CORRUPTION (CONFISCATION OF BENEFITS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 12.33 pm

The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Government's determination to stamp out corruption is well-known. Our tough stand against corruption has earned a special reputation for Singapore internationally. Within Singapore everyone - no matter whatever position he holds - knows that if he is corrupt, the law will deal with him firmly. We have been able to do this because of, first, the Government's consistent and firm position against corruption. Secondly, because of our laws, especially the Prevention of Corruption Act, and thirdly, because the laws are implemented fearlessly and effectively by a CPIB that is thorough and impartial in its work. Members would recall that the Commission of Inquiry into the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan stated, and I quote:

'Singapore has an enviable reputation for the honesty and integrity of its public institutions. This reputation is a hard-earned national asset which should be protected and preserved.'

But how do we protect and preserve it? We can say of the prevention of corruption as Jefferson said of liberty - "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". Methods of corruption are always undercover and very difficult to detect. Corruption is cunning in hiding its tracks over a long period of time. Therefore, we must be prepared to adopt any new legal procedures which will serve as further deterrents against corruption.

This Bill provides an effective new weapon in dealing with corruption. It strikes effectively at the unexplained assets of persons convicted of corruption offences. Under the Bill, the courts can make confiscation orders in respect of such unexplained assets and can restrain their disposal before the court proceedings are concluded against such persons. This will be in addition to other penalties which the court may impose under existing law.

I think Members know that we already have the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, this existing law is not sufficiently adequate to deal with the confiscation and recovery of corruption benefits. Under the present law, a person convicted of a corruption offence is ordered to pay by way of penalty only a sum equal to the amount of the gratification which he has received or the value of that gratification. This payment of penalty, it may be noted, is confined to the value of the gratification received for the offence for which he was convicted or for other offences for which consideration was taken into account.

But let us take the case of an offender who has been corrupt prior to that particular offence for which there was discovery and for which he was charged. He may have assets which are clearly disproportionate to his known sources of income and for which he can give no satisfactory explanation. Such assets, under existing law, cannot be confiscated unless it is proved that he has actualy derived those assets by corruption. But these are matters which are specially within his own knowledge and it would be difficult, if not, impossible to obtain evidence concerning them.

The Bill, therefore, provides new powers for tracing and freezing the benefits of corruption and for confiscating those benefits.

The principles in this Bill are not new. Britain and Australia are among the countries that have legislation for the confiscation of property and assets which were illegally obtained. The provisions of this Bill before the House are modelled on the United Kingdom's Drug Trafficking Offences Act of 1986 with modifications and adaptations for our purposes except for clauses 21 and 22 which are adapted from the Australian Proceeds of Crime Act, 1987. For the information of hon. Members, I have distributed a comparative chart (Cols. 1781 - 1786) showing the United Kingdom and Austrlian provisions from which we have borrowed and adapted or modified. chart - COMPARATIVE TABLE (Cols. 1781 - 1786)

Under clause 4, Sir, where a person has been convicted of a corruption offence and the Public Prosecutor makes an application to the court, the court shall make a confiscation order against the defendant in respect of benefits derived by him from corruption. The safeguard is that the court must be satisfied that such benefits have been so derived. A person is deemed to have derived benefits from corruption if he holds or has held assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, the holding of which he cannot explain to the satisfaction of the court. The onus of explaining assets which are disproportionate to the defendant's known sources of income is placed on him. This is fair since it will only apply after he has been convicted of a corruption offence and that he is in the best position to explain how he derived those assets.

Clause 5 provides for the assessment of the value of the benefits derived by the defendant from corruption. Clause 6 will enable the prosecution to tender a statement to the court as to any matters relevant to the determination of the benefits derived by the defendant from corruption. Such a statement, if accepted by the defendant, would provide a conclusive way of determining the amount of the confiscation order. The defendant can, however, still of course dispute this statement and he may tender his own statement.

Sir, the Bil provides for the defendant to be liable to imprisonment where any confiscation order made by the court is not satisfied. The periods of imprisonment in default of payment of the confiscation order is in accordance with a progressive scale depending on the amount involved.

To ensure that the assets derived from corruption are not disposed of by the defendant before the conclusion of the court proceedings, the High Court can make what is known as restraint orders. Such restraint orders, like an injunction, will prohibit any person from dealing with any realizable property of the offender. It may be made only on the application of the Public Prosecutor and the effect will be to freeze the property and assets which may be needed later to satisfy a confiscation order.

