SPEAKERS’ PAPERS AND CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Ang Seow LianDeputy Director, Intelligence Division, Operation Department
Corrupt Practices Investigation BureauSingapore***
Mr. Kenneth Kohl
Resident Legal Advisor
United States Embassy in Malaysia***

Mr. Tony Kwok
Former Deputy Director
Independent Commission Against Corruption
Hong Kong- 29 -

THE SINGAPORE EXPERIENCE — CORRUPTION CONTROL SYSTEMAND EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT METHODSAng Seow Lian*

1.
Corruption control has been at the top of the Singapore Government’s agenda since weattained self-government in 1959 and subsequently independence in 1965. It is a social andeconomic necessity, inextricably tied to good governance, much less a virtue for its own sake. It
supports the meritocratic ideal that we believe in and has strategic significance in our nationaldevelopment.
2.
From 1959 till now, Singapore’s successes in the fight against corruption are broadly dueon the following:a.

Strong political willb.

Effective enforcementc.

Effective legislationd.

Independent Judiciarye.

Responsive public servicef.

Strong public support

Political Will
3.
Political will is the foundation stone for any anti-corruption movement. It, undoubtedly,
is a key ingredient in the transformation effort from Singapore’s corruption-infested past. It
provided the necessary climate for the growth and sustenance of our anti-corruption movement.
With patronage and drive from the top by our government, deeds matched words and anticorruption programs automatically jump started without having to contend with problems ofconsensus building and conflict management.
4.
In the early beginning in the 1950s and 1960s, pay levels were low, society was poorlyeducated. But that did not stop government from taking a tough stance against corruption. Civil
servants were charged in court for corruption even if it was because they were poorly paid andneeded extra cash. At the same time, the government enacted measures to uplift the living
standards, and pay levels were enhanced over the years.

*

Deputy Director, Intelligence Division, Operation Department, Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB),
Singapore.

- 31 -

Effective Enforcement
5.
The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, the agency tasked with the enforcement ofthe anti-corruption laws, reports to the Prime Minister. This gives us functional independence sothat no government body can question or influence us in our enforcement and investigation
efforts. In fact, by 1992, CPIB’s independence of action was more or less guaranteed
constitutionally. It was such independence of action that enabled CPIB to take action against
Ministers and many top civil servants, all these years.
6.
Strong enforcement is crucial in the fight against corruption. Regardless of what laws,
systems of punishment, education and prevention that we have, if we are not able to enforce theanti-corruption laws successfully, the corrupt offender will get away, and we cannot suppress
corruption. In Singapore, we developed over the years, and we adopted a total approach toenforcement. The CPIB is the only agency empowered to investigate corruption in Singapore.
We are one of the oldest dedicated anti-corruption agencies in the world, having been formed in1952. There are some key aspects of our enforcement policy, e.g.:a.

We are prepared to deal with big and small cases. We don’t want to let cases
involving small amounts become endemic, and we don’t want to let big cases
escape punishment.

b.

We can deal with corruption in both the private and public sectors. Even conduct
between two private parties can be subject to investigation. In the modern world,
these two sectors are closely intertwined and hence behavior and developments
can have cross influences.

c.

We can deal with both the giver and receiver of bribes as well as middlemen, andwe do prosecute all parties in court.

d.

We can deal with other crimes uncovered in the course of corruption investigation.
This is very important because corruption crimes may be mixed up with othercrimes, and investigators must be able to question the offenders on all othercrimes.

7.
Let me elaborate more on the rationale behind curbing both the demand and supply sideof corruption and enforcing the anti-corruption law in both the public and private sectors.
Sometimes, we refer to the private sector as the supply side and the public sector as the demandside of the corruption problem. This is generally accurate. But it can overgeneralize and lead us
to overlook some facts of corruption. Private companies can and do bribe other privatecompanies. So both the demand and supply side are private companies. We cannot ignore thisconduct. In Singapore, unlike some countries, enforcement action can be taken against suchacts where private companies bribe other companies or where private individuals bribe otherprivate individuals. Action consistently taken within the private sector will remind all and set thestandards expected from businesses and companies.

