KEYNOTE ADDRESSTWELFTH REGIONAL SEMINAR ON GOOD GOVERNANCEFOR SOUTHEAST ASIAN COUNTRIES
Takeshi Seto*

Dr. Tran Con Phan, honourable Deputy Prosecutor General of theSupreme People’s Procuracy of Viet Nam,Distinguished members and staff of the SPP,Distinguished delegates, experts and guests,
Ladies and gentlemen,First, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all the
representatives from Southeast Asian countries and visiting experts fortheir dedicated preparation and forthcoming contributions to this seminar.
Also, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the Supreme
People’s Procuracy of Viet Nam for co-hosting this twelfth Good
Governance Seminar, for their dedicated efforts, and for their warm
hospitality in welcoming us.
It is my great honour and privilege to be here before you to deliver the
keynote speech as the Director of UNAFEI. Personally, I am particularly
grateful to attend this seminar again, as I participated in the First Good
Governance Seminar in Thailand 11 years ago as the Deputy Director of
UNAFEI. The first seminar has remained in my memory as a truly
unforgettable and exciting experience.
Ladies and Gentlemen,This regional seminar began in 2007, just a few years after the*

Director, United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders (UNAFEI).

1

adoption of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, otherwise
known as UNCAC, in 2003, and its entry into force in 2005. This seminar
was launched, in order to enhance the capacities of anti-corruption
agencies and to establish and strengthen the network of competentauthorities within Southeast Asia. This annual seminar has surely
contributed to the development of effective countermeasures against
corruption in each participating country, by sharing experience andmaintaining close relationships among our respective agencies and amongus as practitioners.
Ladies and gentlemen,This Twelfth Seminar, upon consultation with our partner, theSupreme People’s Procuracy of Viet Nam, is entitled “The Latest
Regional Trends in Corruption and effective countermeasures”. Last year,
at the Eleventh Seminar, we focused on institutional and practicaldevelopments to fight corruption that took place over the past decade in
the Southeast Asian Region. As stated in the keynote speech at the
Eleventh Seminar last year, by our former Director, Keisuke Senta, thepast ten years since the first seminar in 2007, can be described as the“UNCAC decade”. Starting with the accession by Cambodia in 2007, andculminating with the ratification by Myanmar in 2012, all eleven
Southeast Asian countries, including Timor-Leste, have become State
Parties to the UNCAC. In addition, Japan finally ratified UNCAC at theend of this period, in 2017.
Without doubt, efforts towards the implementation of UNCAC led tomany legislative improvements and the enhancement of investigative andprosecutorial capacity and skills of anti-corruption authorities in theregion. As we reviewed at the previous seminar, we observed tremendous
advances in the adoption of implementing legislation, including laws on
the criminalization of corruption offences, asset recovery, and mutual
legal assistance and extradition. Taking a few examples, Malaysia enacted
the new Anti-Corruption Law in 2009, which established a new
anti-corruption body, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, known
as the MACC, and has undergone a number of legislative developments tocriminalize specific corruption offences, introduce plea bargaining,2

strengthen asset forfeiture and recovery, and witness and whistleblower
protection. Cambodia has established an anti-corruption framework
through a series of laws such as the Code of Criminal Procedure 2007, theCriminal Code 2009, the Law on Anti-Corruption 2010, the 2011amendment thereto and the Law on Public Procurement 2012. Myanmar
adoptedthe
Anti-Corruption
Law
in
2013
and
the
Anti-Money-Laundering Law in 2014.
In addition to these legislative developments, all countries made great
steps towards the adoption of national anti-corruption strategies,
establishing anti-corruption frameworks, and implementing effective
anti-corruption enforcement—all of which facilitated the investigation andprosecution of corruption offences in practice.
Here, I would like to make a brief observation on some of theinteresting steps taken in this regard by each representing country.
Over the years, the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Brunei Darussalam,which is the country’s sole independent investigative authority, hasinvested in creating specialized officers for information technology,
accounting and legal expertise from the viewpoint of effective evidence
management. Following the evolving trends of corrupt transactions, theBureau’s investigative measures have shifted from conventional methods
to more proactive and innovative ones such as wire-tapping, undercover
operations, telecommunications interception and consensual recordings.
Cambodia established the Anti-Corruption Institution (ACI), which
has two bodies: the National Council against Corruption (NCAC) and theAnti-Corruption Unit (ACU). The NCAC is an advisory body involved informulation and recommendation on anti-corruption policies andstrategies. The ACU is an investigative body that has exclusive authority
to investigate corruption cases, and has the power, for instance, to arrest,
obtain bank records, subpoena documents, conduct wiretapping, andfreeze assets.
In Indonesia—although very few convictions had been rendered3