Sir, safeguards for the interests of innocent third parties are provided in the Bill. The court may not enforce a charging order or authorize the realization of any property subject to a restraint order unless a reasonable opportunity has been given to persons holding any interest in the property subject to an order to make representations to the court.

Sir, the Bill also contains provisions to deal with absconders, ie, persons who are the subject of investigations by the CPIB or who either die before conviction or who, at the end of six months after the commencement of investigations, cannot be found or are out of Singapore and are not amenable to extradition proceedings. A court may make a confiscation order in respect of the benefits derived by such absconders from corruption if the court is satisfied that the person has absconded and the court is also satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to convict the offender in respect of the offence under investigation.

In short, Sir, the Bill will provide a more effective mechanism to deprive an offender of the fruits of his corruption.

Sir, I would also like to touch on some of the points which have been made recently in the Sunday Times' article and in a regional publication. But perhaps I should first give Members who wish to speak an opportunity to express their views before I go into that.

I also do not propose, Sir, to go into the details of the Bill because it is the Government's intention to refer this Bill to a Select Committee of Parliament. This will enable organizations and individuals to make known their views and suggestions on this Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Corruption (Confiscation of Benefits) Bill.

Sir, the Singapore Government's record on the way that it deals with corruption and bribery is a well-established one. This is a record which is the envy of many countries and it is important that we not only maintain this record but also do everything posssible to enhance it.

Sir, Singapore thrives because it is efficient and corruption-free in most cases and everyone can calculate the cost of doing business or working in Singapore. Uncertainty and difficulties are eliminated. This is the only way in which Singapore can grow and prosper further.

The Bill before us is to further stamp out corruption and bribery and, hence, has my full support.

Sir, I am also gratified by the Minister's statement when he said that he would refer this Bill to a Select Committee of Parliament. This is indeed good and wise as it will enable responsible organizations and individuals to offer their views and suggestions to the Government.

Sir, originally I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but after reading the two articles which appeared, one in the Sunday Times, 27th March, and another one in Asiaweek, I thought it is best to raise this subject in this House withthe Minister.

The Sunday Times article entitled "Corruption Bill conflicts with basic tenets of justice" and another entitled "Taking Aim at Corruption" in Asiaweek. Have one thing in common, that is, both are extremely critical of this piece of legislation. In fact, Sir, Asiaweek says that some Singapore lawyers have labelled it as the Teh Cheang Wan Bill. It even goes to suggest that the proposed Bill could dramatically alter certain principles of jurisprudence in Singapore. The Sunday Times article states, and I quote:

'But several of its provisions do seem to come so uncomfortably close to being in conflict with some basic tenets that a full debate is necessary in order that the public mind can be set at ease.'

Sir, the article further complains that "retroactive legislation makes nonsense of the definition of an offence. Something is either an offence today or it is not", and also the question of an absconder is presumed to be guilty for the purposes of this Bill.

Sir, again, Asiaweek continues to say that this Bill has caused a stir among local lawyers, largely because the provisions violate a fundamental principle of natural justice, and other comments are laced with quotations from Mr Francis Seow and Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam. For some reason or other, no learned quotation from the Member for Potong Pasir is included in this article. Maybe the Asiaweek does not consider his views relevant.

Sir, the tone of both the articles is similar, and I begin to wonder who influenced who. Nevertheless, there would be opportunity for more people and organizations, other than the articles that have appeared so far, to appear before the Select Committee, that is, if they are still concerned with the principles and not for some cheap publicity or opportunity to take a gibe at the Government.

Sir, since so many lawyers appear to be unhappy, according to this Asiaweek article, I would urge the Law Society to seriously make representations to the Select Committee. I would also urge individual lawyers to take the Government seriously and offer their views and suggestions. For the moment, maybe the Minister can put to rest some of the misgivings stated in both these articles.

Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, corruption saps the efficiency of our public service and the spirit of our society. Singapore is fortunate in having an efficient, incorruptible public service. We must preserve and strengthen that system and ensure our society is corruption-free. The Bill, by taking away the benefits of corruption, strikes at the very heart of corruption - human greed. By empowering the court to make confiscation orders against unexplained wealth of persons convicted of corruption, the Bill takes away the incentive of corruption. It takes away the temptation and the benefits of corruption. Corruption does not now pay.