- 32 -8.
In many instances, the demand and supply sides are represented by the public sector andthe private sector, respectively. In economic terms, demand and supply have a close relationship.
Does demand drive supply or supply drive demand? Sometimes this is a chicken and egg issue— which came first? Was it the bribe demand that came first leading to bribe supply or was it
the supply that came first and enticed the demand? In reality, we have seen cases where thegovernment official was the greedy one, who sticks his hand out to press businesses for bribes.
Then again, we have also seen cases where businesses actively offer bribes so as to entrap
government officials to do their bidding. So who came first? This is ripe for an academicargument, but it really does not matter. Both sides are equally devious and must be dealt withdecisively.
9.
Indeed under Singapore law, both are equally culpable. In addition, it is expressly
provided in our law that an accomplice’s testimony is not deemed unreliable in corruption cases(unlike in other criminal cases). We do often prosecute both parties, and on many occasions both
receive similar sentences by the court. We hardly grant immunity to givers or receivers, and if
we do, it is more often than not only as a last resort. If the law only criminalizes one side, youcan never eradicate corruption. If you try to deal with one side first followed by the other insequential order, you will also never be able to reduce corruption. Our experience in Singapore
is that you need to deal with both sides simultaneously.
10
Prosecuting both parties brings with it difficult challenges. If both sides are your accused
persons, who then are your prosecution witnesses? We need to be thorough in investigation
work, and amass all the evidence we can get by way of interviews with witnesses, interestedparties, involved parties, gathering physical, documentary and computer evidence and chasing
the money trail. Without comprehensive evidence, we will not be able to deal with both thesupply and demand sides of the corruption equation.
11.
We sometimes take it for granted that because there is an anti-corruption agency, it will
be effective. When we look at the agency fighting both the demand and supply sides, we need tobe sure that the agency understands what is going on. The agency must understand how thepublic sector does things and how the private sector does its business. The private sector is large
and varied, with different industry types. Anti-corruption agencies need to be capable oflearning fast and understanding what is going on so as to take effective action. No agency can beexpert in understanding different fields of business, and so it’s incumbent on every agency todevelop its officers’ abilities to learn fast and to establish connections with experts in various
business fields who can serve as resource persons when the need arises.
12.
In terms of enforcement strategies, we adopted a “3 D” approach; Detect, Deal & Deter.
The following are what we have done to ensure that corruption crimes are detected early:
a. Building up public confidence in the country’s and agency’s commitment in fighting
corruption thereby increasing the public’s willingness to report corruption crimes.
b. Investigating not only complaints with known complainants but also pursuable
anonymous complaints.

- 33 -c. Encouraging self-policing within government departments.
d. Embarking on targeted enforcement of corruption-prone areas with other enforcement
and regulatory agencies.
e. Embarking on pro-active intelligence projects.
13.
In the ever changing and evolving world, the key challenge for the anti-corruption agency
in dealing with corruption crimes is the ability to stay nimble and responsive to the changing
environment we operate in and to adapt our investigative methods accordingly and swiftly. Overthe years, CPIB has remained relevant in our investigative and enforcement methods by staying
ahead in building new capabilities in the following areas:a. Intelligenceb. Computer Forensics
c. Financial Investigation Capabilities
d. Polygraphe. Specialization
f. Team-Based Investigation
g. Special Investigative Techniques
Effective Laws
14.
Effective laws are enforcement-friendly laws that give us the necessary teeth and thecutting edge. This is particularly necessary because corrupt practices, by their very nature, makeevidence collection and the eventual conviction in a court of law difficult. Corrupt practices areconsensual in nature, with both the giver and the taker motivated by mutual interests. Some ofthe distinctive features of the Prevention of Corruption Act, our law that gives us the muchneeded cutting edge, are:a.

An acceptor of gratification can be guilty even if he does not have the power,right or opportunity to return the favor.

b.

Wealth disproportionate to income is admissible as corroborative evidence ofcorruption at trial.

c.

Every person under investigation is legally obliged to give information.

d.

Customary practices (weddings and New Year’s gifts etc.) are not valid defencesin court.

- 34 -e.

Extra-territorial jurisdiction can be exercised against Singapore citizens
committing corruption offences outside Singapore. (For this, we will need thehelp of our counterpart agencies in other jurisdictions to secure the necessaryevidence)f.

