Strong Anti-Corruption Law/Administrative Measure in Singapore

[Zahid-Ikram]

The anti-corruption law has since been reviewed regularly to ensure
that offenders do not escape legal punishment and that corruption does
not pay. The amendments to the law so far included :


empowering the court to order offenders to pay a penalty equal to the
amount of bribe received apart from punishment in the form of fines
and/or imprisonment term
empowering investigators with wider powers
rendering it unnecessary to prove that a person who accepted a bribe
was in the position to carry out the required favour
empowering investigators to order public officers under investigation
to furnish sworn statements specifying properties belonging to them,
their spouses and children
empowering the public prosecutor to obtain information from the
comptroller of income tax
empowering the court to admit wealth disproportionate to income as
corroborative evidence
empowering the removal of the accomplice rule which views evidence of
accomplice as unworthy of credit, unless corroborated
rendering it a legal obligation to provide information required by
investigators of the bureau
rendering Singapore citizens to be liable for punishment for corrupt
offences committed outside Singapore and to be dealt with as if the
offences had been committed in Singapore
creating a new seizable offence of knowingly giving false or
misleading information

The principle that corruption does not pay was further fortified by
the enactment of The Corruption (Confiscation of Benefits) Act of
1989. This provides the court with powers to confiscate the pecuniary
resources and property which a person convicted of a corruption
offence cannot satisfactorily account for. This Act was replaced by
the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes,
Confiscation of Benefits Act, Chapter 65(A) in 1999.


Court Punishment For Corruption

In Singapore any person who is convicted of a corruption offence can
be fined up to $100,000 or sentenced to imprisonment of up to five
years or to both. If the offence relates to a government contract or
involves a Member of Parliament or a member of a public body, the term
of imprisonment can be increased to seven years.

Besides the fine and imprisonment, a person convicted of a corruption
offence will be ordered by the court to return the amount of the bribe
he had accepted in the form of penalty. In addition, the court is also
empowered to confiscate the property and pecuniary resources which a
convicted person cannot satisfactorily account for.

The Singapore judiciary system has adopted a stern punishment policy
against corruption offenders to serve as deterrence. This policy is
clearly enunciated by the then Chief Justice Yong Pung How when
delivering a verdict on a corruption punishment appeal case in 2002:
"I had no doubt that a more severe punishment was warranted to
emphasise the courts' as well as society's disapproval and abhorrence
of his actions which not only had the effect of bringing the public
service of which he was an integral part into disrepute, but also
gravely injures the impartial workings of our criminal justice system.
To lightly condone the offence in the present case would no doubt
undermine the efficacy of our public service as a whole, not only
diminishing the public's trust in the country's law-enforcement
agencies but also setting back the government's efforts at
establishing Singapore in the international community as a safe and
corruption-free city state."


Administrative Action Against Corrupt Public Officers

Any officer involved in corruption is dealt with severely. A corrupt
public officer may be charged in court if there is enough evidence to
do so, or he may be dealt with through departmental disciplinary
procedures if there is insufficient evidence for court prosecution.

A public officer charged in court for corruption will also lose his
job and if he is pensionable, his pension and other benefits.

As for departmental disciplinary action, the punishment may include:

dismissal from service
reduction in rank
stoppage or deferment of salary increment
fine or reprimand
retirement in public interest

Preventive Measures Against Corruption

Several administrative measures were taken to reduce the chances of
public officers getting involved in corruption and wrongdoings. These
measures included:
replacing seconded police officers with permanent civilian
investigators
removing opportunity for corruption
streamlining administrative procedures
slashing down red tape
reviewing public officers' salaries to ensure that they are paid
adequately
reminding government contractors at the time of signing that bribing
public officers administering the contract can lead to termination of
contract

The importance of administrative measures in the fight against
corruption in Singapore was highlighted way back in 1973 in an article
in the South China Post:
"Singapore's approach to the problem of corruption is, we are told,
simply one of efficiency in administration. The theory is that there
is no room for corruption which thrives much better in an inefficient
administration in which there are plenty of loopholes for it to
flourish unnoticed and unchecked, where there is scope of hoodwinking
and beating the system. An efficient administration can only be run by
people who are turned on by and, good at, efficiency; people who are
thereby content rather than discontent, fulfilled rather than
frustrated, dedicated rather than disloyal, satisfied rather than
dissatisfied, uncorrupt rather than corrupt. By giving people their
self-respect and enough money in their pockets - by restoring to them,
if you like, their dignity and its corresponding integrity of purpose
- they are more likely to regard corruption as beneath them and less
likely to abandon their public and private consciences; less likely to
sell their soul to the devil."

Bob Crew in "On Corruption", South China Morning Post August 1973

Shall we enforce Singapore's Strong Anti-Corruption Law/Administrative
Measure in Pakistan?
How about a death sentence for corrupt politician and bureaucrats?
Please share your views...