Popular Posts!

LEVIS JEAN SHOP!

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Singapore to review anti-graft laws: 5 things about the Prevention of Corruption Act

Singapore to review anti-graft laws: 5 things about the Prevention of Corruption Act

SINGAPORE - Singapore will be reviewing the Prevention of Corruption Act and beefing up the manpower at the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB).

The main anti-corruption legislation in Singapore was first enacted in 1960 and has been reviewed regularly. It was last revised in 1993.

When it was first enacted by then Home Affairs Minister Ong Pang Boon, bribery was rife in Singapore, and one of its main aims was to empower the CPIB with more extensive powers to investigate cases of corruption.

Things have improved since then, and Singapore has ranked in the top five of the Corruption Perceptions Index for more than a decade - until last year, when it fell to No. 7.

1. It is not just money or gifts
The definition of corruption is broad. Inducements offered to another with corrupt intent includes both material gain and intangible benefits.
It can be any of the following:
- Money, gifts, loans, fees, rewards, commissions or other property of any description
- Any office, employment or contract
- Any payment, release, discharge or liquidation of any loan, obligation or other liability
- Any other service, favour or advantage of any description
- Any offer, undertaking or promise of any gratification

2. Penalties
The maximum penalty under Sections 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a fine of $100,000 and a jail term of five years. Offenders are also required to pay, as a fine, the amount they received as bribes.
Other legislation such as the Penal Code, and the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes, Confiscation of Benefits Act have other penalties related to corruption offences.

3. Government employees held to higher standard

Section 7 says that when the offence involves the employee of the Government or a public body, the jail term can go up to seven years. When the individual who received a bribe is a public servant, the onus is on him to prove his innocence.

4. Extends beyond Singapore borders
Singaporeans are subject to the Act even when overseas, and may be dealt with as if the offence had been committed in Singapore, says section 37 of the Act.

5. Informers can remain anonymous
There is a specific provision in the Act for the protection of informers' identities.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Tuesday that there are plans to set up a one-stop corruption-reporting centre.
For now, one can lodge a complaint in the following ways:
- In person, at CPIB located at 2, Lengkok Bahru
- By writing a letter to CPIB
- Making a phone call to the CPIB duty officer on 1800-376-0000
- Through the CPIB website.


Sources: The Straits Times, Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau website, Singapore Statutes Online

 

Definition of Corruption


Definition of Corruption
Corruption is receiving, asking for or giving any gratification to induce a person to do a favour with a corrupt intent.
In a nutshell, here is a graphical representation of corruption:

There are many kinds of gratification, including money, sexual favours, properties, promises, services and etc.
Favours also come in different forms such as seeking confidential information, leniency, special privileges, contracts and etc.

Punishment for Corruption
Corruption is a serious offence!
A person convicted on a corruption offence shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000/- or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or both, for each count of corruption.
If it is proven that any matter or transaction is in relation to contract or a proposal for a contract with the government, the punishment would be a fine of $100,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 7 years or to both, for each count of corruption.

Consequences of Corruption
Corruption has serious repercussions. If allowed to take root in society, it can lead to a breakdown in social order and lives are affected when ordinary people are prevented from receiving all the essential services that they are entitled to.
It creates unfair competition and increases the cost of doing business. Every form of it is bad for economic growth and the reputation of an entire country can be tarnished. 
Last updated: 30 May 2017

 

Introduction



Singapore adopts a zero-tolerance approach towards corruption, and the CPIB will not hesitate to bring corrupt offenders to Court, irrespective of status, creed or rank. Since independence, the Government was determined to take all necessary legislative measures to reduce the opportunities of corruption, and to deter and punish severely corrupt offenders.
The Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) is the primary anti-corruption legislation in Singapore, and forms one of the key pillars in Singapore’s fight against corruption. The PCA provides the CPIB the powers to investigate corruption and other arrestable offences which are disclosed in the course of corruption investigation. Under the PCA, CPIB officers are also empowered to arrest, conduct a premise search or seize evidence without warrant if there is credible information or reasonable suspicion that a corruption offence has been committed.
The Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, Cap 65A (CDSA) works in tandem with the PCA by punishing the laundering of bribe money. The CDSA provides for the State to confiscate corrupt benefits.
The Penal Code (Sections 161 to 165) also contains provisions that deal specifically with the bribery of domestic public officers.


Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A)


cpib-statutes

Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A) (CDSA)
The Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A) (CDSA) provides for the confiscation of benefits derived from, and to combat, corruption, drug dealing and other serious crimes and for purposes connected therewith. 
Under Section 13 of the PCA, when a corrupt offender is convicted, the Court shall also order him to pay a penalty equivalent to the amount of bribes he received.
While the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) punishes the corrupt offender, the CDSA punishes the laundering of bribe money and allows the state to confiscate corrupt benefits.
Click here to read the full Act. 


Reporting of Corruption Complaints


The CPIB takes a serious view of any corrupt practices in Singapore and will not hesitate to take action against any parties involved in corrupt practices. We strongly encourage those with information about corruption to use the following channels to reach us:

Come down personally or write to us at 2 Lengkok Bahru, S159047 or 247 Whitley Road, S297830
Call CPIB Duty Officer at 1800-376-0000
Lodge an e-Complaint
Fax to us at 62700320













https://www.cpib.gov.sg/about-corruption/reporting-of-corruption-complaints 

Singapore’s Corruption Control Framework


Overview
Today, Singapore enjoys a well-earned reputation for a high level of incorruptibility. The success of Singapore in fighting corruption is the result of an effective corruption control framework with its four key pillars of effective laws, independent judiciary, effective enforcement and a responsive public service, underpinned by strong political will and leadership.

Strong Political Will
The political will to eradicate corruption was established by Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, when the People’s Action Party (PAP) was elected into government in 1959. The PAP was determined to build an incorruptible and meritocratic government, and took decisive and comprehensive action to stamp out corruption from all levels of Singapore’s society. As a result of the government’s unwavering political commitment and leadership, a culture of zero tolerance against corruption has become ingrained into the Singapore psyche and way of life.

Effective Laws
Singapore relies on two key legislations to fight corruption; the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), and the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA). The PCA has a wide scope which applies to persons who give or receive bribes in both the public and private sector. The CDSA, when invoked, confiscates ill-gotten gains from corrupt offenders. Together, the two laws ensure that corruption remains a high-risk low-rewards activity. Upon the conclusion of investigations by the CPIB, all alleged corruption cases will be handed over to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), the prosecutorial arm of the Singapore Criminal Justice System, to obtain the Public Prosecutor’s consent to proceed with Court proceedings.  

Independent Judiciary
In Singapore, an independent judiciary provides insulation from political interference. The Chief Justice is appointed by the President on advice from the Prime Minister and the Council of Presidential Advisers. District judges and magistrates are appointed by the President with advice from the Chief Justice. Various provisions of the Constitution also guarantee the independence of the Supreme Court judiciary. Transparent and objective in its administration of the rule of law, the judiciary recognises the seriousness of corruption and adopts a stance of deterrence by meting out stiff fines and imprisonment towards corrupt offenders.

Effective Enforcement
The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) is the sole agency responsible for combating corruption in Singapore. The CPIB is under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and reports directly to the Prime Minister, enabling the CPIB to operate independently. Through more than 60 years of corruption-fighting, a deterrent stance has always been adopted, ensuring that there are no cover-ups and corruption is fought without fear or favour. With a fearsome and trusted reputation, the CPIB acts swiftly and vigorously to enforce the tough anti-corruption laws impartially for both public and private sector corruption. During the investigation process, the CPIB will work with various government agencies and private organisations to gather evidence and obtain information.

