CORRUPTION CONTROL IN SINGAPORE
Koh Teck Hin*

I. INTRODUCTION
The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) is the sole agency responsible for combating
corruption in Singapore. CPIB was founded in 1952, even before Singapore gained independence from the
British. It is one of the oldest agencies in the world dedicated to fighting corruption, and we developed overthe past 58 years to our current state today.
On the whole, the overall strategic approach to fighting corruption applies across the board, with nodistinction made on whether it is petty corruption or high level corruption. No exception is made for anyone
and there are no ‘black areas’ where the law cannot deal with. In our experience, the same commitment toaction is necessary in order to be successful in curbing corruption at all levels.

II. CORRUPTION SITUATION
Since Singapore attained self-government in 1959, corruption control has been top of the government
agenda. When we took over from the British, corruption was prevalent. The Prevention of Corruption
Ordinance was weak. Corruption was not a seizable offence and the powers of the anti-corruption bureau
were inadequate. Public officers were poorly paid and the population was less educated, did not know theirrights and often the way to get things done was through bribery.
For a small city state, it was therefore vital of Singapore to control corruption for our national survival. It
was necessary in order to provide a conducive climate and a level playing field to spur economic growth. It is
a competitive advantage to attract foreign businesses to invest in our land.
Corruption control has become a strategic tenet of our system of governance. The smooth conduct ofgovernment affairs had to be grounded on a rational basis, with clear rules for all to follow. It provides thepredictability and confidence for the public to rely on the government to discharge its duty without bias.
There had to be no room to tolerate those who hope for windfalls from powerful friends or from greasing
contacts in high places. For Singapore to succeed, we had to operate on a meritocratic principle, where
people can see that rewards are tied to the efforts that they put in, and not through corrupt means.
There was much reform required. The law was strengthened. Rigorous enforcement took place.
Government administration was improved. All these provided the impetus for Singapore’s transformationfrom a corruption-infested city state to the present state we are in, where we enjoy a good reputationworldwide. Singapore has been the third least corrupt country in Transparency International’s Corruption
Perception Index, and has been the least corrupt country as ranked by Political Economic & Risk
Consultancy (PERC) for the past 10 years.
The mood and resolve to vigorously curb corruption was echoed by the government as early as in 1960
when Parliament declared that it: “(was) determined to take all possible steps to see that all legislative andadministrative measures are taken to reduce the opportunities of corruption, to make its detection easierand to deter and punish severely those who are susceptible to it and who engage in it shamelessly.”
The strong anti-corruption refrain was heard again and again, including this statement made in 1979 bythen PM Lee Kuan Yew, which best explains the need for a corruption-free Singapore: “The moment key* Deputy Director (Operations), Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), Singapore.

122

THE 13TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CORRUPTIONVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

leaders are less than incorruptible, less than stern in demanding high standards, from that moment thestructure of administrative integrity will weaken, and eventually crumble. Singapore can survive only if
Ministers and senior officers are incorruptible and efficient [….] Only when we uphold the integrity of theadministration can the economy work in a way which enables Singaporeans to clearly see the nexus between
hard work and high rewards.”
And again emphasized by the then PM Mr Goh Chok Tong in Parliament in 1993 when he said:“[…..] I have every intention to make sure that Singapore remains corruption free. I will not let standards
drop. And everyone should know that corruption in any form will not be tolerated. I expect all Ministers, all
MPs and all public officers to set good examples for others to follow …”This is still the same position today and the will of government to stamp out corruption wherever it may
be is still very strong.

III. POLITICAL WILL
These sentiments reflect the determination and political will for the fight against corruption. Political will
is a key ingredient in the transformation effort from Singapore’s corruption infested past as it forms that allimportant sub-structure, upon which all the super-structures of anti-corruption work rest. It provides the soil
and the nutrient which allows the seeds of anti-corruption work to germinate and grow. The government has
matched its words with deeds - it mobilized the public, and the entire civil service to fight corruption.
The year 1975 marked a major turning point in the fight against corruption. The Minister of State Wee
Toon Boon, then a serving Minister in the Government of the ruling party, was convicted of corruption. Such
results demonstrated to the public the resolve of the government to keep Singapore clean. And this has
garnered the public support in the ongoing fight against corruption. With the efforts put in and with public
support over the years, corruption was thus brought under control.

