You'll Never Sit Alone: Sir Keir Starmer - Sleaze in Britain, but Corruption in Asia
The Asian Crime Century briefing 91
The revelation that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has received money and gifts amounting to over £100,000 illustrates how what is often perceived as corruption in Asia is called “sleaze” in Britain. The refrain that the UK is not a corrupt country may be true as there is no systemic corruption that plagues some countries, but it is equally true that political leaders in the UK refuse to recognise that what is called “political sleaze” is not dealt with nearly as harshly in Britain as it is in places such as former British colonies Hong Kong and Singapore. Both Hong Kong and Singapore have a more stringent and less tolerant approach to sleaze in politics that can lead to corruption, and there are good case examples to illustrate this.
As background, Sir Keir Starmer has declared in the Register of Members’ [of Parliament] Financial Interests that he has received gifts valued at £107,145, which is reason enough to question his integrity and judgement. Starmer has declared receiving free tickets to attend football matches, tickets to a Taylor Swift concert, cash for “work clothing”, multiple pairs of glasses, and accommodation (which are all detailed below). Why any elected politician should receive such gifts is questionable and raises concerns that the system should be tightened to prohibit receipt of most personal gifts, not only to declare them, and to mandate that political donations are only made to a registered political party that then has an obligation to appropriately record and distribute them.
Starmer has responded to widespread criticism of his acceptance of the gifts by saying that “I'm a massive Arsenal fan. I can't go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don't accept a gift of hospitality, I can't go to a game. You could say: 'Well, bad luck'. That's why gifts have to be registered. But... never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”
However, the General Election after which Starmer became Prime Minister was on 4th July 2024 but the eleven tickets to watch Arsenal football matches from VIP boxes were all given to him prior to this date whilst he was still only leader of the Labour Party. Although Starmer would have some level of police protection as leader of the political opposition, his explanation that he only accepted the tickets because of security costs if he attended matches in the stands is disingenuous.
It is useful to consider cases of corruption in senior levels of government in former British colonies Hong Kong and Singapore, where there is a far stronger emphasis on ensuring integrity in public life and preventing inappropriate influence of political leaders.
Government Corruption in Hong Kong
In 2012, Rafael Hui was arrested by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) on suspicion of corruption involving Thomas and Raymond Kwok, brothers who are several of the wealthiest people in Hong Kong. Hui was the former Chief Secretary of the Hong Kong Government, the second most senior political role in the territory. In December 2014, Hui was convicted of five counts of Misconduct in Public Office, a common law offence that also exists in the UK. Hui was sentenced to 7.5 years imprisonment, and served five.
The Court of Appeal ruling against Hui and the Kwok brothers illustrated how the courts in Hong Kong see corruption and misconduct by public officers (such as civil servants and political leaders), with the Judgement stating that the Hong Kong Government “submits that a public officer who is or remains favourably disposed to another person on account of pre-office payments commits a continuing act of disloyalty in breach of his duty to serve the people of Hong Kong.”
The conviction of Hui involved acceptance by the court that his acceptance payments from the Kwok brothers did not require a specific act of favour that was to be given by him, but instead were intended to be “general sweeteners” that were general goodwill payments made to secure his favourable disposition as a public servant. Hui did not have to do anything specific in return for cash given to him, but he was expected to be favourable to those who gave him the money. For this, Hui was found guilty by a jury of Misconduct in Public Office and went to prison for five years.
In 2015, Donald Tsang was charged by the ICAC with Misconduct in Public Office and Accepting an Advantage (an offence under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance). One of the charges of Misconduct in Public Office related to Tsang’s failure to declare his dealings and negotiations with Wong Cho-bau, who was an applicant for several public broadcasting licenses and also the owner of a company that leased a luxury apartment to Tsang to live in during his retirement. The Accepting an Advantage charge related to the refurbishment and redecoration of the apartment owned by Wong’s company, in which Tsang and his wife were ultimately to become the tenants.
Tsang was found guilty by a jury of Misconduct in Public Office in relation to the apartment rental, but not guilty on the same charge relating to decoration, and sentenced by the Judge to 20 months imprisonment. However, in April 2019 the Court of Final Appeal quashed the conviction on the grounds that the trial Judge had failed to provide clear guidance to the jury regarding certain points of law and that a retrial would not serve the interests of justice as Tsang had already been imprisoned.
