PARTICIPANTS’
PAPERSRESOURCE
MATERIAL SERIES
No.86
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF CORRUPTION OFFENCES
Koh Teck Hin*

I. INTRODUCTION
In my first paper, I discussed the corruption control framework that has been put in place to combat
and deal with corruption activities in Singapore. In this paper, I will touch on the strategies CPIB adopts
with regard to the investigation of corruption-related offences and prosecution of offenders involved insuch criminal activities. The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB)’s mandate is to enforce andinvestigate all corruption offences. We must ensure that the corrupt offender feels that this is a high riskbusiness and must feel that they will be caught and dealt with for their crimes. The law and the enforcement
agency must combine to give bite to the anti-corruption efforts.

II. PURPOSE
We know that different anti-corruption agencies around the world adopt different approaches andstrategies in their enforcement and investigation into corruption offences. My presentation has two
purposes:a)firstly, we like to share our experience with all participants so that we can have a means for mutual
learning. We can learn from you and refine our system and, likewise, what we have experienced may
provide learning pointers for you to reflect upon; andb)secondly, an understanding of the investigation approaches and strategies can further enhance thebasis for mutual cooperation and assistance. By understanding one another in investigation matters,
we can facilitate support for one another.

III. A TOTAL APPROACH TO ENFORCEMENT & INVESTIGATION
A. Approaches & Strategies to Investigation
CPIB is under the Prime Minister’s Office. We report to the Prime Minister and not to any other
Minister or government authority. This gives us functional independence so that no government body canquestion us or influence us in our enforcement and investigation efforts.
Our approach in investigation is a total approach. This ensures we have a good control over the situation
and we can contain corruption cases as far as possible. What do I mean by ‘total approach’? It simply means:a) Firstly, no case is too small to investigate. For example, a motorist is stopped for drunk driving andhe tries to bribe the traffic police officer to get off the hook. He will be charged in court. If a foreign
visitor is at our immigration control point at our border and he did not meet the entry requirements
but tries to bribe the immigration officer, he will be charged in court. In short, corruption is nottolerated and all cases will be investigated and dealt with seriously.
b)Secondly, we deal with cases regardless of rank and status. Even serving Ministers had been
charged and Chief Executive Officers of major companies have been dealt with too. There is no
exemption for the ‘big fish’ or for anyone in high places. We have in the past investigated andprosecuted Ministers for indulging in corruption-related activities. In a case involving Wee Toon

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

104

THE 14TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Boon, then Minister of State for Environment - he was charged for corruption involving a sum of
about $840,000/-. He had used his ministerial status to make representation on behalf of a property
developer in return for gratifications, which included a bungalow and free air travel tickets for his
family. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and also ordered to pay a
penalty. And Teh Cheang Wan, another Minister for National Development, was investigated for
accepting two bribes totaling $1 million in return for helping two property developers to retain andacquire pieces of land for development. However, Teh committed suicide before he could be formallycharged in Court.
c)

We are prepared to deal with both givers and receivers of bribes. Under our law, they are equallyculpable. However, sometimes we may not charge the giver if he was under duress when he gave
the bribe or there were some other compelling reasons which led to the offence.

d)

We can deal with corruption in all areas, in any industry or business sector, in all branches ofgovernment, the judiciary, Parliament, political parties, non government organizations. There is
no area where the law does not permit the CPIB to investigate. The powers given to CPIB to doinvestigation also apply equally to all sectors. In this way, CPIB helps to keep government clean andensures healthy economic activities in the private sector.

e)

We don’t leave it to various government authorities to deal with the problem. For example, if there
is an issue involving Immigration Department, we don’t just leave it to them. We will take overcorruption investigation and, if necessary, the immigration investigation as well. In some cases, we
may jointly investigate with them so that a complete resolution of the corruption and immigration
offences can be achieved. We may also help government departments review their systems toremove or change those procedures which may be vulnerable to corruption.

f)

We are prepared to investigate based on anonymous complaints. However, we need to be very
careful so that we are not “used” by someone who is malicious and wants to cause harm to others.
We will process the information and there is a weekly session where the Directorate members(comprising of Director and Heads of Operation Units) will meet to decide if investigation should be
conducted on the complaints received.

