THE 14TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEPARTICIPANTS’
PAPERSVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

NATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION STRATEGY:
THE SINGAPORE EXPERIENCEKoh Teck Hin*

I. INTRODUCTION
The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) is the sole agency responsible for combating
corruption in Singapore. CPIB was set up in 1952, before Singapore gained independence from the British.
It is one of the oldest agencies in the world dedicated to combating corruption, and we have developed overthe past 59 years to our current state today.
In this paper, I will touch on the development of the approach in fighting corruption in Singapore. As awhole, the overall strategic approach to fighting corruption applies across the board, with no distinction madeon whether it is petty corruption or high level corruption. No exception is made for anyone and there are no“black areas” the law cannot deal with. In our experience, the same commitment to action is necessary inorder to be successful in curbing corruption at all levels.

II. CORRUPTION SITUATION
Before June 1959, Singapore was part of the British Empire. Corruption thrived during the colonial
period. Local junior officers, such as police, customs, immigration and Inland Revenue officers, wereroutinely on the take. During World War II, the Japanese military occupation bred corruption further into theSingapore society, as practices of bribery could be justified because it was all about survival. After World War
II, corruption spread among civil servants because the risks of detection were low, the punishments mild
and the rewards great. Corruption had become a way of life for many Singaporeans, to enable them to copewith their low salaries and rising inflation.
The breakthrough came only after we attained self-government from the British on 3 June, 1959. The
government realized then that corruption was caused by both the incentives and opportunities to be corrupt.
Therefore, measures to eradicate corruption were designed to minimize or remove these two causes.
As a result, they initiated a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy - the law was strengthened, rigorous
enforcement took place and government administration was improved.
After almost 60 years of relentless fighting against corruption, our Singapore government has managed
to minimize the level of corruption. Right now, corruption is a fact of life rather than a way of life, as
corruption still exists, but at the individual rather than systemic level. Today, we have one of the cleanest
public sectors in the world.
We are also one of the least corrupt nations in the world, together with Denmark and New Zealand, basedon Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Survey in 2010, and have been the least corrupt
country as ranked by the Political Economic & Risk Consultancy (PERC) for the past ten years.
Some of you may be wondering: ‘How did Singapore manage to transform itself from a corruption
infested city into one of the least corrupt nations in the world?’ According to our former Minister Mentor,
Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore is what it is today because of its system of transparency and integrity.

* Director (Operations), Corrupt Practices Investigation Board, Singapore.

95

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.86

III. POLITICAL WILLIn addition, political will is a key ingredient in the transformation effort from Singapore’s corruption
infested past. Without the unwavering determination to overcome corrupt systems, no anti-corruption
strategy will work. We are fortunate that our government gives their fullest support to CPIB to investigate
and prosecute anyone, including ministers, who are involved in corruption.
In 1975, CPIB convicted Wee Toon Boon, then a serving Minister of State in the Government of theruling party. Such action demonstrated to the public the determination of the government to keep Singapore
clean. And this has won the public’s support in the ongoing fight against corruption. With the efforts put inand with public support over the years, corruption was thus brought under control.

IV. FRAMEWORK OF CORRUPTION CONTROL
Besides strong political will as the foundation, we are supported by the following factors, which form theAnti-corruption Strategy:• Effective Anti-Corruption Acts (Anti-Corruption Laws)• Effective Anti-Corruption Agency (Independent CPIB)• Effective Adjudication (Independent Judiciary) and• Efficient Government Administration (Responsive Public Service).

A. Effective Acts (Laws)
Effective laws provide the basis for the fight against corruption. The law must define corruption offences
and their punishments and the powers of enforcement against it. As society and the environment changes
all the time, it is necessary to review the law periodically to ensure that it is up to date. The powers ofenforcement must be well provisioned so that the law will have bite.

In Singapore, we rely on two key acts to combat corruption. The first one is the Prevention of Corruption
Act (PCA). This governs the primary offences of corruption and the powers of the enforcement agency,
which is CPIB. The second act is the Corruption, Drugs Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscationof Benefits) Act (CDSA) which provides for the seizure and forfeiture of proceeds which a person convictedof corruption cannot satisfactorily account for. The PCA was enacted in 1960 to replace the previous
Prevention of Corruption Ordinance. Since then, the Act had undergone numerous amendments to increase
the powers of investigation of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Officers, enhance punishments forcorruption and to plug loopholes to prevent exploitation by criminals.