against corporations for corrupt conduct due to ambiguities of previous
regulations on corporate liability—Supreme Court Regulation No. 13 in2016 clarified the conditions for corporate liability. Pursuant to theregulation, liability is triggered by a criminal act done by any person who
is employed by or has some other relationship with the corporation, bothin respect of domestic and foreign corporations.
Laos structured the anti-corruption framework in four layers: thenational level through the State Inspection and Anti-Corruption Authority(SIAA), the ministry and agency level, the provincial level, and the
district level. Over the past decade, the SIAA has coordinated corruption
prevention and enforcement efforts, prioritizing prevention andencouraging public participation to combat corruption. Measures forprevention include anti-corruption education at all levels, anti-corruption
promotion by the mass media, and declaration of assets and income bypublic officials.
In Malaysia, the Anti-Corruption Commission has developed anumber of best practices for anti-corruption investigation. Importantpractices include establishment of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption
Academy to provide training in advanced investigation techniques, the useof video technology during interviews and interrogations, theimplementation of team-based investigation, private-sector investigation,
intelligence-based investigation, introduction of a technology-based
complaint management system, and enhancement of forensic-accounting
skills.
In this seminar, Mr. Mohamad Zamri Bin Zainul Abidin, our visiting
expert from the MACC, will lecture on the keys to successful witness andwhistleblower protection in corruption cases. I believe that his lecture willbring us valuable insights and knowledge in dealing with corruption
crimes.
Myanmar has undertaken significant efforts over the past decade toenhance anti-corruption enforcement. The Anti-Corruption Commission
has the power to conduct investigations and to take action against4

offenders who commit corruption. The Commission can examine financial
records, issue prosecution orders and confiscation orders of money andproperty, and provide witness protection.
The Philippines has a number of best practices in terms of
implementation of UNCAC’s provisions, in particular, those related to law
enforcement, such as the Witness Protection, Incentive and Rewards
System, the use of special anti-graft courts known as Sandiganbayan,
among others.
In Singapore, the CPIB is the only agency authorized to investigate
corruption and related offences. The CPIB is a founding member of the
new International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre (IACCC)
launched in July 2017. The IACCC, serves to improve information
sharing and coordinate law enforcement actions between law enforcement
officers of its member countries. In terms of initiatives to address
corruption in the private sector, the CPIB developed “PACT”, a practicalguidebook for businesses in Singapore which sets out to guide businessowners in Singapore in developing and implementing anti-corruption
systems within their companies.
In Thailand, a new type of corruption called “policy corruption”
was reported. Policy corruption involves the creation of illegal schemes ormanagement mechanisms for certain beneficiaries.
The National
Anti-Corruption Commission, established in 1997, expanded its power toengage in mutual legal assistance. In addition to a Criminal Division for
Persons Holding Political Positions to adjudicate cases involving
high-ranking level public officials including ministers and members ofparliament, the Supreme Court has established the Central Criminal Court
for Corruption and Misconduct Cases to deal with cases involving otherpublic officials.
Viet Nam has made efforts in applying measures in criminal laws to
freeze and confiscate proceeds of corruption, to distrain and seize property
and to impose fines for the purpose of recovering them, as well as
administrative and civil measures provided in civil laws, at relevant stages5

