CHAIR’S SUMMARY
FOURTEENTH REGIONAL SEMINAR ON GOOD GOVERNANCEFOR SOUTHEAST ASIAN COUNTRIESTokyo, Japan (Online)
23 – 24 March 2021

OPENING CEREMONY
1. Mr. SETO Takeshi, Director of the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for thePrevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI), served as the Chair of the
Fourteenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries, cohosted by the Ministry of Justice of Japan (MOJ) and UNAFEI. Officials and experts fromthe following jurisdictions attended the seminar: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia,
Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Timor-Leste.

VISITING EXPERT’S LECTURE
2. MR. LAWRENCE CHUNG, Principal International Liaison and Training Officer, Independent
Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), Hong Kong, China, delivered his lecture on thetheme of Independence and Integrity of Judges, Prosecutors and Anti-Corruption Officials:
Their Roles in Hong Kong’s Fight against Corruption from the ICAC’s perspective. The
United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) reflects the global consensus thatindependence and integrity are key elements for the eradication of corruption. These
international standards have long been adopted in Hong Kong where investigation,prosecution and adjudication of corruption cases are handled by distinct institutions,
namely the ICAC, the Department of Justice and the Judiciary. There are multiple levels of
safeguards to protect independence and integrity of these institutions. The Basic Law of theHong Kong Special Administrative Region, the territory’s constitutional document,
provides the most fundamental constitutional guarantee. Under the Basic Law, the three
institutions shall exercise their power free from interference, and ensure people working inthese institutions are of high quality. On the legal front, both the statutory laws and the caselaw support the institutions to act with independence and integrity. For example, theIndependent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance provides robust powers to the
ICAC in anti-corruption investigation, systemic prevention and public education. The
Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and the common law offence of “Misconduct in Public
Office” also set the minimum integrity standards for public officers including judges,
prosecutors and ICAC officers. In addition, at the institutional level, the three institutions
have their own rules and regulations on staff integrity, with internal mechanisms inrecruitment, staff discipline and checks and balances to ensure their members’ integrity.
The institutions are also mindful of maintaining their independence and integrity under thehigh expectation of the society and the international obligations as shown in UNCAC.
Apart from enforcing the anti-corruption laws, the ICAC assists the public sector, including
the Judiciary and the Department of Justice, in promoting integrity through comprehensive
prevention and education initiatives.

- 11 - 11 -

COUNTRY PRESENTATIONS
3. BRUNEI DARUSSALAM: Established in 1982, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) is Brunei’s
lead agency for investigating corruption by civil servants, including judges, prosecutors
and law enforcement officials. ACB officials are subject to numerous legal standards,
including the Public Service Commission Act, and conflicts of interest are avoided throughrules on case assignment and disclosure. ACB officials also give talks to promoteawareness of corruption among the civil service. An egregious case of embezzlement andmoney-laundering by a married couple – a bankruptcy receiver and a judge – wasintroduced, detailing the investigation and tracing of assets. Due to the depth of the
defendants’ connections in the judiciary and prosecution, the case was tried before avisiting judge from the United Kingdom, while the Government of Brunei retained Queen’s
Counsel to prosecute the case impartially.
4. CAMBODIA: To ensure integrity within the Anti-Corruption Unit, the Disciplinary Council
and Internal Control (DCIC) issues ethics rules, conducts investigations and imposes
disciplinary sanctions. These sanctions include reprimand, suspension without pay,
demotion, forced early retirement, dismissal and prosecution. Conduct subject to sanction
includes abuse of power, use of public assets for personal interest and so on. ACU officials
are mandated to declare their assets and liabilities every two years, and failure to do so may
result in fine or imprisonment. Newly recruited officers undergo integrity training and otherprogrammes on professionalism. To manage conflicts of interest, the ACU has detailed
rules on the reporting and acceptance of gifts and hospitality (dining out etc.), and – upon
the assignment of a case – any actual, perceived or potential conflict of interest must bereported to superiors. While challenges such as implementing UNCAC, interagency
coordination and professional skills remain, the public has increasingly developed amindset that rejects corruption since the creation of the ACU in 2010.
5. INDONESIA: As integrity is an important component of law enforcement, the Corruption
Eradication Commission (KPK) promulgated a code of conduct that applies to allcommission employees. The code of conduct defines terms such as “integrity”, “synergy”(cooperation and cohesiveness), “justice”, “professionalism” and “leadership” in order toalign expectations and personal values among all commission employees. The code of
conduct is enforced by the KPK’s Supervisory Board. These hearings have resulted insevere sanctions such as dishonourable discharge for the receipt of gratification.
Gratification paid to KPK officials in amounts as small as USD 20 have been actively
enforced. Other enforcement actions have involved giving a telephone contact number to adetainee, receiving a food parcel, and an action against the Chairman of the KPK for the
personal use of a helicopter.
6. JAPAN: The distinct roles of judges and public prosecutors in Japan were introduced, as
well as the separation of judicial and executive powers under Japan’s constitution and thestructure of Japanese courts and prosecutors’ offices. Judicial independence is guaranteedby the Constitution and by law, and the removal of judges from office is limited, as is theirsuspension from work and reduction of salary. Measures to secure the integrity of judges
include sufficient salary, integrity screening by a nominations committee, random
assignment of cases to judges, trial by three-judge panels and the practice of regularnationwide transfers to prevent the establishment of collusive relationships. As prosecutors
exert influence on the criminal justice system, prosecutorial power must be exercised
independently. Like judges, prosecutors are paid sufficient salary and are subject to- 12 - 12 -