96THE 14TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The law must support law enforcement with a cutting edge. This is vital as corruption offences are
particularly difficult offences to deal with. Unlike general crime where there is a victim who tells us
everything that happened, in corruption offences, both the giver and the receiver are guilty parties who
have the motivation to hide and not tell the truth. This makes investigation and evidence gathering morechallenging. To be successful, the law must provide sufficient teeth for law enforcement.
The principal law we use is the Prevention of Corruption Act. The following are the distinctive features
which may differ from anti-corruption laws in other countries:a) The Act allows CPIB to investigate corruption in both the public and private sectors & we can deal withboth the giver and the receiver. We have dealt with cases in the private sector since the early beginnings.
In some countries, anti corruption agencies do not deal with private sector. It is of strategic importancefor Singapore to keep Singapore companies clean because if not, other countries will not want to tradewith Singapore and they will not want to invest money in Singapore. We also deal with givers of bribes.
If we don’t, they may continue to give bribes and escape punishment and this will worsen the corruption
situation due to the demand-supply dynamics.
b) There is a Presumption clause – Presumption of corruption when a public officer is found to havereceived bribes. What this means is that a public officer charged in court has the duty to explain to thecourt that what he received was not received corruptly. If he fails to explain to the satisfaction of thecourt, he would be presumed to have received the money corruptly. Of course, we do not just depend on
this to secure conviction but we will bring all the evidence we have to court and this presumption clauseis an additional help for prosecution.
c) Next, an acceptor of a bribe would be considered guilty even if he, in fact, had no power, right oropportunity to return a favour to the bribe giver. This came about because some corrupt offenders tookbribes and then were unable to deliver the expected favour. Even so, they should not escape punishment.
d) The Act forbids the use of customary practices, for example, giving/accepting of red packets in Chinese
New Year as an excuse for giving/accepting bribes. No one can go to court and be excused by saying thatthe bribe disguised as red packet is goodwill money and nothing illegal. In the past, CPIB was very busy
during Chinese New Year and had to lookout for bribes disguised as goodwill money. Nowadays, with theenforcement actions taken, the public knows and offenders will not try to use the festive occasion as a
camouflage for bribe taking.
e) The Act also empowers the Court to order bribery receivers to pay a penalty equal to the amount of bribe
received apart from punishment in the form of fines and/or imprisonment terms. This means if accused
took $1 million dollars, he has to surrender back that amount. This emphasized the principle that theaccused ought not to enjoy any benefit from any corrupt activity.
f) When a person is found to have committed corruption offence, the Principal could recover the amount ofbribe as a civil debt. An example is the manager of a MNC convicted of corruption offence for receiving
kickbacks for contracts he granted to others. He was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment and ordered
to pay a penalty of about $300,000, being the total of bribes received by him. After the sentencing, the
MNC commenced civil action under the Prevention of Corruption Act to recover the bribes from theManager. The manager appealed to the Court of Appeal against the claim on the ground that he hadalready paid penalty to the State for the bribes he had received and he could not be liable to pay the claim
to the MNC, otherwise it would be tantamount to making him pay twice for the same bribes. However,
his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The court ruled that this was not double jeopardy andthe law allowed for it. The manager is thus still liable to pay the MNC.
g) The Act renders Singapore citizens to be liable for punishment for corrupt offences committed outside
Singapore and to be dealt with as if the offences had been committed in Singapore. We have dealt withcases where Singaporeans commit corruption abroad and prosecute them in Singapore.

97

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.86

Besides the PCA, we have the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscationof Benefits) Act (CDSA in short) which was enacted in 1999. The principle for the Act was to ensure that
corruption does not pay. It also covers the confiscation of benefits not only from corruption but also drug
offences and other serious crimes. The CDSA provides the Court with powers to confiscate the pecuniary
resources and properties when a person is convicted of corruption offence and cannot satisfactory accountfor those resources to be confiscated. The objective is to ensure that the perpetrators will not benefit from
corruption.