I support this Bill, but I would like to seek certain clarifications from the Minister. Clause 3 of the Bill, Sir, makes it clear that the provisions of the Act apply to corruption committed before the coming into force of the law, except for persons who have been convicted and sentenced by a court. But does it apply to corruptions committed after the Act comes into force? A grammatical reading of clause 3, Sir, would seem that it does not. There is a presumption in law against retroactive legislation. But is there a converse presumption for the prospective legislation? Can the Minister please clarify? Furthermore, Article 11 of our Constitution protects a person against retrospective punishment. This point was touched on in an article in the Sunday Times of the 27th March which was referred to by both the Minister himself as well as the Member for Chong Boon.

Clause 4 of the Bill on confiscation orders and clause 9 on the procedure for enforcing fines, reading together, appear to make confiscation orders to be punitive and not merely compensatory in nature, thus increasing the punishment for the offence over that was prescribed by law at the time of its commission. Does the retroactive provision under clause 3 of the Bill offend against the Article in our Constitution? Or does clause 4 of the Bill only reinforce the existing law under sections 13 and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act? On clause 4, it appears that the confiscation order must state the amount recoverable. It does not appear that the court can order, for example, the confiscation of a house bought from corruption money. This leads to certain complicated provisions in the Bill providing for the tendering of statements (and their acceptance) of benefits derived from corruption (clause 6); assessment of the amount to be recovered under confiscation orders (clause 7); the definition of what is realisable properties and value of properties - clause 8; and the variation of confiscation orders - clause 17.

I realize, Sir, that there are similar provisions in the English Drug Trafficking Offences Act of 1986. But I believe these complicated provisions can be simplified if the court were empowered to make confiscation orders directly forfeiting all benefits derived from corruption in whatever form these benefits may take. If the benefits take the form of property other than cash, they should be vested in the public trustee and subject to legitimate third party claims sold for the benefit of the Government.

Clause 10 of the Bill may cause embarrassment and unnecessary suspicion to the innocent. Under sub-clause (2) of the clause, the court is empowered to issue a restraint order even before proceedings are instituted and without proof that the defendant may remove property out of Singapore. This does not seem to be fair or justifiable. Furthermore, in the event the restraint order is discharged on grounds that proceedings are not subsequently instituted as ordered by the court, no damages are payable to the innocent party against whom the restraint order was applied for. Under our general law there is procedure in the High Court for application of an interim injunction (which is akin to the restraint order here) in cases where there is reasonable belief that the defendant is spiriting away his assets to defeat the course of justice. But in that event, there must be reasonable grounds for such a belief and if it subsequently should turn out that such belief was not justified in law and the defendant has suffered damage as a result, the defendant is always entitled to recover damages from the person who makes the unjustifiable application. Maybe we can simplify matters by applying the general law to corruption cases.

The same argument, Sir, goes for charging order under clause 12. We have a well-defined general body of law on injunctions and charging orders. It may be better to apply this general body of law to corruption cases rather than creating new provisions to deal with the situation. Existing laws have certainty; writing new law creates uncertainty and interpretational problems.

The principle behind this Bill is sound and I support it. The detailed provisions appear to be too complicated and will lead to difficulties in construction. They should be simplified.

In this Bill, Sir, 4 1/2 pages of the Bill out of 20 1/2 pages are devoted to the definition of terms used in the Bill and almost every other clause defines one term or another.

Finally, Sir, what about the agent of the corrupt person, the go-between, the abettor of the crime? He should be equally guilty but he seems to be getting away scot-free. Perhaps the provisions of the Bill should be made to apply to him.

I welcome, Sir, the committal of this Bill to a Select Committee at which these and other provisions of the Bill can be studied in detail. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 2 o'clock.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.58 pm until 2.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.00 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Sir, I rise to support the Bill standing in the name of the Minister for Law.

Sir, more than any other country, Singapore must ensure that corruption in any form does not sink deep roots into our society. Where it does exist, all efforts must be made to eradicate it. This Bill reinforces the legal mechanisms we have, namely, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. It emphasizes the point which the Member for Chua Chu Kang made before lunch that corruption like any other crime does not pay.