CPIB is also empowered to investigate other offences, besides corruption. This is extremely importantbecause corruption crime may not exist in isolation. It may occur and mixed with other crimes such as
cheating, commercial crimes, etc. Therefore any anti-corruption agency must have the power to question
suspects on the full range of offences, otherwise there will be severe limits placed on investigations and theaccused persons will probably be able to get away from the punishment that he deserves.
CPIB can also refer non-corruption offences to other specialized enforcement agencies like the Singapore
Police Force, Immigration Department etc. when these were detected during the course of our investigation.
We make it easy for anyone to report corruption offences. The CPIB is very accessible. The public canreport by making phone calls to our hotline which is operated round the clock, or they can visit our office at
any time. They can also send us letters by post or fax. They can also report from their homes via the CPIB
internet website (www.cpib.gov.sg) or send us an email. By opening up all possible venues for reporting,
we hope that those who have come across or are aware of corruption cases will have less difficulty andunwillingness to report.

B. Corruption in the Private Sector
As mentioned, CPIB is empowered to investigate corruption in both the public and private sectors. Our
corruption control efforts in the private sector do not only confine to businesses. It also includes non-profit
organizations and charity organization. In recent times in Singapore, charity organizations have come underinvestigations by the authorities. CPIB has also stepped in when there is corruption committed by personnelof charity organizations. This strict stance on corruption in charity organizations is necessary so as to deter
offenders from taking advantage of kindhearted people to enrich themselves.

105

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.86

1. Why deal with Private Sector Corruption?
Some of you may ask why there is a need to deal with private sector corruption cases. There are goodreasons why CPIB has to deal with them, namely:a) Corruption in the private sector affects public interest. Some used to think that private sector
corruption is a private affair between the giver and the taker. But consider the following. When asupermarket purchaser takes bribes from a supplier, the supplier will at the end of the day mark up
its cost to cover the bribes. In doing so, the supermarket which purchased the goods at a higher
price will eventually sell it an even higher price. In the end, it is the public who suffers.
b) Singapore is a small nation without natural resources. It has to depend on trade and foreign
investment. To attract investment, we have to ensure that business cost is low and corruption
whether, in the private or public sector, increases business cost.
c)

The private sector is a key pillar of the Singapore’s economy. It drives national economic growth.
We need to have a level playing field for all and the private sector must be clean in order for foreignbusinesses to want to work with us and to invest in Singapore.

d) The private and public sectors are co-related, which is why CPIB needs to watch over the private
sector as well. As more and more government functions become outsourced to the private
sector, many private companies are now performing functions once used to be performed by thegovernment. Corruption in private sectors which are involved in strategic functions can also impact
the key areas of government and the society at large.
e) A lot of the private sector enterprises have huge public shareholdings as well. If the enterprise is
not well run and commits crimes, then its share price may be affected and this in turn affects theinterests of the public.
2. Types of Private Sector Cases
Private Sector corruption cases can come in various forms –some of the cases we have seen in theprivate sector are:a) Cases involving contracts or procurement of services or supplies. The corrupt offender receives
kickbacks in return for awarding contracts.
An example of a recent case involves a Managing Director of a BMW agent Performance Motors,
who had received luxury watches and mobile phones from a car dealer in return for the appointmentof her company as an authorized BMW dealer. The MD was convicted of corruption charges andhe was fined $185,000/- and had to pay a penalty of $112,000/-, which was the amount of bribes hereceived.
Another case involved a fresh and frozen food supplier giving a total sum of $761,000/- in bribes
to a Food Services Manager of a Swedish furniture giant Ikea in return for ordering meatballs
and fried chicken wings for the Ikea’s restaurant. The supplier was convicted of 12 charges ofcorruption. He was jailed for 4 months and fined $180,000/-. Upon appeal by the Prosecution, thesentence was increased to 10 months’ imprisonment.
b)Cases involving corrupt offenders who supervise contractors or suppliers, for example, not checking
on the quality of work or product delivered and overlooking deficiencies. This can result in serious
repercussions.
A recent example involved a Technical Officer employed by the Civil Aviation Authority ofSingapore receiving a Tag Heuer watch worth $3,700/- from a contractor in return for approving apermit to work without delay and not finding fault with the upgrading work at the Changi Airport’s
Terminal 1 undertaken by the said contractor. The Technical Officer was convicted of corruption andhe was jailed for six months and ordered to pay a penalty of the total sum of bribes he received fromseveral contractors.