B. Effective Enforcement
Another important aspect in fighting corruption is to take effective enforcement actions. If there are
tough laws but lax enforcement, corruption will still flourish because the corrupted escape detection andinvestigation. It is therefore crucial to devote priority and attention to setting up an effective enforcement
agency.
A key success factor in Singapore’s anti-corruption effort is the setting up of an independent and strong
anti-corruption agency. If you have got very strong enforcement, there will be very high probability of beingcaught if you commit a corrupt act and hide a stash of money.
In Singapore, CPIB is the only agency empowered to investigate corruption offences. Any other law
enforcement agency which comes across or receives reports and information on corruption will have to handover the case to CPIB.
CPIB has independence of action. We can investigate any person or corporation in government or
private sector, no matter who he is and which position he is holding. CPIB reports directly to the Prime
Minister – this is important as it will block any undue interference from any person and to ensure that CPIB
operates without fear or favour, regardless of race or social status. CPIB’s independence of action is also
guaranteed by the Constitution, which allows the Elected President of Singapore to authorize Director CPIB
to investigate the Prime Minister of the day if he prevents the carrying out of a corruption investigation
against any of his Senior Officials, Minister or himself.
Our Bureau slogan, “Swift and Sure”, is the message to the public and corrupt offenders that there will
be swift action, certainty of results and justice will take its course. CPIB is always committed fully to our
mission of fighting corruption through swift and sure action. Swift action means we will take prompt action
on a corruption complaint while sure action means when we look into the complaint, we will investigate thematter thoroughly and get to the bottom of it to seek the truth.
Singapore has adopted an anti-corruption strategy to ensure that anyone involved in corruption will be
detected, investigated, prosecuted and punished. We have successfully prosecuted corrupt offenders andsent them to serve time in the jail. This stance has served as a deterrence to like-minded persons not to
indulge in corrupt activities.
Having a strong capability is easier said than done. Our current success does not guarantee future
success. In a way, it is a race against the corrupt and the criminal-minded as they resort to use of technology
and more sophisticated modus operandi to commit corruption. There are more and more ways to hidecorrupt proceeds. It is incumbent on the enforcement agency to build enough capability to deal with them.
For example, in terms of computer forensic capability – we need to have the ability to extract evidence fromcomputers, financial investigation capability to follow the money trail and uncover hidden corrupt proceeds.

C. Effective Adjudication
Sure detection and strict enforcement of laws, no matter how effective, must however, be supported
by effective adjudication. Aided by the tough laws, our judiciary recognizes the seriousness of corruption
and it has always adopted a deterrence stance towards corrupt offenders. Any public officers convicted ofcorruption will usually be sentenced to jail. In recent years, even offenders from the private sector convictedof corruption offences were sentenced to serve time in the prison.

98THE 14TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

All our court proceedings are open and in public hearings. There is transparency in our Judiciary and theprocesses in hearing cases are made known to the public. Decisions are documented and subject to public
scrutiny. Both the prosecution and the defence can appeal against any decision made by the Courts.
Judgments from the court will provide some benchmarks as to the severity of offences and theircorresponding sentences. For instance, in a recent Appeal case involving a private banker convicted ofcorruption involving bribes of $150,000 (Wong Teck Long vs PP), when the accused appealed against his
conviction and sentence, the High Court not only dismissed the accused’s appeal but enhanced his original
sentence from 4 months’ to 15 months’ imprisonment. In passing this judgment, the CJ said:“To safeguard the overall public confidence in the integrity of our banking and financial industry as wellas Singapore’s reputation as a regional and financial hub, punishment for deplorable and corrupt acts , suchas that of the appellant, must be swift and harsh so that a strong message will be sent out to the offender at
hand and would-be offenders that Singapore does not, and will not , without exception, condone corruption .”In addition to the fine or jail sentence imposed, the court will also impose a financial penalty on theoffender equal to the amount of bribes the offender had taken. So this again sends a clear message that theoffender is not allowed to enjoy any of the benefits or gains obtained.
On top of this, cases involving government procurement or contracts, administrative actions will betaken to cancel the contract and/or to debar suppliers who were convicted of corruption offences from future
government contracts for up to five years.
Apart from criminal sanctions, the Prevention of Corruption Act also provides for recourse to civil suitfor recovery of bribe monies in addition to criminal prosecution. This has been tested in the court. The
CPIB had prosecuted a facilities manager in a large private company for corruption. He took bribes of almost$300,000 in return for awarding contracts. He was convicted and sentenced to ten months’ jail and ordered
to pay to the State a penalty of about $300,000, equal to the amount of bribes he had pocketed. After theprosecution was over, his company brought a civil suit against him to recover the amount of bribes he had
accepted whilst employed by them. The accused appealed to the court against this, stating that since hehad been ordered to pay back the penalty, he cannot be asked to pay twice, and on this second occasion
through the civil suit. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal stating that the law expressly provided
for two distinct provisions - a criminal proceeding to disgorge benefits and civil proceedings to recover thebribe monies and therefore it is possible that there can be a double disgorgement and it can act as a further
deterrence against corruption. This sends the message very clearly to corrupt offenders that they will bemade to pay heavily for their corrupt activities.