Singapore has been fortunate to have a clean and honest Government since 1959, a clean and honest Government which is, in the words of a Commission of Inquiry, "the hard earned asset of the people". I would go so far as to say that our peace, progress and prosperity have been, in large measure, due to the effective Government we have and to the people's support for, and trust and confidence in, this Government. Where corruption had reared its ugly head, the Government had acted swiftly and decisively to eliminate it.

Sir, it is vital that in Singapore we have a government which is clean and honest. This factor enhances our political stability which is so essential for our continued peace and prosperity. Without it and instead with corruption, our political stability will be undermined. This is because corruption, especially in official and politi- cal circles, will weaken the people's support for, and trust and confidence in the government. If that happens, there will be disunity and eventual chaos and even rebellion. We have seen this occurring in many developing countries.

For Singapore, a clean and honest government is also vital for our economic growth, especially when we depend so much on foreign investment, trade and technology. Foreign investors welcome the efficient, decisive and swift manner in which decisions are made. These foreign investors are not troubled by bureaucratic corruption which exists elsewhere. Would foreign investors be encouraged to come to Singapore if they know that they have to grease the palms of political and official leaders when they want to get things done?

Sir, corruption is a cancerous disease. If it is not detected early enough, it will spread and attack the healthy parts of the body politic and eventually destroy the whole society. As someone has written, and I quote:

'If others, especially political and official leaders, indulge [in corruption] it takes iron will not to copy [for others not to be corrupt as well].'

If many indulge in corruption, then they will all find it in their interest to conspire to protect one another, to cover up and to prevent exposure. In that kind of society, law and justice become a mockery.

Sir, this has happened in some developing countries. Corruption in those countries is a way of life. People are no longer surprised by reports of corruption. It has become a habit and everyone in society expects corruption to exist even in high places. When this happens, it is the beginning of the end for that government. It is a matter of time before chaos and disunity break into open rebellion.

Sir, we have many examples of corrupt governments being overthrown because of the corruption of its leaders. In the Carribean, there is the case of Haiti under the Duvalier family. In Africa, the example of Sudan under Numeiry comes to mind. And nearer home, we have the well-known case of the Philippines under Marcos. If any Singaporean wants to see for himself or herself what corruption can lead to, he or she should visit the Malacanang Palace in Manila and look at the Marcos' collection of various items.

In conclusion, may I quote a public policy specialist who wrote about corruption, Prof. J. Patrick Dobel:

'Once corruption becomes widespread, there is very little possiblity of successful, significant reform of injustice in the state. Even a successful violent revolution becomes almost an impossibility. Any significant legal, political and even economic changes will be quite irrelevant since the citizens will either frustrate the goals or use the new arrangements for their own self-interest and benefit.'

The Professor went on to say:

'Only consistent good leadership, real participation and abolition of massive inequalities will restore the state to its original principles of justice, fraternity and equality.'

Sir, in Singapore, we have consistent good leadership, real participation by the people, and abolition of massive inequalities. We have them because the Government has insisted on the highest level of personal integrity, honesty and dedication of its officials and political leaders. We can continue to have these if all maintain their vigilance and eradicate corruption whenever and wherever it appears.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

I always strongly believe that there are no two ways of combatting corruption except to eradicate it totally. It is one of the greatest dangers of modern times. It has plagued and perplexed many governments. There should not be any compromise. It was stated that compromise is corrupt to ideology. What happens if one were to compromise in corruption? I believe not only will it kill ideology, it will also destroy the society, the very social, economic, political fabric of that society, of that nation. Thus, this demonic creature with a human face, with a human mask, must be totally erased from our midst.

I have only one question to ask the Minister, ie, the explanation of clause 21(2)(b)(i) of Part IV which says:

'the person dies before proceedings in respect of the offence were instituted, or if such proceedings were instituted, the person dies before he is convicted;'

I just want to know whether this includes natural death. How are we going to convince people that natural death could be punished in such a way?

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Jalan Kayu): Sir, I rise in support of the Bill and I would like to thank the Minister for referring this Bill to a Select Committee. This subject is of wide public interest and a reference to a Select Committee will enable the public to voice their views and concerns, if any.

Sir, this Bill must be looked at in the context of Singapore. Our strong anti-corruption policy and stance have served us well, extremely well I must add, since 1959. There is every indication that this philosophy, or rather way of life, will continue to be a fundamental pillar, not only of our economy but of every part of our life and our society.