c)There are those who are corrupt, and have access to sensitive data and divulge to unauthorized
persons in return for some rewards. These cases involve people working in areas where they
can access to data or information about customers and they abuse it by passing on to persons
such as illegal moneylenders who were looking for their debtors and private investigators tracing

106THE 14TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

whereabouts of persons of interest.
We have a case involving an Executive working in the bank providing confidential details andcustomers’ identification numbers to third parties, including an illegal soccer bookie and an illegalmoneylender in return for money. He was convicted and jailed 12 weeks and fined $27,000/- foraccepting bribes and accessing the bank’s customer information system without authorization.
Before passing the sentence, the presiding judge told the accused that he had committed a very
serious offence. The judge underscored the importance of a bank’s tight security and the accused’s
action could have had a detrimental effect on the banking system in Singapore.
d)There are those who are in positions of authority such as the CEO or General Manager, who tookbribes and granted approval for various matters in favour of the bribe givers.
A General Manager of mobile phone giant Nokia had received bribe in the form of assistancefrom a CEO of a private company to acquire shares from three companies and she had subsequently
profited from the sales of these shares. She had also received a sum of $8,864.48 from the said
CEO. In return, she will give Nokia business to the CEO’s company. The Court has convicted herof corruption charges and fined her a total of $60,000/-. She was also ordered to pay a penalty of$8,864.48, the amount of bribe she took.

e)

In some cases, corruption is mixed with other offences. For example, the corrupted may also “cook”
the company’s books when they try to hide the corrupt transactions. They may manufacture false
invoices to reflect fictitious transactions. Our officers are also empowered to investigate othercrimes uncovered in the course of corruption investigations.
We have a case involving a Chief Financial Officer of a listed company who had helped tocover up more than $1 million kickbacks, authorized by the company’s Chairman and CEO, to thecustomers. She had falsified the company’s accounts by arranging for the fake invoices to coverup the trail of bribe payments to the representatives of client companies. She was convicted andsentenced to three months’ imprisonment for her role. The Chairman and CEO had also been dealt
with in Court.

IV. INVESTIGATION STRATEGIES
So, what did CPIB do to sustain the good efforts of our government and to effectively fight corruption?
In order to achieve this mission, we approach it through a framework of action which involves four linked
competencies, that is Intelligence, Interview, Forensics and Field Operations. The success of solving
corruption cases hinges on the interplay of these core competencies. Let me elaborate.

A. Intelligence
The first competency – Intelligence. Intelligence work is critical in the current landscape of constantthreats and vulnerabilities. It involves the collation and processing of information for specific objectives,
so you can say that intelligence work is really investigation in the covert sense. Intelligence work often
provides the basis for successful investigation. CPIB’s many successes in cracking major corruption cases
were largely attributed to the proactive approach and the efficiency of our exceptional intelligence capability.
Our Intelligence Division adopts both a pro-active and re-active stance - we have projects which areintelligence-led operations, which involve ‘live’ cases where our Intelligence Division centralizes its efforts
in collation, analysis and ‘live’ monitoring. We also have cases which are sent for intelligence enrichment.
For such cases, Intelligence Division plays a supportive role to our Operations Units in their investigations,providing critical information such as establishing identities, relationships, housing targets etc during thepre-operation and operation phases.
To stay on top of the situation, we need to continue to build on its capabilities and strong expertise;
expand on its current resources and established networks and relationships. Our Intelligence Division is inclose liaison with our overseas counterparts such as Hong Kong ICAC (Independent Commission Against
Corruption), Malaysia ACC (Anti-Corruption Commission), as well as our local intelligence agencies fromthe Singapore Police Force, Immigration & Checkpoints Authority and Central Narcotics Bureau, etc.
Information and expertise are shared robustly amongst these agencies, resulting in mounting of joint ops
or coordinated ops on some cases. Some examples include the investigations into Citiraya, a public listedcompany when CPIB and the Commercial Affairs Dept (CAD) of the Police Force, moved in to uncover

107

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.86

corruption and commercial offences. Another example is the coordinated operation in the National Kidney
Foundation (NKF) saga, which involved CPIB and CAD looking into various aspects of the excesses by theformer CEO of NKF and others. We know very well that law enforcement is effective only when we can deal
with the problem in its totality and the need for collaboration is there.