D. Effective Administration & Good Governance
1. Preventive & Administrative Measures in the Public Sector
Besides using legal means to deal with corrupt offenders, the Singapore Government has also introduced
administrative measures to curb corruption. Strict rules and regulations have been formulated to govern the
conduct of public officers. A high standard of discipline is expected and a public officer:a) cannot borrow money from any person who has official dealings with him;b) his unsecured debts and liabilities cannot at anytime be more than three times his monthly salary;c) cannot use any official information to further his private interest;d) is required to declare his assets at his first appointment and also annually;e) cannot engage in trade or business or undertake any part-time employment without approval; andf) cannot receive entertainment or present in any form from members of the public.
2. Efficient Administration
The last pillar is the efficient administration, which is also a key to reducing corruption. An efficientadministration is one which values integrity and incorruptibility. As such, we have put in place measures
to ensure that the right persons with the right values are in the service. Another important aspect of an
efficient administration is that it can foresee and anticipate the needs of the public (inclusive of businesses)
and is able to react appropriately, coming up with measures to meet its customer’s needs. If we have toughenforcement, but the government of the day is inefficient in meeting public needs, then opportunities are

99

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.86

open for corruption to seep in to “make things happen”.
The civil service in Singapore had initiated major reforms in 1995 under the “Public Service in the
21st Century” (PS21) to attain sound administrative governance, organizational excellence and service
orientedness. Such improvements in efficiency and effectiveness in public service delivery have playeda part in curbing corruption and reduce its opportunities. This is because when we are able to deliver a
service promptly, it will leave no opportunity for corruption compared to a service which takes a long while
and tedious processing stages.
Under PS21, there were several major initiatives to reduce bureaucracy and cut red tape, such as:a) The Pro-Enterprise Panel Movement . The Pro-Enterprise Panel receives and vets suggestions fromthe public to help ensure that government rules and regulations are supportive of a pro-businessenvironment in Singapore. The public and companies can provide suggestions through the internet
and these suggestions have resulted in changes in the rules and regulations.
b)

The Zero-In-Process . It aims to reduce inefficiencies in services whereby the public has to visit
several agencies for related reasons. In the past, issues which cut across agencies were tossed
around from one agency to another without being resolved. The ZIP makes sure that such cases
are being looked into promptly by a lead agency and ZIP teams will be formed to tackle and propose
solutions on issues which cut across agencies.

c)

The POWER (Public Officers Working to Eliminate Red-tape) . It aims to cut red tape by streamlining
public sector rules and procedures. And it allows public officers to exercise greater flexibility when
dealing with operational issues, bearing in mind the spirit and intent of the regulations. A POWER
website has been set up to receive suggestions and views on improvements from public officers andto channel them to the respective regulators for follow up action.

d)

The Cut-Red Tape Movement . Under this, public officers are encouraged to reduce red-tape within
the government. Through the internet, the private sector and public can write to the government
with suggestions on cutting of red tape. Such feedback can promote transparency and reducebusiness costs. There is a Cut Waste website where the public can submit their observations/suggestions on areas where government can cut expenditure. The government department
concerned will have to respond to the public’s query. This has helped to keep government to be
on alert on issues affecting the public and it has also helped to minimize wastage of government
spending, if any.

The Singapore Government’s main aim of undertaking the PS21 initiative is to improve efficiency andeffectiveness in the provision of its public services. Nevertheless, the initiative has produced a side benefitof corruption prevention. Firstly, by empowering and engaging officers for continuous improvement, theofficers become more engaged and they will take pride in their work and, as such, it is less likely the officers
will be tempted or involved in corruption-related activities. Secondly, by cutting red tape and making
services easier and more accessible, it creates less opportunity for public officers to ask for bribes tosmoothen a transaction. Thirdly, soliciting views and feedback from the public and being transparent in thegovernment departments’ policies and service standards has also helped to limit the opportunity for public
officers to solicit for bribes.
The Singapore Government has also taken actions to better serve the nation in the digital age byembarking upon the e-Government Action Plans (eGAP). Since 2000, the Singapore Government has
introduced several master plans. The latest e-government master plan, eGov2015, was launched in June
2011 by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Teo Chee Hean at the eGov Global Exchange
2011. eGov2015 aims to realize the vision of a Collaborative Government by facilitating more co-creationand interaction among the Government, businesses and people for greater value creation. It also aims atdelivering excellent public services as well as connecting the citizens to the government. Several electronic
services were implemented to provide higher levels of convenience, efficiency and effectiveness for the
public.