Last Sunday, there was an article in the newspaper on this subject. Like the Member for Chong Boon, I disagree with the thrust of this article but credit must be given to the article for there are at least two paragraphs which I agree with the writer. I quote:

'Now of course the Bill will serve to reinforce what Singaporeans know only too well - that corruption does not pay and must not be seen to pay. Not for the giver of bribes, or the taker.

To the extent that the Bill protects further the integrity of the system and Singapore's well-deserved reputation as a place where palms need not be greased for things to be done, it deserves every support.'

Rightly so, Sir, it deserves every support. It must be driven home that nobody, absolutely nobody, including relatives and friends of the corrupt person can ever benefit from the ill-gotten gains of corruption.

Sir, as the Minister earlier said, this is the case now. But now the Government can only recover from specific instances in which it can prove corruption. My question is this. Should the Government spend more public money, more public time, trying to prove each and every act of corruption to recover the ill-gotten gains of corruption even after the person has been convicted of corruption? Yet, if the Government will not do this, then obviously corruption pays. It does because a corrupt person can admit to one single act of corruption. Restitute the money from that single act, go to prison for that act and then later come out to enjoy the ill-gotten gains from the many other acts he may have committed. I am glad that this Bill covers this loophole.

Sir, like the Minister, I do not want to go into the details of the Bill for the same reason stated by him; because it is being referred to a Select Committee. There are, however, three underlying principles that I would like to bring up. These are:

(1) the so-called retroactive nature of the proposed Bill;

(2) the so-called assumption that an absconder is presumed to be guilty;

(3) The assumption that the unexplained assets of a convicted person is deemed to have been derived from corruption.

Sir, on the first point, is the proposed Bill really retroactive? Sir, as I read clause 3, it clearly states that the Bill does not apply to those corrupt offences in respect of which proceedings have been completed, that is, the person has been convicted of the corrupt offences before the commencement of the proposed law. Sir, I am not a lawyer but from my layman's viewpoint, I thought the issue is not whether the person has committed the offence or not and at what time, but rather the issue is when the conviction takes place. It simply states, Sir, that if the conviction takes place after the commencement of this Act, then this Act will apply to that particular case. Surely, Sir, this cannot be considered retroactive because if the conviction had already taken place before the commencement of this Act, then this Act does not apply at all. Perhaps the Minister could explain.

Sir, on the second point of presuming absconders to be guilty, the issue is not guilty of corruption. Due to the absence of the offender, it would be difficult to have a trial. The issue is that of finding whether the absconder has unexplained wealth, unexplained assets, which of course he is not in a position to explain and which neither of his friends, relatives or people close to him can explain. Sir, this is more to ensure that the ill-gotten gains of corruption do not benefit those who are involved in corruption. It is the confiscation of unexplained assets, wealth, that nobody can or will explain.

Sir, this therefore brings me to the third issue, that of unexplained assets. As the Minister has said, this is not a new concept. To support his arguments, I would like to illustrate the use of this principle in three countries; countries with reputations of having many democratic and liberal institutions to uphold the rule of law.

Sir, in the United States, under their tax evasion Act or laws, a person can be considered as evading tax if he has wealth beyond his means or if he lives beyond his means. The Government does not even have to prove that a person is evading tax but rather that if he lives beyond his means he can be convicted of evading tax. Further, in the US, tax evasion is a jailable offence. In Hong Kong, under its Prevention of Corruption laws, a Crown servant, if he is living beyond his means, he can be convicted of corruption. In UK, Sir, the Minister has already distributed a comparative table on the Bill and the UK Drug Trafficking Offences Act of 1986. I have distributed an extract from a Background Brief issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London dated December 1987 on this particular Act in UK. Sir, with your indulgence, if we look at the extract, I will not read it but those who are reading it, if you will just remove the words like "British police and Customs and Excise" and substitute, let us say, "Singapore Government", the word "traffickers" into "the corrupt persons", the words "drug trafficking" into "corrupt practices", you will see that this explanation where under the Act the authorities can "obtain information", have his "assets restrained" and can issue a "confiscation order" applies exactly to the Bill in front of us. So if these countries can have such legislation with such underlying principles, why should we object to Singapore using the same principles to ensure that we will remain as much as possible and as long as possible a corrupt-free society.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak.

Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. Sir, the aim of Singapore is to build a nation of excellence and I believe that one of the objectives of excellence must be a corruption-free society. If Singapore is to endure as a nation, then we must strive for this objective, that is, a corrupt-free society. Corruption, as we have seen and as spoken by other speakers, is the root of the problem of many Third World countries. They remain poor and undeveloped and, worst of all, they are unable to get off the ground in their economic development because their efforts are eaten away by the social disease of corruption.

Is Singapore corruption-free at the moment? Apparently it is not, otherwise we would not be here to pass this Bill. The Prime Minister in January in this House last year has said that "the strongest deterrent is in a public opinion which censures and condemns corruption". Our public opinion obviously is still not that strong against corruption. We have not built up that social structure, attitudes, values, which really condemn corruption. Perhaps the Government at this juncture should take steps to build up such a public opinion against corruption. This is where, I think, SBC drama serials can come in handy. Such dramas could depict not only those persons who are corrupt are censured and condemned and suffer by society, but the shame of that corruption will inevitably also affect members of their families.

Sir, another problem of corruption in Singapore is that to a certain extent many who come here are transient in that they do not have roots sunk into our society very deeply. So those people who come here, they have made a name for themselves and get into a position and they might be tempted to go into a corrupt way to enrich themselves. They think, "Well, if they have enough, they will just pack up and go". Or even if they get caught they can still have their ill-gotten gains with them and after a jail sentence they can go off and enjoy the money somewhere.

In the last debate on this Teh Cheang Wan Affair, I think the Prime Minister said that it was not necessary to have more laws. Apparently, the Government has changed its view on this point. His comment was that there was no need to add more trip wires to check against corruption. On the last point, Mr Lee said that if more were added, Singapore might end up like a house where the burglar alarm system was tripped more often by the occupants, not by the burglars. Obviously, I think we are going to set up more burglar alarms. And I am for this law.

There are three ways to prevent corruption. One, of course, is public opinion against corrupt practices. The society will condemn heavily those that practise corruption. The other, of course, is deterrence, a jail sentence or a fine. But apparently these tools are not strong enough. I think this law with the confiscation of the benefits cover the third point. The corrupt person must not enjoy his ill-gotten gains. So it covers all the points which will prevent a person from being corrupt.

Sir, I see that this law is quite comprehensive and I hear that it is going to the Select Committee. Perhaps there is only one point which is not very clear, and that is, in regard to a corrupt person who is either about to be made a bankrupt or is already made a bankrupt and his assets are in the hands of the Public Trustee. I think this point will have to be really clarified because a person who goes into bankruptcy because he owes many creditors sums of money and these creditors may be genuine creditors who have supplied goods or who have supplied services to the bankrupt and it is fair only that he gets his share back. So if there is no clear-cut way of distinguishing or tracing the corrupt money, and the money that is actually left over in business, then I think there will be a problem area there. I think this point will have to be really looked into.

Sir, as regards the other points, I think they are commendable. Now we have this confiscation order for persons who are convicted of corrupt offences. I see that the law covers a very wide area. They have got a restraining order, and the courts can restrain the order. I even see that the definition of "absconded person" is a very novel definition in that an absconded person can be defined as a person who even dies and he is considered to have absconded.

This period of six months, I do not know whether it is too short to consider a person as having absconded. I suppose the Minister does know that, in law, a person is presumed dead only after seven years. So between "seven years" and "six months", six months appears to be a rather short period to define a person as an absconded person if he is just missing or cannot be traced for six months.

Sir, I am sure this Act was drafted after the events of the Teh Cheang Wan Affair. With this Act, the Government really has got teeth in dealing with corrupt persons. So at this juncture I would like to ask the Minister whether action will now be taken against Liaw Teck Kee, the person who had shared the benefits of corruption with the late Minister. And also whether action will be taken, of course, against the estate of one of the developers of the River View Hotel. Of course, now with the definition of "absconded persons", action can be taken against the assets of Teh Cheang Wan's son, Teh Kwan Sek, who has absconded. Perhaps the Minister could clarify these points.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Members who have spoken on the Bill, all of whom have supported, including the Member for Potong Pasir which, to my memory, is the first time that he has spoken in support of a Government Bill. I think his speech was on the whole constructive and we welcome it.

