This study seeks to undertake a comparative analysis of the frameworks employed by New Zealand and Singapore in their efforts to combat administrative corruption. This study will explore the similarities and differences in their approaches, examining the effectiveness of various policies, institutional frameworks, and cultural factors that contribute to their successes and challenges in tackling corruption. The frameworks in place in both countries share several similarities, including the adoption of a zero-tolerance culture, the existence of effective legislation, robust law enforcement, and independent judicial systems. Notwithstanding, New Zealand has maintained a corruption-free society since it was settled by hunters and whalers from America, Australia, and Europe (primarily Great Britain) in the 1700s. In contrast, Singapore initiated its fight against administrative corruption following its independence from Malaysia on 9 August 1965. Furthermore, New Zealand places a stronger emphasis on international anti-corruption laws, while Singapore primarily concentrates on domestic regulations addressing administrative corruption. In addition, New Zealand established the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), while Singapore has established the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) to investigate allegations of corruption.