IV. FRAMEWORK OF CORRUPTION CONTROLWith a strong political will as the foundation, the framework of corruption control consists of four pillars,consisting of 4As, as follows:-

Effective Anti Corruption Acts (or laws)
Effective Anti Corruption Agency
Effective Adjudication (or punishment) andEfficient Government Administration.

TEMPLE OF CORRUPTION CONTROLEFFICIENTADMINISTRATIONEFFECTIVEADJUDICATIONEFFECTIVE ACTS

(OR LAWS)EFFECTIVE

POLITICAL WILL

123

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.83

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 they will have sufficient force and strength.
In Singapore, the principal law is the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). This governs the primary
offences of corruption and the powers of the enforcement agency, which is CPIB. In addition, there is
the Corruption, Drugs Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA)
which provides for the seizure and forfeiture of proceeds which a person convicted of 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 ofinvestigation of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Officers, enhance punishments for corruption and toplug loopholes to prevent exploitation by criminals.
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:(i) The Act also allows CPIB to investigate corruption in both the public and private sectors and we
can deal with both the giver and the receiver. We have dealt with cases in the private sector since
the beginning. In some countries, anti-corruption agencies do not deal with private sector. It isof strategic importance for Singapore to keep Singapore companies clean because if not, othercountries will not want to trade with 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 escapepunishment and this will worsen the corruption situation due to the demand-supply dynamics.
(ii) 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
the court that what he or she received was not received corruptly. If he or she fails to explain to
the satisfaction of the court, he or she will 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 haveto court and this presumption clause is an additional help for the prosecution.
(iii) Next, an acceptor of a bribe will be considered guilty even if he or she, in fact, had no power, right oropportunity to return a favour to the bribe giver. This came about because some corrupt offenders
took bribes and then were unable to deliver the expected favour. Even so, they should not escapepunishment.
(iv) The Act forbids the use of customary practices, for example, giving/accepting of ‘red packets’ inChinese New Year as an excuse for giving/accepting bribes. No one can go to court and be excusedby saying that the bribe, disguised as a ‘red packet’, is goodwill money and nothing illegal. In thepast, CPIB was very busy during Chinese New Year and had to look out for bribes disguised as
goodwill money. Nowadays, with the enforcement actions taken, the public knows and offenders will
not try to use the festive occasion as a camouflage for bribe taking.
(v) The Act also empowers the Court to order bribe receivers to pay a penalty equal to the amount ofbribe received apart from punishment in the form of fines and/or imprisonment terms. This means
if accused took $1 million dollars, he or she has to surrender back that amount. This emphasized theprinciple that the accused ought not to enjoy any benefit from any corrupt activity.
(vi) When a person is found to have committed corruption offence, the Principal could recover theamount of the bribe as a civil debt. An example is the manager of a multi-national company (MNC)

124

THE 13TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CORRUPTIONVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

convicted of a corruption offence for receiving kickbacks for contracts he granted to others. He wassentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a penalty of about $300,000, being thetotal of bribes received by him. After the sentencing, the MNC commenced civil action under thePrevention of Corruption Act to recover the bribes from the Manager. The manager appealed to the
Court of Appeal against the claim on the ground that he had already paid penalty to the State for thebribes he had received and he could not be liable to pay the claim to the MNC, otherwise it would betantamount 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 and the law allowed for it. The
manager is thus still liable to pay the MNC.
(vi) The Act renders Singapore citizens 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
with cases where Singaporeans commit corruption abroad and prosecuted them in Singapore.
Besides the PCA, there was enactment of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes(Confiscation of Benefits) Act, CDSA in short, 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 pecuniary
resources and properties when a person is convicted of a corruption offence and cannot satisfactorily accountfor those resources to be confiscated. The objective is to ensure that the perpetrators will not benefit from
corruption.
The Parliament has also enacted the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act to ensurethat Members of Parliament will not benefit from a debate in the House in which he or she has a pecuniary
interest. It has also enacted The Political Donation Act to ensure candidates standing for political election
declare donations they received.
Other statutes regulating Government bodies have also incorporated provisions which deter corruption.
One such provision is in the Customs Act which specifically provides for penalties for receiving bribes, andpresumes any monies in the possession of a Customs Officer which cannot be accounted for to be corruptly
obtained.