Sir, I would like to start by referring Members to the articles which appeared in the Asiaweek dated April 1st (but it was released much earlier) entitled "Taking aim at corruption", and the other article in the Sunday Times of 27th March, "Corruption Bill conflicts with basic tenets of justice" by one Catherine Ong.

Sir, the Asiaweek article made three allegations. First, that this Bill violates the constitutional provisions that prohibit creation of offences or enhancement of penalty retroactively. Secondly, it is alleged that the Bill violates rules of natural justice. Thirdly, that it is wrong to make a confiscation order against a person who has died or absconded. Let me assure Members of the House that I have had extensive discussions with both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General on this question. The allegations are unfounded, Sir. Let me deal with each of the points.

First, that the Bill violates the constitutional clause which prohibits retroactive creation of new offences or new penalties. Sir, nowhere does the Bill create any new offence, much less a retroactive offence. A careful reading of the Bill will show that the definition of "corruption offence" in this Bill refers to existing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act or the Penal Code. The Bill does not in any way alter the penalties for those offences. The Bill also does not enhance the punishments for existing offences retroactively. All that this Bill does is to introduce new provisions for tracing and freezing the benefits of corruption and for confiscating those benefits. It is not retrospective. Its provisions cannot be used as the basis for claiming the $1 million which we are seeking to recover from the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan even after this Bill becomes law. We still have to claim it by way of civil action against the estate under the law before this Bill is passed. That is why the Attorney-General is suing the estate of the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan for recovery of sums derived from corruption, and he has done so under existing law. He is able to do that because, even under existing law, a person is not entitled to retain ill-gotten gains derived from corruption. So no new offence or punishment has been created retroactively. One should not just look at the Bill and see a phrase "whether before or after the commencement of this Act" and jump to the conclusion that some grave constitutional principle has been violated.

Let me just mention, Sir, that in the United Kingdom the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, section 2 says:

'For the purposes of the Act, any payments or other rewards received by a person at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in connection with drug trafficking carried on by him, are his proceeds.'

Another section says:

'When he is convicted, all the property and assets which have been held by him or have been transferred to him for the six years prior to the conviction, are deemed to be payments or reward in connection with drug trafficking.'

Therefore, what this Bill seeks to do is really to reverse the burden of proof where a person has been convicted of a corruption offence to show that the assets in his possession which are disproportionate to his known sources of income are not derived from corruption. As these are matters which are specially within his knowledge, it will be difficult for anyone else to prove. It is not unfair or inequitable to reverse the burden of proof. He has the opportunity of showing that his assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income are not ill-gotten and in any case the court has to be satisfied that the benefits have been derived from corruption. The Bill does not impose any additional punishment for the existing corruption offence. What it does is to provide an easier and speedier mechanism to deprive a person convicted of a corruption offence of benefits derived by him through corruption. Any claim, Sir, that this Bill violates constitutional provisions against retroactive penal legislation is totally unfounded.

Secondly, Sir, the allegation that this violates the rules of natural justice. It is nonsense to say that the rules of natural justice are violated. Before the court makes a confiscation order it must be satisfied of two things. First, it must be satisfied that the benefits have been derived from corruption. Second, it must also be satisfied that the property or interest concerned was disproportionate to his known sources of income and cannot be explained satisfactorily. Only then can it make the confiscation order. In every application for confiscation order, the court will have to hear both sides. If the party is in Singapore, he can be represented by himself or his counsel. If the person has absconded, he can still be represented by counsel. In the case of a person who has died, his estate can be represented. The court will hear their arguments why a confiscation order should be made or should not be made. So it is absurd to say that the Bill is an affront to the rules of natural justice.

Third allegation, Sir, that it is wrong to make a confiscation order against a person who has died or who has absconded. Let me make two points. First, it does not mean that where a person has died or absconded, the Government is going to rush in and arbitrarily confiscate all his assets. This is a total misreading of the Bill. The court first must be satisfied that, having regard to all the evidence, the evidence, if unrebutted, would have warranted a conviction. If their answer to the question is yes, then the court will still have to satisfy itself that the assets were indeed derived from corruption and then only can it make a confiscation order.