of proceedings, such as investigation, prosecution and adjudication.
Ladies and gentlemen,
As I summarized, in the past decade, we have seen significant
developments in the Southeast Asian countries in the legislation,
institutional frameworks, strategies and practices in anti-corruption
prevention, investigation, prosecution and adjudication.
However, during the past decade, our society has drastically changed.
For instance, rapid progress of information technology and its
communication tools have brought about massive and interactive
information flows worldwide through a variety of media, as well as anincrease in cross-border financial transactions by various means, whichhave reached a level far greater than what we had expected ten years ago.
Despite the efforts and considerable level of developments that havebeen made by criminal justice authorities in this region, due to negative
impacts stemming from recent rapid social development, corruption has
become more complicated and sophisticated, and has become highly
secretive in nature, making it more difficult to detect, investigate andprosecute. Moreover, the increasing trend towards the transnationalizationof corrupt practices has made these tasks even more complicated anddifficult. We must recognize that, following this “UNCAC decade”, wehave now entered a new phase in the fight against corruption. Simply
relying on conventional methods to fight corruption may no longer besufficient to suppress the increasingly transnational and complex nature ofcorruption.
In order to respond to new and forthcoming challenges, we should
examine the current trend of corruption and share experience to tackle it.
In this regard, this seminar is designed to share information on the current
trends in corruption typologies observed in each country, exchange
investigative and prosecutorial experiences and explore the way forward
to address the identified challenges.
I may not be able to give a full overview of forthcoming challenges,
6yet it is clear that, in this new era of anti-corruption enforcement,
practitioners will continue to face traditional challenges as new challenges
arise. These new challenges may include: insufficient investigation skills
to respond to new trends; insufficient legal tools and equipment to collectadmissible evidence, including evidence in electronic form; poorinteraction between intelligence and criminal justice officials; differencesin systems and practices in cases involving international elements; thelack of modern equipment; the lack of legal basis for special investigation
techniques; dealing with underground banking systems; and thedissipation of illicit assets prior to confiscation.
In regard to challenges pertaining to international cooperation, Dr.
Claire Armelle Leger, our visiting expert from the OECD, will lecture oncommon challenges in, and best practices of, mutual legal assistance inthe region based on her expertise gained through the Anti-corruption
Asia-Pacific Initiative. I am certain that her analysis will provide helpful
clues to successful MLA practice.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Corruption has become increasingly transnational. Of course, thismeans that international cooperation is increasingly important. But it alsomeans that corruption trends in one country may appear in other countries.
From such perspective, it is effective and helpful to share with one
another knowledge and experience of current corruption trends.
Through such exercise, we may be able to prepare for new modus
operandi and make use of other countries’ experiences, once we comeacross similar corruption allegations. Further, introducing other countries’
effective anti-corruption practices may well result in formulating andimplementing good anti-corruption measures in our own countries.
Therefore, it is quite valuable to share each country’s experience andexpertise in this seminar in the fight against corruption.
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is evident that many of the challenges that we face in Japan incombating corruption are also challenges for other developed anddeveloping countries. On the other hand, it is also clear that the causes of7

corruption are deeply connected with each jurisdiction’s own customs,
culture, economy and other social environments. It will continue to bequite a challenge for each country to address all underlying social andeconomic factors to prevent and suppress corruption. Further, it would be
impossible to collectively respond to all the challenges without due regard
to diversity among jurisdictions. In order to respond, each country is
expected to address its own challenges in a manner suited to its own legal
system, customs, culture, economy and social environments, making useof the knowledge and experience shared in this seminar as a valuablebasis.
Ladies and gentlemen,
After its adoption in 2003, Japan ratified UNCAC in 2017.
Meanwhile, UNAFEI, as a United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice Programme Network Institute, has conducted annual multilateral
UNAFEI-UNCAC training courses for criminal justice practitioners,
which aim at facilitating effective implementation of UNCAC, as well as
this annual Good Governance Seminars. Such activities contribute to thepromotion and implementation of United Nations standards and norms,
including UNCAC, and contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable
Development Goals, in particular, Goal 16.5, to substantially reduce
corruption and bribery in all their forms.
UNAFEI, through these training courses and seminars, hasendeavoured to support participating countries around the world in
preventing and combating corruption, with considerable focus on
Southeast Asian countries. I am sure that these courses and seminars haveoffered good opportunities to share knowledge and experiences forfighting corruption effectively. Moreover, relationships built among theparticipants facilitate and enhance international cooperation in the effort
to prevent and fight corruption.
I strongly believe that UNAFEI’s courses and seminars have largely
facilitated each country’s efforts in improving its criminal justice systemand practices in the fight against corruption. Given its importance, I am
fully convinced that UNAFEI’s continuous efforts in the field of
8

capacity-building for criminal justice practitioners have contributed toenhancing the region’s anti-corruption measures and have played an
important role in our collective fight against corruption. Bearing this inmind, UNAFEI will continue to hold these training courses and seminars
to enhance our collective capacity to fight corruption.
Ladies and gentlemen,
In this Twelfth Seminar, the knowledge and experience of nine
participating countries will be exchanged and discussed. Facing a new eraof complex transnational corruption, closer cooperation will add morevalue than ever to the fight against corruption. Let us continue to work
hand in hand in this tough and endless fight.
In closing, expressing my sincere hope and expectation for successful
and fruitful discussions at this Good Governance Seminar and myheartfelt thanks to all of the participants for attending, and again mydeepest gratitude to the Supreme People’s Procuracy of Viet Nam forco-hosting this seminar in Danang, I would like to conclude my keynote
address.
Thank you for your kind attention.

9