B. Effective Enforcement
Having tough laws is no guarantee that there is effective enforcement. If there are tough laws but lax
enforcement, corruption will still flourish because the corrupted escape detection and investigation. The
situation will be like having a good battle plan but poor troops. It is therefore crucial to devote priority andattention to setting up an effective enforcement agency.
In Singapore, CPIB is the only agency empowered to investigate corruption offences. Any other law
enforcement agency which comes across or receives reports on corruption will have to hand over the case to
CPIB.
CPIB has independence of action. We can investigate any person or corporation in government or theprivate sector, however high in the hierarchy they may be. CPIB reports directly to the Prime Minister so
as to block any undue interference from any quarters and to ensure that CPIB favours no one particular
individual, department or agency but operates without fear or favour, regardless of colour, creed or social
status. In fact, CPIB's independence of action was guaranteed by the Constitution, with provision for theelected President of Singapore to open the doors for investigation to proceed should the government of the
day block CPIB.
Our Bureau slogan “Swift and Sure” is the message to all corrupt offenders that there will be swift
action, certainty of results and justice will take its course. CPIB has always endeavoured to be a crack
investigative agency, purpose-driven and committed fully to our mission of “combat(ting) corruption throughswift and sure action”. Swift action suggests promptness of action, speed and timeliness while sure action
suggests certainty of action, resoluteness and result orientedness.
Having a strong capability is easier said than done. Our current success does not guarantee future

125

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.83

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 complemented
by effective adjudication. Detection, prosecution and subsequent court conviction have specific deterrence
on offenders. This also has a general deterrence on the like-minded. Aided by the tough laws, the judiciary
successfully created a regime of punishment that is deterrent enough to hammer home, loud and clear, themessage that corruption does not pay.
There is transparency in the justice process as all court proceedings are open, public hearings. 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 prosecution cross appealed on the sentence, the High Court not only dismissed
the accused’s appeal but enhanced his original sentence from four 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 well as Singapore’s reputation as a regional and financial hub, punishment for
deplorable and corrupt acts, such as 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 another corruption case involving short supply of marine bunkers (PP vs Lim Teck Chye ), as it wasa private sector business case (which tend to attract fines rather than imprisonment), the court had thisjudgment: “It could not be said that only corruption offences involving public servants…. harmed the public
interest concern for the preservation of the integrity of the public service and the administration of justice.
Corruption offences committed in the private sector may do so as well, as private corporations provided
public service functions ….. The corrupt actions of the appellant … had the potential to adversely affectpublic confidence in the independence of the marine surveyors and Singapore’s bunkering industry. It
was therefore untenable to draw a strict line between corruption offences committed in the private sector
and those committed in the public arena (for the purposes of sentencing), and a custodial sentence waswarranted in this case…”
With the court’s sentencing, it has sent a strong message to the corrupted and to would-be offenders tothink twice before committing corrupted acts.
As part of sentencing, the court will also impose a financial penalty on the offender equal to the amountof bribes the offender had taken. So this again sends a clear message that the offender is not allowed to enjoy
any of his or her ill gotten gains.
On top of this, in cases involving government procurement or contracts, administrative actions are taken
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 was tested in the court last year.
The CPIB had prosecuted a facilities manager in a large private company for corruption. He took bribes ofalmost $300,000 in return for awarding contracts. He was convicted and sentenced to 10 months’ jail andordered to pay to the State a penalty of about $300,000, equal to the amount of bribes he had pocketed. Afterthe prosecution was over, his company brought a civil suit against him to recover the amount of bribes hehad accepted whilst employed by them. The accused appealed to the court against this, stating that since126

THE 13TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CORRUPTIONVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

he had 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.

V. EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION & GOOD GOVERNANCE
A. Preventive & Administrative Measures in the Public Sector
Alongside the statutory measures dealing with corrupt offenders, a proactive approach to curb corruption
was adopted in the Government. With the full support of Parliament and the Heads of Government
departments, strict rules and regulations have been formulated to govern the conduct of public officers. A
high standard of discipline is demanded of these officers such as:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)

a public officer cannot borrow money from any person who has official dealings with him or her;a public officer’s unsecured debts and liabilities cannot at anytime be more than three times his or
her monthly salary;a public officer cannot use any official information to further his or her private interest;a public officer is required to declare his or her assets at his or her first appointment and alsoannually;a public officer cannot engage in trade or business or undertake any part-time employment without
approval; anda public officer cannot receive entertainment or present in any form from members of the public.

The commitment of Ministers and Heads of Government departments similarly resulted in theestablishment of administrative measures to reduce the chances of public officers getting involved incorruption and wrongdoings. These measures include:
a)
b)
c)
d)

identifying and removing opportunity for corruption in Government work procedures;
streamlining cumbersome administrative procedures and slashing red tape to provide an efficientand transparent civil service so that no one needs to recourse to corrupt civil servants to get things
done;
reviewing public officers’ salary regularly to ensure that they are paid adequately and comparable tothat of the private sector;
reminding Government contractors at the time when contracts are signed that bribing public officers
administering the contract may render their contracts to be terminated. A clause to this effect forms
part of the standard contract conditions.

B. Efficient Administration
The last pillar is efficient administration, which is also a key to reducing corruption. An efficientadministration is one which values integrity and incorruptibility. The Singapore Civil Service prides itself
on living its core values of Integrity, Service and Excellence. Hence, we have put in place measures toensure 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 areopen for corruption to seep in to ‘make things happen.’
The civil service in Singapore initiated major reforms in May 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 can act against
corruption and reduce its opportunities. This is because a service delivered promptly and with no hassle
leaves less room for corruption compared to a service which takes a long time and has tedious processing
stages.

127

127

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.83

Under PS21, there were several major initiatives to reduce bureaucracy and cut red tape, such as:•

The Pro-Enterprise Panel Movement
The Pro-Enterprise Panel receives and vets suggestions from the public to help ensure thatgovernment rules and regulations are supportive of a pro business environment in Singapore. The
panel is led by the Head of Civil Service, with members from the private sector, such as Chief
Executive Officers of companies. The public and companies can provide suggestions through theinternet (www.pep.gov.sg) and these suggestions may result in changes in the rules and regulations.

•

The Zero-In-Process (ZIP)This 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. The ZIP makes sure that such cases do not slip between the cracks by identifying leadagencies and forming ZIP teams to tackle and propose solutions on difficult cross-agency issues.

•

The POWER (Public Officers Working to Eliminate Red-tape)This aims to reduce bureaucracy by eliminating obsolete public sector rules. The goal is to give
public officers greater flexibility with operational issues and raise awareness that we should enforce
the spirit and intent of the regulations rather than complying with them mindlessly. It also allows
public officers to cut red tape whenever they spot it. A POWER website has been set up to receive
suggestions from public officers and to channel them to the respective regulators for follow up
action.

•The Cut-Red Tape Movement
Under this, civil servants are encouraged to reduce red tape within the government. Through theinternet, the private sector and public can write to the government with suggestions on cutting of
red tape. Such feedback can promote transparency and reduce business costs. There is a Cut Waste
website where the public can submit their observations/suggestions on areas where government cancut expenditure. The government ministry concerned will have to respond to the public’s query andhave their reply posted in the website for all to see. This helps to keep government on its toes andhelp to minimize wastage of government spending, if any.