Responsive Public Service
The Singapore Public Service is guided by a Code of Conduct, which sets out the high standards of behaviour expected of public officers based on principles of integrity, incorruptibility and transparency. The practice of meritocracy in the Public Service, together with regular reviews of administrative rules and processes to improve efficiency also reduce the opportunities for corruption. In addition, the CPIB is mandated to conduct procedural reviews for government agencies which may have work procedures that can be exploited for corrupt practices.
Last updated: 08 Jul 2016

 


https://www.cpib.gov.sg/press-room/cpib-in-the-news 

Annual Reports

 

The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau's Annual Report highlights the key developments and activities that took place in the preceding year.
The Annual Report also showcases the various aspects of the Bureau’s work in its continuing efforts to provide greater transparency and accountability to the general public.


Corruption in Singapore at Low Levels


         
Singapore is widely recognised as a country with zero-tolerance for corruption. The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2016 ranked Singapore as the 7th least corrupt country in the world. Singapore has also maintained its first-place in the 2016 Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) annual survey on corruption.
         In a recent essay on Singapore’s experience in combating corruption, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong commented that while Singapore has achieved some measure of success in fighting corruption, we are under no illusion that corruption has been permanently or completely eradicated. Corruption is driven by greed, and there will always be some individuals who are tempted to transgress. Corruption may be a fact of life, but will not be our way of life in Singapore as long as there is strong political will and leadership, and a culture which eschews corruption. We can then continue to keep corruption at bay and protect our hard-earned success and reputation.

Corruption complaints received and number of cases registered for investigation reach record low
         In 2016, the CPIB received 808 complaints, an 8% decrease from the 877 complaints received in 2015 (Figure 1). In 2016, 118 cases (14.6%) from the 808 complaints received were registered for investigation[1] by the CPIB, compared with the 132 cases (15.1%) registered in 2015.
         The complaints received by the CPIB were both corruption-related and non-corruption-related. For the past 3 years, about half the complaints received by the CPIB were non-corruption-related complaints, and these were referred to the relevant government authorities for their action. The quality and amount of relevant information of the corruption complaint received directly affects whether the case can be pursued. The majority of non-pursuable corruption complaints were due to insufficient, vague or unsubstantiated information provided.
What to include in a corruption complaint:
  1. Where, when and how did the alleged corrupt act happen?
  2. Who was involved and what were their roles?
  3. How did you know about it?
  4. Why do you think it is a corruption offence?
  5. What is the bribe transacted or favour shown?
  6. Have you reported the matter to anyone else or/and any other authorities?
Figure 1: No of Complaints Received by CPIB vs No of Cases Registered for Investigation

Private sector cases continued to make up majority of corruption cases in Singapore
         Private sector cases continued to form the majority (85%) of all the cases registered for investigation by the CPIB, despite a 4% decrease from 2015. Of the private sector cases, 10% involved public sector employees rejecting bribes offered by private individuals. Public sector corruption cases remained at low, accounting for 15% of all cases registered for investigation in 2016 as compared to 11% in 2015 (Figure 2). Due to the small numbers, the increase of 4% from previous year is not significant.
Figure 2: Breakdown of the Cases Registered for Investigation by Private vs Public Sector

Custodial sentences were meted out to the majority of private sector employees
         Over the past three years, the total number of individuals prosecuted for corruption offences remained low. In 2016, 104 individuals were prosecuted in Court for offences investigated by the CPIB. Of the 104 individuals, private sector employees made up 96%. Custodial sentences were meted out to the majority of these individuals for their corruption offences. Previously, the penalty meted out to private sector employees was a fine compared to public sector employees who were given jail terms for similar corruption offences.  We have to recognise that corruption offences are serious breaches. In some instances, these offences may have far-reaching consequences negatively impacting the safety and security of our nation and the lives of ordinary folks. Therefore, stronger deterrence against corrupt practices applying to all individuals regardless of the nature of their employment is necessary. 
         Public sector employees continued to form the minority of individuals prosecuted for corruption. In 2016, four public employees were prosecuted in Court. Other public employees who were investigated were administered warnings or faced departmental action. The number of prosecuted public employees remained low at an average of less than 10% for the last three years (Figure 3). 
       Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, any person convicted of an offence is liable to a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both. Where the offence involves a government contract or bribery of a Member of Parliament, imprisonment may be extended to seven years.
Figure 3: Public and Private Sector Employees Prosecuted in Court
       Based on the cases of private sector employees prosecuted in Court for corruption-related offences in 2016, two main areas of concern were noted:
   i.        Maintenance work (e.g. inspection of electrical equipment, removal of copper cables, cleaning and water-proofing services); and
  ii.        Wholesale & Retail businesses (e.g. purchase and supply of fire safety, electrical and mechanical equipment).

