show that authoritarianism can produce dramatic clean-ups when applied against corruption. But analysts warn that real anti-graft efforts also require independent courts, watchdogs organizations and a free press. Otherwise, the rulers can use those efforts as a tool to punish rivals and protect their allies.
Edited by: Wesley Rahn