Corruption poses an ever-present concern for democracies on every continent. It is no different in Asia, especially in Singapore, which alongside New Zealand and Scandinavian countries stand out as examples of best practices in infrastructure and legal framework employed to combat corruption.
The fight against corruption in Singapore begins with a crucial pillar: the establishment of a specialized agency dedicated to this purpose, i.e., an anti-corruption agency which in this case is called the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau – CPIB. It was founded in 1952 as an independent agency under the attorney general until it was transferred in 1969 to the Prime Minister's Office, having the autonomy to operate independently. Thus, if the prime minister declines to investigate or process a case, CPIB's director can appeal directly to the country's president.
One of the primary complaints in most countries is the lack of transparency and efficient communication with the population regarding where instances of bribery or corruption can be reported. By simply viewing the main page of CPIB's website below, the efficiency of this Singaporean agency in making this information transparent is evident.
However, the most significant impetus in the fight against corruption came from the administration of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Elected by the People's Action Party (PAP) in 1959, he instilled a collective commitment to establish measures to safeguard the government against corruption and institute a meritocratic system. Since then, a culture of zero tolerance for corruption has become ingrained in the way of life of the Singaporean populace.
1.1. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMBATING CORRUPTION IN SINGAPORE
The legal framework to guarantee the fight against corruption in Singapore is supported by the following statutes:
Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) 1960
- Powers for the CPIB to investigatebribery in all forms, both monetary and non-monetary in nature, and in both thepublic and private sectors
- Extraterritorial powers for theCPIB to deal with corrupt acts committed by a Singapore citizen outsideSingapore as though these were committed in Singapore;
- Fine of up to S$100,000 or animprisonment term not exceeding 5 years, or to both, for each count ofcorruption;
- Fine of up to S$100,000 or animprisonment term not exceeding 7 years, or to both, for each count ofcorruption in relation to a contract or a proposal for a contract with theGovernment;
- Presumption where anygratification given or received by a person in the employment of the Governmentor of a public body is deemed corrupt, and the burden of proof to rebut thepresumption lies with the person;
- Forfeiture of gratificationreceived in the form of a penalty equivalent to the amount of bribes receivedupon conviction; and
- Non-disclosure of the name or address of anyinformer, or any matter which might lead to the discovery of the informer'sidentity.
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes Act 1992
- Punishes money laundering frombribery;
- Confiscates benefits arising from corruption.
Penal Code 1871
- Definescrimes in Articles 161 to 165.
1.2. SINGAPORE'S PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT
The Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), enacted on June 17 1960, is the primary anti-corruption law in Singapore. This law empowers the CPIB, and governs and defines corruption and its punishments.
As per the PCA, corruption is broadly defined as a bribe offered in return for a favor. Bribery can take many forms, including monetary or non-monetary considerations, which include money, gifts, loans, fees, rewards, commissions, or other property of any description. Furthermore, any offer, promise, or commitment of gratification falls under this definition.
Also according to the PCA, the CPIB must investigate all corruption cases, whether it involves public or private sector individuals or members of the public. No one, regardless of the person’s rank, seniority, and political affiliations, is exempted from the law.
A person convicted of an offence under the PCA shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both, for each count of corruption. On the other hand, employees are expected to perform their duties with integrity. If a corrupt transaction is related to a government contract or proposal, the convicted person shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years, or to both, for each of the corruption offence. Indeed, when a corrupt offender is convicted, the court may order them to pay a fine equivalent to the amount of bribes received.
The PCA provides for a presumption where any gratification given or received by a person in the employment of the Government or of a public body is deemed corrupt. Furthermore, public officers are expected to report any case where gratification is offered, accepted, or demanded.
Regarding the territorial limits of the PCA's jurisdiction, it extends to acts of corruption committed by Singapore citizens outside the country as if those acts had taken place within Singapore.
Lastly, the identity of whistleblowers must be kept confidential under the PCA.
1.3. SINGAPORE’S PENAL CODE – AN EXAMPLE OF GOOD PRACTICE
Singapore is rightfully known as the pearl of Asia. There is a robust culture of integrity and education that permeates its entire population. Consequently, certain behaviors that are commonplace in the majority of countries are simply not tolerated in Singapore, where, for instance, activities such as selling or using gum, spitting on the ground, driving vehicles older than 10 years, jaywalking, eating on public transportation, and pornography are strictly prohibited.
In addition to strict rules, What truly sets Singapore apart is the absence of impunity. Laws are rigorously enforced, and compliance is closely monitored by governmental apparatus.
Among the arsenal of tools to combat illegal activities, particularly bribery or corruption, the Penal Code 1871 stands out. Continuously updated, it serves as a global benchmark for best practices. Its articles provide definitions and practical examples, a feature typically found only in codes annotated by legal experts.
The following are excerpts from the articles related to corruption:
ARTICLE 161 – PUBLIC SERVANT TAKING A GRATIFICATION, OTHER THAN LEGAL REMUNERATION, IN RESPECT OF AN OFFICIAL ACT
Whoever, being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act, or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favor or disfavor to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Government, or with any Member of Parliament or the Cabinet, or with any public servant, as such, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.