100

THE 14TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

One of the e-services initiatives is the introduction of e-Citizen portal, where citizens can accessgovernment services from their homes, e.g. lodging a corruption report or renewing their passports throughthe internet, etc. Another e-government initiative is the business.gov.sg portal. This portal provides the
public with information and assistance in planning their businesses and starting companies. One of theservices provided by this portal is the online business licensing service (OBLS). With OBLS, anyone whowants to start a business can apply and get the relevant permits and licenses from one point of contact fromhis or her home or office without having to physically go to the various government departments. Before
OBLS, when a business wished to apply for various licenses, it needed to go to different departments andsome licenses required them to go to a few departments. For example, to get a hawker license, a person
has to go to the Ministry of Environment and the Urban Redevelopment Authority as well. After the
implementation of this system, the applicant only has to log onto this system and submit the applications
on-line and the system will route it to the relevant departments, saving time for the applicant. Today
members of the public can apply, renew or terminate different types of license though this online portal. The
turnaround time to obtain all the licences was reduced from 21 days to just eight days.
Another electronic service is the Gebiz – the government procurement portal. Today, most Government
procurement is done through the internet and it is open to all, including international businesses, who wish
to take part. In Gebiz, the posting of the tender requirements is online, the submission of the bids is online,
the deadline is controlled by the computer and the results at the end of tender are automatically published
for all to see. This leaves little room for corruption or abuse compared to the manual system.
Although the motive behind our e-government action plan was not about corruption control, it does havesuch an important side benefit. It reduces the visit to government service counters, service turnaround timeand cost of delivery. And this has minimized the chance for someone to step in between to ask for a bribe inreturn for helping in a transaction.

V. REGIONAL & INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS
A. Study Visits
As the sole anti-corruption agency in Singapore, CPIB has been the destination for various study visits
and attachments for public officials and counterpart agencies, including countries in the Asia Pacific Region.
The visitors are attracted to Singapore mainly because of its international reputation for being effective incontrolling corruption. In the spirit of regional cooperation and networking, CPIB hosted official visits andattachments by Government officials from various countries. In recent years, officials have visited CPIB
from countries such as China, Bangladesh, Brunei, Indonesia, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Cambodia, Thailand,
Vietnam, Macau, Hong Kong, Australia, Kenya, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Kuwait, Jordan, Solomon Islands, Qatar,
Russian Federation, Pakistan etc.
B. International Fora
To be aware of the latest international development in anti-corruption matters which could impact
on Singapore, CPIB has increased its participation in various corruption-related overseas conferences/seminars.
It has also actively engaged in international fora and meetings that discuss corruption matters. It
is a pioneer member of the ADB-OECD Anti Corruption Initiative, which meets twice a year. In 2008,
Singapore hosted the 12th meeting as well as the 6th Regional Anti Corruption Conference where morethan 120 participants took part. CPIB has joined the International Association of Anti Corruption Authorities(IAACA). It is a member of APEC Anti Corruption Task Force (ACT) and last year, we chaired thediscussions of the ACT. Within the ASEAN region, there is a MOU on Preventing and Combating Corruption
amongst anti corruption agencies of the ASEAN region which CPIB is involved in. CPIB is one of the first
four agencies which signed the MOU in Dec 2004 in Jakarta, along with the agencies of Malaysia, Indonesia
and Brunei. The objective of the MOU was to enhance mutual sharing, capacity building and strengthen
collaborative efforts in anti-corruption matters.