Punishment is sufficiently deterrent. A single charge attracts a maximum fine of$100,000 or an imprisonment term not exceeding 5 years or both. A penalty
equal to the amount of bribes taken shall also be imposed. In addition, theCorruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of BenefitsAct) can also be invoked to confiscate any benefits derived from corruption fromanyone convicted of the crime.

Effective Adjudication and Independent Judiciary
15.
Sure detection and strict enforcement of laws, no matter how effective, must however, becomplemented by effective adjudication. Detection, prosecution and subsequent court
conviction have specific deterrence on offenders. This also has a general deterrence on the likeminded. It is about prevention through sure detection and conviction in a court of law. Aided bytough laws, the Judiciary successfully created a regime of punishment that is deterrent enough tohammer home the message that corruption does not pay.
Responsive Public Service and Good Governance16.
Corruption control, which forms part of the broader framework of good governance inSingapore, has benefited us in at least two ways:a.

Corruption control, a key feature of good governance, helps the government tocreate national wealth — that initial abundance and prosperity that enables it topay public officials commensurate wages, thus reducing correspondingly theirlikelihood of resorting to corruption.

b.

There is an inter-relationship between efficiency and corruption control. The
theory is that when an administration is so efficiently run, there is no room forcorruption which thrives better in an inefficient and ineffective administration.

17.
On-going and sweeping civil-service-wide reforms under “Public Service in the 21stCentury” to attain sound administrative governance, organizational excellence and service
excellence can certainly reduce corruption even further. Likewise, various government agencies,
including CPIB, are working with private sector organizations and companies to improve thestandards of corporate governance to achieve, amongst others, the objective of reducing
corruption in the private sector. The public also has direct access to government to report
government wastage and to cut red tape via the Internet. Businesses can make suggestions to thePro Enterprise Panel to enhance business facilitation by the government. Direct channels such asthese provide the public and businesses the means to influence the efficiency of government andkeep governance strong.

- 35 -

Strong Public Support
18.
Public support, so vital in any anti-corruption program, is best won through successful
action against the corrupt, regardless of color, creed or status and executed without fear or favor,firmly and fairly. Public support cannot be taken for granted. The Bureau makes itself
accessible to the public. Anyone with a complaint of corruption has many easy means to lodge
the complaint. They can use the Internet, walk in to the Bureau, place phone calls, and send
letters and faxes. As we are accessible, we even find the public coming to us with problems
which are not corruption matters, but matters more appropriately handled by other government
departments such as the Police, Immigration or Ministry of Manpower. Our Bureau will notturn away these complainants but will take down the information and pass them on to therelevant department. This is in line with the spirit of the government’s “No Wrong Door” policy.
This approach helps to keep the public’s faith in the Bureau and in government. Public
perception surveys are done regularly by the Bureau and many government departments to gauge
public sentiments. The media is an ally in the fight against corruption as it helps highlight thecorruptors charged in court. They will often print the photograph of the accused and spread thedeterrent messages.
Trends and Challenges
19.
Before I conclude, I would like to briefly talk about some of the trends and challenges wefaced:a.

Most of our cases now come from the private sector. Low rates of corruption in
the public sector means that we have the added task of ensuring that public
officials do not become complacent as corruption is likely to creep in and takeroot once complacency sets in. When everyone, especially the management andthe supervisors, thinks everything is fine, corruption can creep in undetected rightunder our noses.

b.

Corruption crimes are getting more and more sophisticated. While we areenhancing our capabilities in detecting corruption and gathering evidence, thecriminals are also moving in the same direction albeit to avoid detection. They,
like us, are also leveraging technology, and thus we have always got to strive to
be a step ahead of them. From our recent experiences, computer-forensic
capabilities are a must in any anti-corruption outfit or for that matter, any
enforcement agency. The seizure and analysis of computers and electronicstorage media are critical and could often be the breaking point in solving cases.

c.

It is also increasingly difficult for us to distinctly link a specific benefit/favor to a
specific bribe. There have been instances where bribes were given not for any
specific favor at that material time but as a form of “cultivation” for future favors.
For example, a few years ago, we prosecuted and convicted a crime syndicate
boss for giving bribes to numerous police officers as a form of cultivation for
future favors when the need arises.

d.

International and cross-border co-operation is increasingly critical in fighting
corruption as economies become more and more globalized. We believe strongly
in agency-to-agency co-operation whether in operations or capacity building.

- 36 -