The Singapore Government’s main aim of undertaking the PS21 initiative is to improve efficiency
and effectiveness in the provision of its public services. Nonetheless, it has an important side benefit ofcorruption prevention. Firstly, by empowering and engaging officers for continuous improvement, we hopethat the public servant becomes more engaged. An engaged officer takes pride in his or her work and is lesslikely to succumb to corruption. Secondly, by cutting red tape, making services easier and more accessible,
it provides less opportunity for public officers to ask for bribes to grease a transaction. By seeking feedback
from the public and being transparent in its policies and service standards, it leaves little room for public
officers to solicit for bribes.
A parallel move to upgrade the civil service and to position the government to better serve the nation in
the digital age was also embarked upon through the e-Government Action Plans (eGAP). The first such plan
was from 2000 - 2003, the second from 2003 - 2006 and we are now in the third plan known as iGov2010,
running from 2006 - 2010. iGov aims at delivering excellent public services as well as connecting thecitizens to the government. Electronic services already in place or to be implemented target at providing
higher levels of convenience, efficiency and effectiveness for the public. E-governance measures serve toengage citizens more widely through use of infocomm technology.
One of the many e-services initiatives is the introduction of the e-Citizen portal where citizens canaccess government services from the comfort of their homes, eg to lodge a police report or to renew
their passports. They can also use it to lodge a corruption report with CPIB. The service standards ofvarious departments are also published in the portal so that the public can know what to expect. Anothere-government initiative is the business.gov.sg portal. This portal provides the public with information andassistance in planning their businesses and starting companies. One of the services provided by this portal
is the online business licensing service (OBLS). With OBLS, someone starting his or her new business can

128THE 13TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CORRUPTIONVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

apply and get the relevant permits and licenses from the comfort of his or her home or office without him or
her having to physically go to the various government departments. Before OBLS, when a business wished
to apply for various licenses, it needs to go to different departments and some licenses required them to go
to a few departments. For example, to get a hawker license one has to go to the Ministry of Environment
and the Urban Redevelopment Authority as well. After the implementation of this system, all the applicant
has to do is to log onto this system and submit the applications on-line and the system will route it to therelevant departments, hence saving time for the applicant. Today members of the public can apply, renew
or terminate different types of license though this on-line portal. Some 69 licences from 19 government
agencies are on OBLS. The turnaround time to obtain all the licences was cut from 21 days to just eightdays. This service was very well received and in 2005, it has won the prestigious UN Public Service Award.
Another service is the Gebiz – the government procurement portal on the internet. Today, most
Government procurement is done through the internet and it is open for all, including international
businesses who wish to take part. In Gebiz, the posting of the tender requirements is online, the submissionof the bids is online, the deadline is controlled by the computer and the results at the end of tender areautomatically published for all to see. This leaves little room for corruption or abuse compared to the manualsystem.
Although the primary driver behind our e-government action plan was not about corruption control, it
does have such an important side benefit. It reduces the visits to government service counters, service
turnaround time and cost of delivery. If we think about it, if a government service can now be obtained fromthe comfort of our homes, at the click of a mouse, what chance is there for someone to interfere in between
to solicit a bribe for the purpose of greasing the transaction.
This inter-relationship between efficiency and corruption control is succinctly summed up in an old
article of Bob Crew of South China Morning Post when he said: “The theory is that the administration is sotight, so efficiently run and controlled, that there is no room for corruption which thrives much better in an
inefficient administration in which there are plenty of loopholes for it to flourish unnoticed and unchecked,
where there is scope for hoodwinking and beating the system.”This was an article from way back in the 1970s but it is still relevant today.

VI. 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 co-operation and networking, CPIB hosted official visits andattachments by Government officials from various countries. In recent years, officials visited CPIB werefrom 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.
To be in the know 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.
CPIB has also actively established good working relationships with its counterparts in the region
and beyond. Assistance is also provided to foreign counterparts in the area of law enforcement, whereappropriate, with the understanding of reciprocal assistance from them in the future.