nationwide transfer. A 1954 case was introduced to demonstrate how the then Minister ofJustice’s interference in a bribery investigation resulted in public backlash, entrenching
public opinion against political intervention in criminal investigations, which may play apart in the culture of integrity among Japanese public officials.
7. LAO PDR: The State Inspection and Anti-Corruption Authority (SIAA) is a ministerial levelgovernment agency mandated to, among others, conduct inspections, prevent and combat
corruption, and investigate complaints. As a part of a broad anti-corruption legal framework,
the Law on Civil Servants defines principles, regulations and measures for recruitment ofcivil servants throughout the country, and the Decree on the Ethics of Civil Servants sets
standards for integrity. The LCS and the Decree on Ethics both establish administrative,
disciplinary and criminal sanctions for violations of these rules. As a part of the framework
to avoid conflicts of interest, the Criminal Procedure Law requires recusal fromparticipation in cases in which an official may have an interest. In 2019, the SIAA received
1,038 complaints, of which 226 have been resolved, 407 transferred to other authorities,
104 are being monitored and 249 are subject to ongoing investigation.
8. UNAFEI: While anti-corruption enforcement and the punishment of corrupt officials isnecessary, even the suspicion of corruption undermines public trust in government. Thus,
public officials should never be suspected of being improperly influenced, and codes ofconduct can be an effective approach to the prevention of corruption. The presentation
detailed Japan’s ethics rules for national government officials, addressing the receipt ofgifts, food or drink, borrowing money, personal property or real estate, accepting services
free of charge, and so on from interested parties. The code of conduct requires supervisors
to take action, which may involve instructing the subordinate or reporting the misconduct,
if they believe that a subordinate has violated ethics rules; other officers are prohibited fromreceiving benefits that result from ethics violations and must not make false reports. Certain
public officials are required to report the receipt of gifts, the purchase or sale of stock, andannual income. When ethics rules are violated, common disciplinary actions include
dismissal, suspension from duty, salary reduction and warning.
9. MALAYSIA: The Malaysian government was plagued by corruption, nepotism, kleptocracy
and abuse of power, but political change in 2018 displaced the ruling party and ushered inan era of change and the adoption of the National Anti-Corruption Plan (NACP) 2019-2023.
The NACP aims to enhance the accountability and credibility of the judiciary, prosecution
and law enforcement officials. To promote integrity, Malaysia has adopted professional
codes of conduct and assigned oversight and advisory roles to independent bodies. A“Check and Balance Mechanism” was established to provide oversight to the MalaysianAnti-Corruption Commission (MACC), through which five entities scrutinize MACC’s
activities, examine complaints against officers and perform other functions to ensure
integrity, transparency and professionalism. Since 2009, the judiciary has been subject to
the Judges’ Code of Ethics, which was drafted in line with the Bangalore Principles. Under
the code, judicial appointments are scrutinized by the commission, and violations of thecode are heard by ad hoc Judges’ Ethics Committees. Prosecutors are also subject to codesof conduct and ethics, as well as statutory prohibitions against gratification and abuse of
their special position and powers.
10. PHILIPPINES: To address the problem of corruption in its country, the Philippines hasenhanced its efforts to ensure independence and integrity in the criminal justice system.
Established in 2020, the Judicial Integrity Board acts on all administrative complaints or- 13 - 13 -disciplinary actions against judges, and the Corruption Prevention and Investigation Office
investigates corruption in the judiciary and conducts lifestyle checks of judges and otherjudicial officials. The Office of the Ombudsman acts on complaints filed against officers
or employees of the government and prioritizes complaints against high-level officials; italso implements programmes to enhance integrity. The independence of the Office of the
Ombudsman is established under the 1987 Constitution, and legislative provisions, such asappointment, remuneration and dismissal, further strengthen the independence of personnel.
The Philippine National Police and the National Bureau of Investigation are executive
agencies that have authority to investigate graft and corruption, but the PNP has been
particularly vulnerable to corruption. The PNP “Ethical Doctrine” establishes ethicalstandards, such as commitment to democracy and public interest, non-partisanship,
confidentiality, respect for human rights – violations of which can be punished criminallyor administratively. Among other measures, the Integrity Monitoring and Enforcement
Group supports the PNP’s internal cleansing mechanism by gathering intelligence on rogue
PNP officers and assisting the public in filing criminal complaints against police officers.
11. SINGAPORE: Known as a clean country, factors that led to Singapore’s success in fighting
corruption include strong political will, the independence of the Corrupt Practices
Investigation Bureau, a strong code of conduct for public service, and outreach andprevention efforts directed to law enforcement agencies on a regular and continual basis.
The code of conduct addresses general conduct and discipline, conflicts of interest,