Highest conviction rate for CPIB cases
       The strong commitment by the CPIB and the Attorney-General’s Chambers to bring corrupt offenders to task has contributed to a consistently high conviction rate for corruption-related offences. In 2016, the highest conviction rate at 100% was attained, a 3% increase from 2015 (Figure 4 [2]).
Figure 4: Conviction Rate

Safeguarding Singapore’s future  
      Singapore’s international reputation for incorruptibility is hard-earned. The CPIB is resolute and committed in the battle against corruption to protect the integrity of our clean system of governance, as well as that of our well-regarded business and financial environment. Through active partnership with both our international partners and the local community, we can ensure that the scourge of corruption will never take root in Singapore, thereby safeguarding our nation’s future for generations to come. 


[1] Cases registered for investigation refer to the pursuable cases opened from the complaints lodged.
[2] The conviction rate in Figure 7 excludes withdrawals.







OUR HERITAGE

Learn about our history, interesting stories, trivial facts by walking through the events timeline.
Before 1952
1871
Corruption thrived in Singapore during the colonial period as it was perceived that corrupt offenders were unlikely to be detected and punished. In 1871, corruption was made illegal. However, nothing concrete was done.
Image Courtesy of National Archives of Singapore
government gazette 1937
1937
In December 1937, the first anti-corruption legislation was introduced with the enactment of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance (POCO). The rationale for POCO was ‘the prevention of bribery and secret commissions in public and private business’. However, the British colonial government failed to curb corruption as POCO and the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) under the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) were relatively ineffective. The POCO specified only three instances of corrupt behaviour and was a short document of 12 sections that were limited in scope. Moreover, corruption under the POCO was a non-seizable offence. Limited powers of investigation afforded by the POCO to investigation officers stifled their ability to effectively tackle corruption.
1946
The Prevention of Corruption Ordinance (POCO) was revised in 1946, making corrupt offences seizable, and giving police officers much wider powers of arrest, search and investigation to combat corruption. Nonetheless, the revised legislation could not make up for the fact that the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) remained largely ineffective. The ACB’s responsibility to combat corruption was hampered by its limited manpower. Moreover, the ACB had to contend with other branches of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) for resources. The principal reason for ACB’s inadequacies was its inability to curtail the prevalence of police corruption in colonial Singapore.
1951
In October 1951, a consignment of 1,800 pounds of opium worth $400,000 was hijacked at Punggol Beach and the robbers included three police detectives. A special team headed by officers of the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) was appointed to investigate the case. Although some senior police officers were found to be involved in the hijacking, only one Assistant Superintendent was dismissed and another officer was retired. Due to ACB’s inability to garner sufficient evidence, the remaining officers were neither prosecuted nor convicted. As a result, in April 1952, the government brought together a Special Investigations Team comprising R Middleton-Smith, RB Corridon from Special Branch, Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) BM Finch from the Courts and later Acting ASP Ho Kah Soon, also from Special Branch, to review the deficiencies in the ACB’s investigation of the opium heist.
1952 - 1960
1961 - 1970
1971 - 1980
1981 - 1990
1991 - 2000
2001 - 2010
2011 - Present
Last updated: 27 May 2016



No comments:

My Blog List