B. Interview
It is often challenging to deal with corruption cases where more often than not, the complainant is as
likely to be culpable of the corrupt act as the accused person. Lines are blurred, and our officers are hardpressed to find a clear-cut situation, where there is a distinct perpetrator and victim. In corruption cases,
our officers are frequently confronted by complainants or witnesses who are not forthcoming, for fear thatwhat they say may implicate them. Hence, it is imperative that our officers are equipped with all aspects ofinvestigative work, particularly their ability to sieve out the truth from the witnesses, as well as to discern
the innocent from the guilty. This brings us to the second competency - ‘Interview”.
An interview, simply put, involves the questioning of a person regarding his involvement or suspected
involvement in a criminal offence. There are many reasons why people choose not to give the necessary
information, or choose to mislead by giving false information. Hence, it is importance for our officers to beflexible enough to switch modes to tailor to the different situations or types of persons being interviewed.
Our judicial courts are quite stringent these days, increasing the weightage given to other admissible
evidence, as opposed to merely just accepting positive statements given by accused persons. As a result, wehave to emphasize greatly on developing the interview skills of our officers, which can be the determining
element in reducing the time and resources devoted to highly complex investigations.
With regard to interview, we make use of polygraph machine and we find it very useful. However, we do
not use the test result as evidence in Court but only as an aid to investigation.

C. Forensics
Another area which we pay much attention to these days is Forensics or specifically Computer Forensic –which is becoming indispensable in our investigation.
The sheer complexity of illicit transactions, whether it is at the individual, syndicate or corporate levels,
requires an incredible level of expertise and capability from our officers. Criminals’ little black books haveundergone a major facelift and have progressed to PDAs, smart mobile phones, and personal desktops tokeep records of detailed corrupt transactions.
To overcome this challenge, CPIB sets up a Computer Forensic Branch with full-time staff, trained
to handle the collection, preservation, analysis and court presentation of computer-related evidence.
Our officers are in regular contact with our counterpart from the Criminal Investigation Department’s
Technology Crime Forensic Branch to share experiences and pointers in this area.
There are various cases where forensic evidence played a big part in solving cases. I anticipate in thenear future, with great advances intechnological tools, software, and elaborate IT infrastructures, computer forensics will play an even moreproactive role, in tandem with intelligence, as opposed to being a mere investigative support and response
mechanism.

D. Field Operations
The last competency – is the field operations. By field operations, I refer to the range of investigative activities
carried out in the field, such as search and seizure, field enquiries, raids and arrests. How the operations are being
carried out and how much information security is exercised over it will determine the success of any operation. Thiscannot be overlooked and the capability needs to be developed and worked on continuously.
E. Interplay of Four Competencies
The synergy from the interplay of these four competencies – Intelligence, Interview, Forensics andOperations, is critical to the success of cracking some of our major cases. Operation Crossover is one of108

THE 14TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

such cases, showcasing the interplay of these elements. In this case, our Intel asset had given us sufficientdetails on who were the main players of the syndicate in Citiraya involved in the diversion of the computer
chips, who were the staffs from client companies that were bribed and their modus operandi. Our Intel asset
also told us the exact container, which was kept in the free trade zone, containing a shipment of computer
chips to be enrouted to Hong Kong. With this information, an operation was mounted, resulting in the
seizure of that container. Subsequently, through intensive interrogations and interviews, the parties involved
had admitted to the corrupt activities. Forensic searches and analysis carried out on Ng Teck Boon, one of
the main players’ computer note-book had also contributed to the cracking of this case – it revealed recordsof shipments of computer chips fraudulently obtained through corrupt means and inflation of the company’s
accounts. This piece of evidence, together with other physical evidence such as uncrushed computer chips,
seized from Teck Boon’s company and warehouse had led to his confession and admissions of other parties
involved in the scam.
The four competencies interact and by extracting the appropriate value from each one and allow each toleverage off the other for maximum results. At various junctures, any one of these pillars will play a moresignificant role to provide the breaking point for successful solution of cases. For example, if crucial evidence
was hidden in computers and through computer forensics, investigators are able to retrieve the evidence,then this may prove to be the key to solving the case in hand. Similarly, the interview competency may play
the bigger role when skilful interrogation of suspects led to confessions or the gathering of critical evidence
which are instrumental in solving the case.