Explanations.
“Expecting to be a public servant.” If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.
“Gratification.” The word “gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications, or to gratifications estimable in money.
“Legal remuneration.” The words “legal remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by law to accept.
“A motive or reward for doing.” A person who receives a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, comes within these words.
Illustrations
(a) A, a judge, obtains from Z, a banker, a situation in Z’s bank for A’s brother, as a reward to A for deciding a cause in favor of Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(b) A, a public servant, induces Z erroneously to believe that A’s influence with another public servant has obtained for Z a contract to do work, and thus induces Z to give A money. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(c) A, a public servant, induces Z erroneously to believe that A’s influence with the Government has obtained a grant of land for Z, and thus induces Z to give A money, as a reward for his service. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
ARTICLE 162 – TAKING A GRATIFICATION IN ORDER, BY CORRUPT OR ILLEGAL MEANS, TO INFLUENCE A PUBLIC SERVANT
Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favor or disfavor to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Government, or with any Member of Parliament or the Cabinet, or with any public servant, as such, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.
ARTICLE 163 – TAKING A GRATIFICATION, FOR THE EXERCISE OF PERSONAL INFLUENCE WITH A PUBLIC SERVANT
Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, as a motive or reward for inducing, by the exercise of personal influence, any public servant to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favor or disfavor to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with the Government, or with any Member of Parliament or the Cabinet, or with any public servant, as such, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Illustrations
An advocate who receives a fee for arguing a case before a judge; a person who receives pay for arranging and correcting a memorial addressed to Government, setting forth the services and claims of the memorialist; a paid agent for a condemned criminal, who lays before the Government statements tending to show that the condemnation was unjust — are not within this section, inasmuch as they do not exercise or profess to exercise personal influence.
ARTICLE 164 – PUNISHMENT FOR ABETMENT BY PUBLIC SERVANT OF THE OFFENCES ABOVE DEFINED
Whoever, being a public servant, in respect of whom either of the offences defined in sections 162 and 163 is committed, abets the offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.
Illustration
A is a public servant. B, A’s wife, receives a present as a motive for soliciting A to give an office to a particular person. A abets her doing so. B is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or with fine, or with both. A is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.
ARTICLE 165 – PUBLIC SERVANT OBTAINING ANY VALUABLE THING, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION, FROM PERSON CONCERNED IN ANY PROCEEDING OR BUSINESS TRANSACTED BY SUCH PUBLIC SERVANT
Whoever, being a public servant, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing, without consideration, or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceedings or business transacted, or about to be transacted, by such public servant, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.
Illustrations
(a) A, a judge, hires a house of Z, who has a case pending before him. It is agreed that A shall pay $50 a month, the house being such that, if the bargain were made in good faith, A would be required to pay $200 amonth. A has obtained a valuable thing from Z without adequateconsideration.
(b) A, a judge, buys of Z, who has a cause pendingin A’s court, Government promissory notes at a discount, when they areselling in the market at a premium. A has obtained a valuable thing fromZ without adequate consideration.
(c)Z’s brother is apprehended and taken before A, a Magistrate, on acharge of perjury. A sells to Z shares in a bank at a premium,when they are selling in the market at a discount. Z pays A forthe shares accordingly. The money so obtained by A is a valuable thingobtained by him without adequate consideration.
1.4. THE BIGGEST CORRUPTION CASES IN SINGAPORE
To date, these have been the biggest corruption cases in Singapore:
1.4.1. SINGAPORE TECHNOLOGIES
In this significant case, seven senior executives were under investigation. They allegedly submitted claims for money under false pretenses for entertainment expenses, however, it was discovered that these payments were actually being funneled as bribes to employees of their prospective client companies.
1.4.2. FORMER MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT SUBRAMANIAM ISWARAN
In 2023, former Minister for Transport S. Iswaran faced accusations of corruption and 27 crimes linked to the organization of the Formula 1 Grand Prix. This was the first corruption scandal since the 1980s in Singapore. These crimes include accepting bribes and luxury goods, including tickets for the Formula 1 Grand Prix worth more than US$218,000 between 2015 and 2021. He was arrested on July 11, 2023, released on S$800,000 bail, and later resigned. The case against him is ongoing.
1.4.3. THE $1 BRIBE CASE
This corruption case involved two men who regularly accepted $1 bribes from truck drivers. These bribes were given in exchange for not delaying the loading and unloading of vehicles.
1.5. THE PRACTICAL ANTI-CORRUPTION GUIDE (PACT)
For individuals or companies looking to engage in business with entities in Singapore, or for those seeking a deeper understanding of anti-corruption regulations in the country, the CPIB has developed the Practical Anti-Corruption Guide for Businesses in Singapore (PACT). It serves as a valuable resource for addressing any inquiries or concerns regarding bribery or corruption practices in the country.