financial embarrassment, gambling and casino visits, gifts and entertainment, andmandatory job rotation and block leave. Strong outreach and prevention efforts include
public education talks and training, working with the media to encourage reporting,convenient channels for reporting, and so on. Prosecutorial independence is established byvesting prosecutorial discretion wholly in the Attorney General, although charging
decisions in each case require multiple layers of assessment. To avoid conflicts of interestin the judiciary, judges are prohibited from hearing cases in which they have a personal
interest and should recuse themselves in any case in which they have an apparent bias.
12. THAILAND: Although the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) was established in 1893,
its independent status had not been recognized until 1991 when the office underwent a
major structural and organizational change and was separated from the Ministry of Interior
and assumed independent status as an autonomous agency under the supervision of thePrime Minister. Later, the independent status was reaffirmed by the 2007 Constitution,
giving the OAG autonomy with respect to budget, personnel and prosecutorial discretion,of which the superintendent is the Attorney General. To fight corruption, the OAG works
alongside the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to combat corruption bypoliticians and other state officials. After finishing the investigation, if there are grounds
for disciplinary or administrative action, the NACC submits a report and evidence to thesuperior or authorized person for disciplinary procedure; if there are grounds for criminal
penalty, the NACC submits the case to the OAG for prosecution. If the OAG finds that theinquiry file is incomplete for justification of initiation of a prosecution, a joint OAG–NACC
committee is created to complete the case file. If the OAG and NACC still fail to agree, the
NACC is empowered to prosecute the case on its own; if the Attorney General is thesuspected of corruption, the President of the NACC may prosecute the case.
13. TIMOR-LESTE: Law enforcement corruption is devastating to society as it denies people
accessibility to legal protection and protects the illegal activities of criminals, and TimorLeste has been significantly impacted by it. Asset declaration is an important tool to counter- 14 - 14 -corruption, and Timor-Leste has benefited from the experiences of countries that havealready implemented such systems. UNCAC and national anti-corruption laws serve as thelegal basis for the practice of asset declaration by officials including law enforcement
officials in Timor-Leste, and the content of the declarations covers all types of income,financial securities, movable and immovable assets, debts and other financial obligations,among others. The key elements identified for an effective asset declaration system include
broad and detailed coverage of income and assets; proper identification of officials required
to report; verification mechanisms (formal and risk based); transparency and accessibilityof disclosures to the public; sanctions; and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14. Conclusions
A. The integrity of judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officials is essential topreserve democracy, the rule of law and a fair and effective criminal justice system,taking into account their critical roles in detecting corruption and imposing appropriate
punishment on corrupt politicians and public officials;
B. It is also indispensable to ensure the due level of independence of judges, prosecutors
and law enforcement officials because it enables them to make their decisions free fromundue external pressures and serves to enhance their impartiality;
C. Some countries have established independent anti-corruption agencies to fight endemic
corruption and restore or build public trust in the criminal justice system. This has been
an effective means to strengthen the integrity and independence of judges, prosecutors
and law enforcement officials, especially where integrity and independence have been
compromised.
15. Recommendations
A. To ensure integrity, relevant authorities should develop or revise codes or standards ofconduct for judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and should conduct
monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of such codes or standards with theallocation of necessary financial and human resources;
B. The processes of recruitment and promotion for judges, prosecutors and law
enforcement officials should be accountable and transparent, and education and training
programmes on integrity and the risks of corruption should be provided upon
appointment and continuously throughout each career path;
C. Periodic asset declaration or financial disclosure should be required for positions at
substantial risk of corruption in order to identify potential or existing conflicts ofinterest and as a means to identify illicit enrichment;
D. Judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement authorities should provide the public withinformation for the sake of the transparency of, and accountability for, their actions,with due regard for the confidentiality of investigation, prosecution and judicial
deliberation;- 15 - 15 -

E. With a view to promoting active participation of society in the prevention of and thefight against corruption, public awareness of, and education on, the procedures andprinciples of the criminal justice system should be encouraged to improve theunderstanding of the role of judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officials and thestandards to which they are held.

24 MARCH 2021
TOKYO, JAPAN (ONLINE)- 16 - 16 -