101

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.86

C. International Co-operation
The global context of the fight against corruption is evolving. Transnational trade and investment havemultiplied in the past years. This has significantly increased the likelihood of transnational crimes andcorruption to occur. In addition, financial transactions across borders are done with greater ease. A domestic
corruption, where the bribe or proceeds of the corrupt transaction obtained, could have been transferred toanother foreign jurisdiction. These developments create new opportunities for transnational corruption andhiding of proceeds and, as such, it requires international co-operation to address this phenomenon and bringthe offenders to justice.
CPIB has established good working relationship with its counterparts in the region and beyond.
Assistance is also provided to foreign counterparts in the area of law enforcement, where appropriate, withthe understanding of reciprocal assistance from them in the future.
I like to share on some cases to illustrate the positive outcome derived from collaborating with ourforeign counterparts and the importance of working together in our fight against corruption.
1. Case 1
CPIB investigated a case involving a Customs Officer, a Malaysian and a Singapore Permanent Resident,
who had received bribes of about $21,650/- on 13 occasions from two foreigners in return for not verifying
their goods during their declarations to the Customs Department for purpose of claiming the Goods andServices Tax refunds. The Customs Officer was released on bail while investigations are being carried.
However, he absconded and left Singapore. Upon completion of our investigations, we obtained consent fromthe Public Prosecutor to prosecute him in Court for 13 charges of corruption. Based on our intelligence, he
had fled to a village of a remote area in Malaysia. We have obtained a warrant from the Courts to arrest him
and we enlisted the assistance from our counterpart, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC),
to locate and apprehend him. With the help of the MACC, we arrested and brought him back to Singapore.
He was charged in Court on 13 counts of corruption and was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 16
months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a penalty of $21,650/-.
2. Case 2
In Jan 2010, the Bureau investigated a Director of a Singapore company, dealing in the Import-Exportof used cars, for bribing an employee of a company based in New Zealand in return for ordering used carsfrom the local company. For every used car purchased by the New Zealand’s company, the Director will
pay an amount of $1,000/- as bribe to the New Zealander employee. As the alleged corruption transactions
involved a foreign company, we liaised with our counterpart in New Zealand, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO),
to request for assistance. Our officers flew to New Zealand and with the SFO’s assistance, we managed toobtain information and evidence relating to the alleged corrupt transactions and interview various parties
involved and staff, including the Chief Executive Officer, of the New Zealand’s company. Based on the
documents and invoices recovered, there is another Singapore company which may have also bribed the
New Zealander employee in return for business opportunities. Our investigations are still ongoing. The New
Zealand’s SFO had investigated the matter and prosecuted the New Zealander employee. He was convicted
and sentenced to six and a half years’ imprisonment.
3. Case 3
Another case, Macao’s Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) investigated a senior public official
working in the Transport and Public Works for corruption offences. CCAC had sent a MLA request to
CPIB through our Central Authority (AGC) seeking for assistance to retrieve remittance records on bankaccounts belonging to few companies which have been used by the said senior public official to receive
bribes. Upon CCAC’s request, CPIB obtained a production order from the High Court and retrieved therelevant information from the Bank concerned. The information was passed on to CCAC to assist in theirinvestigation. The senior public official was subsequently prosecuted in Court and he was convicted ofcorruption charges and sentenced to several years of jail imprisonment.
4. Case 4
The last case which I like to share involved a joint operation by the Singapore CPIB and the MalaysianAnti-Corruption Commission. The MACC had informed CPIB that a senior officer in the Royal Malaysian102

THE 14TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Police was found to be in possession of few million Malaysian Ringgits, which he claimed to be commissions
received from a Singapore businessman for recommending business opportunities to him. Pursuant to
the information received, CPIB mounted an operation and commenced investigation which revealed theSingapore businessman had assisted the senior officer by making a false statutory declaration that hehad given him commissions, to help account for the unexplained wealth. In return for his assistance, theSingapore businessman was promised a bribe amount of few hundred thousand Malaysian Ringgits. Upon
conclusion of the investigation, the Singapore businessman was prosecuted in Singapore Court for a
corruption offence and he was convicted and fined $30,000/-. He is currently assisting the MACC in the caseagainst the senior officer.

VI. CONCLUSION
Corruption is a problem that needs to be dealt with in both the public and private sectors. Singapore has
adopted a comprehensive approach in tackling corruption in both sectors for a long time.
Today, CPIB has to a large extent, helped to curb corruption in Singapore. It has played an important rolein keeping the country clean, and we have capitalized on the four pillars of anti corruption, namely strictlaws, enforcement without fear or favour, tough punishment from the Courts and effective government
administration to prevent and control corruption. The anti corruption measures must be applied consistently
across the board, no matter whether it is petty corruption or involved high level corruption. Our past
successes however is no guarantee for the future and we cannot be complacent but to be vigilant and we willcontinue to fight against corruption.
I hope my sharing has been useful to you. The experience of Singapore may not be replicated wholesale
as each country has its unique character and circumstances. However, we recognize corruption is problem
for all, be it a problem in Singapore or some other country. Therefore, we need to share and pick up learning
points from each other. And we also need to join hands to fight corruption and make the society a better
place to live in.

103