My second point is, Sir, what is so wrong about this principle? If an armed robber were to enter your home, steals all the jewellery and cash and runs off, stealing your car as well and he happens to go across the Causeway to Malaysia or Thailand, and he dies through whatever cause, Does it mean that we are not entitled to recover the cash, jewellery and the car which he illegally obtained? Surely, it cannot be in the public interest that ill-gotten gains obtained by unlawful acts (in this case from corruption) may not be recovered by legal action for confiscation or attachment just because he has absconded or died. Indeed, it will be a very perverse notion of justice to say that he should be so immune or exempt. I hope I have clarified the position. Asiaweek has published an article which is ignorant of the legal issues and they have completely misread the words of the Bill.

I am afraid the Sunday Times writer, Catherine Ong, has also committed the same errors. The Member for Chong Boon asked who influenced who. I do not know. Her points are similar. But she should have done her own homework and sought the help of a good practising lawyer who, after thorough research and study, can give her an explanation of what the Bill means and seeks to do because our journalists must learn to make their own investigations, do their own research and come to their own conclusions.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Hear, hear!

Prof. Jayakumar: If I may now touch on some of the other points raised by Members. The Member for Chua Chu Kang asked whether, in making clause 3 applicable to corruption offences before the commencement of the Act, does this mean that it does not apply to corruption offences after the Act? Obviously it applies to offences after the commencement or coming into operation of this Bill, as must be very clear in reading clause 4 onwards. The reason why clause 3 is inserted is to make it clear that it can apply to corruption offences committed before the commencement of the Act. This clear provision has to be inserted because of interpretational rules which require it to be so stated. In other words, clause 3 is to take care of situations where investigations have begun or an offence has been committed before this Bill has come into force but where the court proceedings and the conviction take place after the Bill has come into force.

I would also like to point out that another effect of clause 3 is a safeguard because in clause 3 it is provided that, with regard to corruption offences before the coming into operation of the Act, if the proceedings have been disposed of and sentence has been given, then that's that, and this reversal of burden of proof and confiscation order will not apply.

The Member asked about the position of go-betweens. I would think that this is covered under the definition of "corruption offence" which refers not only to offences under the Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act but also to any conspiracy to commit, any attempt to commit and, this is a significant part, any abetment of such offence. But here too, Sir, there must be a court conviction before the consficatory mechanism can be invoked. Those are the main points, Sir.

The Member for Potong Pasir who supported the Bill expressed a doubt as to whether public opinion against corruption is strong enough and whether the Government should take steps to build up such opinion. He has missed my speech in the earlier part of the proceedings where I said that we are committed to making sure that prevention of corruption will always be based on eternal vigilance.

He has referred to a quotation from the Prime Minister as to whether there is a need for further trip wires. This is more than a trip wire. This is a provision to add an additional mechanism or weapon in our arsenal to deal with those who are convicted of corruption offences. He has raised some specific technical points with regard to the provisions on bankruptcy. These, together with the other points raised by Members which go into the details of the Bill, I would take note of them so that the Select Committee can look into them further.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, just one small point of clarification.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All right.

Mr Chiam See Tong: How is the Government going to get back benefits which are out of jurisdiction? It is almost impossible, is it not? If it is, then why do we have it in the statutes?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I know which provision is he referring to?

Mr Chiam See Tong: You gave an example where a robber goes across the Causeway. I believe there is a provision also for those who have absconded. If he has absconded with his benefits out of jurisdiction, in what way can we get the benefits back? I think it is the last clause.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, a person may have absconded but he may have assets here. He may have land. He may have property. He may have bank accounts. He may have fixed deposits which are all subject to confiscation orders. The other question that he has raised is if all the assets are also not in Singapore, of course it is a far more complicated question, that can only be done by reciprocal arrangements with different countries. But that is a separate matter to be taken up.

I forgot to refer to some of the other points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir concerning details of the Teh Cheang Wan matter. But these are not within the scope of today's discussion. If he feels that they are valid questions which must be pursued further, he can file a Question for Oral Answer.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I beg to differ, Mr Deputy Speaker. They are very relevant because once this Bill becomes law you would have powers. So it is related to the use of this law. Are you going to use against these people that I have mentioned?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us get this Bill passed and if the Member for Potong Pasir has specific questions as to the implementation of the Bill, he can raise them later.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Resolved,

That the Corruption (Confiscation of Benefits) Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Deputy Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].

2.45 pm