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
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
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) (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.
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
|
 |
Email us at cpib_website_email@cpib.gov.sg
|
 |
Fax to us at 62700320
|
https://www.cpib.gov.sg/about-corruption/reporting-of-corruption-complaints
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.
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:
|
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.
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
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:
Post a Comment