Tsang was initially charged and convicted on the basis that he had not declared the lease on a luxury flat provided to him. This is unlike the situation involving Starmer, who is under public scrutiny following his declaration of receiving gifts from private individuals and companies. The charges against Tsang were driven by the concern of the ICAC that a political leader as senior as him could be accepting advantages (gifts not available to anyone else). However, in addition to the apartment involved in the criminal charges, Tsang was also alleged to have accepted taking trips on two private jets and two private yachts provided by wealthy tycoons during his seven years in office.
Clearly receiving gifts, even those that are declared, can become habitual and consequently problematic as they lead to a situation involving a potential conflict of interest. Gifts do not have to be given for a specific act, but as pointed out in the Hong Kong cases can be “general sweeteners” that influence a political leader to be more supportive of those who have given the favours.
Government Corruption in Singapore
In January 2024, Mr. S. Iswaran, the Transport Minister for Singapore, was charged by the Corruption Prevention Investigation Bureau (CPIB) with 27 counts of corruption and misconduct. Iswaran was alleged by the CPIB to have corruptly obtained S$145,434 (£85,000) from businessman Ong Beng Seng, which was an inducement for advancing Ong’s business interests in matters relating to a contract between Singapore GP Pte Ltd and the Singapore Tourism Board. The CPIB also alleged that as a Minister of the Government of Singapore, Iswaran corruptly obtained from Ong about S$20,848.03 (£12,000) as inducement for advancing Ong’s business interests in matters relating to a contract between Singapore GP Pte Ltd and the Singapore Tourism Board, and a proposal for a contract with the Singapore Tourism Board. The charges included 24 relating to Iswaran allegedly receiving gifts amounting to a value of S$218,058.95 (£126,700) from Ong for no specific act to be done.
The trial of Iswaran will begin on 24 September in the High Court in Singapore. The trial will hear details of gifts allegedly provided to Iswaran by Ong Beng Seng, who is chairman of Formula One (F1) race promoter Singapore GP. Those gifts include tickets to Formula One races, tickets to football matches and musical shows, and bottles of whisky, golf clubs and a bicycle allegedly.
Government Sleaze in Britain
Keir Starmer has declared in ‘The Register of Members' Financial Interests’ that from 2019 to September 2024 he received gifts valued at £107,145. This is such a relatively large number of personal gifts for a political leader to receive that it is worth being specific about what the problematic items are, as follows:
Name of donor: Lord Waheed Alli, £10,000 for the private office of the Leader of the Opposition, 9 October 2023
Name of donor: Lord Waheed Ali, £6,000 for the private office of the Leader of the Opposition, 21 February 2024
Name of donor: Crownhawk Properties (trading as the LCV Group), Accommodation for four people in Gower, value £4,500, 24 August 2023 to 31 August 2023
Name of donor: Swansea City AFC, Five tickets with hospitality for Swansea City v Bournemouth, value £800, 29 August 2023
Name of donor: Cain International UK Services Ltd, Two tickets with hospitality to Chelsea vs Arsenal football match, value £2,400, 21 October 2023
Name of donor: Teescraft Engineering Ltd, Four tickets with hospitality for Newcastle United v Arsenal, value £1,000, 4 November 2023
Name of donor: Global Media and Entertainment Ltd, Four tickets to the Jingle Bell Ball with hospitality, value £800, 10 December 2023
Name of donor: West Ham United Football Club, Two tickets for pre-match hospitality in the Chairman’s Lounge and to the match (value is estimated), value £2,000, 11 February 2024
Name of donor: Norwich City Football Club, Four match tickets and hospitality, value £820, 2 March 2024
Name of donor: Premier League, Five tickets with hospitality to Arsenal vs Porto, value £3,000, 12 March 2024
Name of donor: Manchester City Football Club, Hospitality and match tickets for two people to Manchester City vs Arsenal (value is approximate), value £900, 31 March 2024
Name of donor: Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club, Four tickets and hospitality to Brighton vs Arsenal (value is approximate), value £500, 6 April 2024
Name of donor: Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club, Four tickets and hospitality to Arsenal vs Wolverhampton Wanderers (value is approximate), value £1,488, 20 April 2024
Name of donor: Lord Waheed Ali, Work clothing, value £16,200, 17 April 2024
Name of donor: Tottenham Hotspur Ltd, Five tickets and hospitality to Tottenham Hotspur vs Arsenal (value is approximate), value £2,500, 28 April 2024
Name of donor: Manchester United, Two tickets in the Directors’ Box (including dining) at Old Trafford for Manchester United v Arsenal FC (value is approximate), value £1,790, 12 May 2024