V. EVIDENCE GATHERING AND PROSECUTION
We know that to be successful in getting positive investigation results, we need to emphasize evidence
gathering. This is always a challenge due to the following reasons:a) Corruption offenders will hide and not tell the truth; andb) There are increasingly sophisticated modus operandi used and methods to transact and hide bribemonies.
When we make use of the four competencies of intelligence, interview, forensics and field operations, we
also focus on collecting and consolidating the evidence. From the evidence, we review the case. Sometimes,
we sit together and discuss in case conferences to go through these issues - Do we have the evidence tocharge anyone? What evidence is there when we proceed to charge? We make use of an evidence matrix(see table attached below).
OPS “X”
Evidence Analysis Framework (For Corruption Offences)
Evidence of Accepting/Obtaining/receiving
Admitted by:
Nature of Admission

Evidence of Giving/Offering/Promising
Admitted by:
Nature of Admission

Implicated by:

Nature of Implication

Implicated by:

Nature of Implication

Documentary
Evidence:

Nature of Documentary
Evidence

Documentary
Evidence:

Nature of Documentary
Evidence

Other Evidence:

Nature of Evidence

Other Evidence:

Nature of Evidence

Evidence of Corrupt Intent
Giver

Receiver109

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.86

Evidence Analysis Framework (For Other Offences)
Ingredients of the Offence
1)
Admission by accused:

Nature of Admission

Witnesses’ evidence:

Nature of evidence

Documentary evidence:

Nature of Documentary Evidence

Ingredients of the Offence
2)
Admission by accused:

Nature of Admission

Witnesses’ evidence:

Nature of evidence

Nature of evidence

Nature of Documentary Evidence

Follow-up Actions
Subject/
Gaps identified
Witnesses

Follow-up actions

Action by

By when

Status Report

This matrix has facilitated our case review and decision making process. Evidence of accepting/receiving/obtaining gratifications is reflected in the table, where officers document actus reas, inputting details of thecorrupt transactions which the subject has admitted to in his statements, e.g. when did the transaction occur,
who did he hand the gratification over to, what are the documentary evidence, etc. Next to the information,is the detailing of documentary or other evidence of giving/offering/promising of the corrupt transactions.
Usually for easier reference, the evidence for giver and receiver involved in the same transaction are placednext to each other, quoting the exact paragraph of the subject’s statements where the information was
extracted from. As for the evidence on corrupt intent, it is also recorded in the table, and it includes details
such as what are the gratifications meant for.
In addition, we also need to address the legal aspects. In the Singapore system, CPIB does not havein-house legal experts. We understand that in some countries, the anti-corruption agency have theirin-house legal experts and some agencies also conduct prosecution themselves. CPIB depends on the
Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) for legal advice. Under our law, we cannot charge a person in court forcorruption unless the Attorney-General gives his express consent. So there is a division of responsibilities
and a check and balance. We in CPIB are the operational experts in investigating corruption offences. But
we need the legal experts from AGC. Together, when both operational experts and legal experts agree that
there is a case, we can then proceed to charge offender in court. Once prosecution is mounted, CPIB officers
will work together with prosecutors to present the evidence in Court.
In terms of prosecution, as we are prepared to prosecute both the givers and receivers of bribes, we haveto stage our prosecution of the accused persons in sequential order. Sometimes the receiver is prosecuted
first and the giver is the prosecution witness. After the case is over, the giver is prosecuted and thereceiver in turn becomes the witness. This can present some challenge especially when there is not much
independent evidence apart from what the giver and receiver say about the crime. Therefore, as we adopt
this tough stance against both sides of the corruption crime, it is the responsibility of CPIB to ensure that itgathers strong evidence on the case so as to be able to prosecute all parties involved. So far, our conviction
rate is of above 95% each year and this bears testimony to the strength of cases brought to the Court.
There are instances where the only evidence we have is from the giver and the giver is not willing totestify unless he is given immunity from prosecution. As a rule, the Attorney General’s Chambers does notgrant immunity easily. It will be under exceptional grounds if immunity is granted.