B. Specialized Workshops
CPIB regularly organizes an international workshop, known as Anti-Corruption Expertise (ACE)Workshop with regional participation. We have conducted three runs so far with the following themes –“Excellence in Investigation” in August 2006, “Excellence in Computer Forensics” in September 2007 and“Excellence in Management of Anti Corruption Agencies” in October 2008. Speakers at the workshops
129

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.83

came from Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Korea, United States, United Kingdom, Australia and France.
The aim of the workshops is to share Singapore’s experience and expertise and to bring professionals
together for cross-learning. CPIB will continue to organize ACE workshops in the future to benefit officials
from the region.
We have also conducted a customized Anti Corruption Management and Investigation Course – a five-day
programme done for regional counterparts at cost recovery basis. Officials from Bhutan’s Anti-Corruption
Commission and from Cambodia’s Anti Corruption Unit have attended.

C. International Fora
CPIB is actively engaged in international fora and meetings that discuss corruption matters. It isa 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 more than
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.
VII. LESSONS LEARNT
Based on our experience in combating corruption, I like to highlight the following learning points.
Firstly, mere systems, structures and processes do not necessarily provide the template for success. The
magic is in the sincerity of purpose; genuine efforts - not less than honest labour - and the overall operatingclimate. CPIB has the structures, systems and processes that were allowed to work, given the right
operating environment created by a strong political will. Unless the will to succeed is forged, much of any
anti-corruption programme will remain a passive idle declaration. Clearly, it is as much a question of fixing
the hearts and minds as it is a question of fixing the system.
Secondly, it is strategic to focus on the three related areas of enforcement, legislation (or law) andadjudication, as a package. Any weaknesses in any one link in this three-link chain can be fatal. Strong andeffective legislation that will make detection and conviction of offenders easier is tactical, as this provides
the cutting edge for more effective enforcement and ultimately, more effective adjudication. All three areas
are essential in anti-corruption work. If one piece is ineffective, the whole is ineffective.
Thirdly, we adopted, from the onset, a simple, no-frills and largely enforcement-oriented approach, inthe belief that deterrence through sure detection, prosecution and ultimately conviction in a court of law is
the most tactically tenable and strategically sound plan of action. By taking strong action against offenders,
we avoided being side-tracked unnecessarily by the bark when we should be directing efforts on the bite.
The maxim is: “Keep it simple, do it well”. Early success was thus possible through focused action andunity of purpose. Success, eventually, begets success. This generates a momentum of its own, creating avirtuous spiral.
Fourthly, public support is vital in any anti-corruption programme, and is best won through successful
action against the corrupt, regardless of colour, creed or station in life and executed without fear or favour,
firmly and fairly. Such clear, demonstrable success is the surest way of winning public assent.

VIII. CONCLUSION
Corruption is a problem that needs to be dealt with in both the public sector and private sector. Singapore
has adopted a total approach in both sectors for a long time.
Today, CPIB has to a large extent helped to curb corruption in Singapore. It has a crucial role to playin keeping the country clean, and our tireless efforts to prevent and control corruption and uphold a high130THE 13TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CORRUPTIONVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

standard of transparency would not have been possible without capitalizing on the four pillars of anticorruption, namely strict laws, enforcement without fear or favour, tough punishment from the Courts andeffective government administration. The anti-corruption measures must be applied consistently across theboard, regardless of whether it is petty corruption or high level corruption.
However, we are mindful that our past successes is no guarantee for the future and we do not for a
moment think that corruption will never take root in Singapore. We know complacency will lead to adownfall. Therefore, the fight against corruption is still a necessary job for all of us.
I hope my sharing has been useful to you. The experience of Singapore may not be replicated exactly
anywhere else as every country has its unique character and circumstances. Nonetheless, corruption is anuniversal problem common amongst mankind. We therefore have scope for sharing and learning from eachother. And we all have a common duty to join hands to fight the disease of corruption and make the world abetter place to live in.

131