Name of donor: National Theatre, Four tickets to see "Nye" plus dinner, value £358, 8 May 2024
Name of donor: Lord Waheed Alli, Multiple pairs of glasses, value £2,485, 29 April 2024
Name of donor: The Football Association Premier League Limited, Four tickets with hospitality to Taylor Swift concert, value £4,000, 21 June 2024
Name of donor: Lord Waheed Alli, Accommodation, value £20,437.28, 29 May 2024 to 13 July 2024
This is a troublingly long list of personal gifts, notably those from Lord Waheed Alli. Keir Starmer has accepted these favours and cash as personal gifts, not as direct contributions to his political party campaign. In doing so, Starmer has failed to understand what is the risk from accepting personal gifts when in a position of political power. Transparency International explains this risk, stating that “Gifts, hospitality and expenses are vulnerable to being used for bribery. They can be used as bribes on their own but they also pave the way for bribery by entrapping a person. They can also be used build or maintain relationships during a bribery scheme.”
Acceptance of free tickets to premier league football matches raises the specific question of conflict of interest in relation to the Football Governance Bill, which was proposed by the Conservative Government in March 2024 and has been reintroduced by the new Labour Government. The new law would “Establish the Independent Football Regulator; to make provision for the licensing of football clubs; to make provision about the distribution of revenue received by organisers of football competitions; and for connected purposes.”
Starmer has already become involved in controversy related to the Bill as he has publicly stated in the past week that the government would “find a way through” objections to the proposed law from UEFA, which has voiced concerns regarding government interference in the sport. Starmer has publicly stated that the government is talking to UEFA about the law, and clearly his comments indicate that he is actively managing the issue with his ministers. This makes Starmer directly involved in details of the provisions of the Football Governance Bill and his acceptance of thousands of pounds worth of tickets from football clubs presents clear grounds for a conflict of interest.
Starmer’s attendance at multiple football games, paid for by football clubs, is a means of building a relationship with him and paving the way to influencing him. Failure to recognise this risk is extreme naivety and ignoring a basic conflict of interest.
* * *
On the same basis as historical corruption charges against senior government officials in Hong Kong and Singapore, Keir Starmer would be at risk of breaching the law in those jurisdictions. He has accepted advantages from football clubs and a wealthy businessman that are not available to ordinary people. By their very nature these gits constitute “general sweeteners” and bring an unspoken obligation for him to look favourably on those who are giving to him. At best this is appalling judgement from a man who was a public prosecutor and should know better. At worst, in Hong Kong and Singapore accepting these gifts could be a criminal offence. It some parts of Asia political sleaze is just called corruption.
Excellent article Martin. I have long stated that what we delude ourselves by calling sleaze is really corruption by any other name. We persist in applying that label only to other countries. However, as unjustifiable as these gifts may be, they pale into utter insignificance when one compares it to the last 14 years of conservative government. How is it not a national scandal that a publican who happened to be Matt Hancock's best friend got a multimillion pound PPE contract with no history of ever being involved in that industry? At the same time a company based in Ellesemere Port that had been producing high quality PPE for 109 years didn't even get shortlisted. By her own admission "Baroness" More and her husband benefited to the amount of 32 million pounds thanks to a "VIP Channel" PPE contract that - again - produced no output.
Space here is too limited to document all the freebies Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage have received. Speaking of Farage, that honest to goodness defender of the working man, he is the MP with the highest value of outside interests, paid and gifts. He has also just been reprimanded by the Office of the Speaker for claiming parliamentary security advisers had told him it was too unsafe for him to visit his own constituency. No such warning had been issued of course. And his absence from his electors is more to do with his following Trump around the US like an eager poodle. Again, no justification here of Starmer taking freebies. But it amazes me how much of a contrast there is between the current hard-right pearl-clutching about "Labour sleaze" and the utter silence or jokey laissez-faire about Tory sleaze, which by any other name was grand corruption. Partisanship is fine. If you hate Labour and progressive politics, fine. But perspective, context and balance are essential.