110THE 14TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

There may be cases in the public sector, where after investigation, there is no evidence of corruption
but there is evidence that the public official had infringed some government rule or regulation. In suchsituations, CPIB will provide the information to the Public Service Commission or to the officer’s
Department or Ministry for them to take departmental disciplinary proceedings against the said officer.
In some cases, besides dealing with the culprits, after the case is over, CPIB may identify flaws orloopholes in the system, work processes or procedures of the affected government departments and offersome recommendations or suggestions for them to consider as they work towards mending the flaws andloopholes.

VI. STRATEGIC THRUSTS
To discharge its role effectively, CPIB must stay on top of the situation at all times and its capability
must be kept up to mark. To ensure this, CPIB embarks on three strategic thrusts, namely Strengthening
Operational Capabilities, Forging Networks & Partnerships and Investing in Organisational Excellence.
In “Strengthening Operational Capabilities”, CPIB seeks to improve on investigation capabilities such as
document examination, computer forensic and financial investigation. We need to hone our officers’ skills inthese areas. CPIB has set up a Computer Forensic Branch to handle computer-related evidence and it has
also set up a Financial Investigation Branch to deal with financial and money-laundering investigations.
In “Forging Networks & Partnerships”, CPIB forges partnerships with local and international entities.
To ensure good governance and to combat corruption effectively, CPIB recognizes the need to strengtheninternational and regional cooperation and liaison. As such, CPIB actively participated in various anticorruption initiatives and international fora, such as United Nations Convention Against Corruption(UNCAC) – Conference of State Parties, ADB/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative, ACT Task Force (APEC
Anti-Corruption and Transparency Task Force), MOU amongst anti corruption agencies of the ASEAN
region and the International Association of Anti Corruption Authorities (IAACA).
In “Investing in Organisational Excellence”, CPIB invests heavily in training her people and encourages
staff to do knowledge sharing and innovation. We regularly do in-house learning where we bring all
operational staff together for training. We may invite experts from various government Ministries and fromprivate industry to address the officers on issues of topical interest. When there are new areas of work,
we will build new capabilities. For instance, with the opening of the two Integrated Resorts with casinos
operations in Singapore, CPIB may have to tackle casino-related corruption cases. Therefore, CPIB has
built up its capability to deal with this challenge. CPIB is also active in outreach programmes to raise publicawareness through regular talks, especially for public officers in the enforcement agencies, on the pitfalls ofcorruption. Selective outreach is done with specific industry sectors.

VII. CONCLUSION
While Singapore has successfully controlled corruption, there is no guarantee that it is always easy tosuppress corruption. There are various challenges we face in investigating corruption offences and I will
touch on two areas.
•

Firstly, the changing nature of corruption . While behaviour and motivation of the corrupted may besimilar, the methods used have transformed greatly. There is more sophistication seen in corruption
today. More complex methods are used. The corrupt transactions are more complicated, going
through various loops and intermediaries. There are more methods used to hide the money trail
such as bank transfers, false accounting, phantom workers, camouflage payments of various types.
Computers are often used in the commission of the offence such that where we used to seize paper
records in the past, today, we seize a lot of computers and electronic media. It is thus important
for the enforcement agency to continually upgrade its capability and ensure its personnel are welltrained and well skilled.

•

Secondly, there is internationalization of the issue of corruption. Corruption offences can crossinternational borders. It is easy for corrupt offenders to move from one jurisdiction to anotherand corrupt proceeds can ‘cross’ borders within split seconds via the internet. This brings with it111

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.86

challenges for law enforcement and where necessary, we need to work with foreign counterpartsin investigating corruption cases. At the international level, there is also greater interest bygovernments around the world in dealing with corruption.
Corruption is a dynamic phenomenon and CPIB continues to have an important role to play in keeping
Singapore clean. Our efforts to combat corruption and uphold a high standard of transparency would require
the efforts and contributions of all parties involved in the whole of government. In addition, we also require
our fellow law enforcement members, like all of you, to join in and help in the fight against corruption to
make the world a better place to live in.

112