PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 2.25 pm

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

Sir, this is essentially a technical Bill to update and tighten the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. These amendments are based on the recommendations of the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau in the light of the experience of the Bureau.

The Act was enacted in 1960. However, in the 29 years since then, the monetary penalties for corruption offences under the Act have remained unaltered. Therefore, they need to be revised if they are to have a sufficient deterrent effect today. Clause 7 of the Bill enhances the maximum fines for these offences from $10,000 to a maximum of $100,000. In addition, fines will also be enhanced for offences of failing to comply with the notice of the Public Prosecutor to provide information, and for offences relating to the obstruction of duties of the Director or his officers. These fines are to be increased from a maximum of $2,000 to $10,000.

Next, Sir, clause 6 of the Bill will create a new seizable offence of knowingly giving false or misleading information to the CPIB. The penalty for this new offence will be a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or both. This amendment is needed because persons who deliberately give false or misleading information to the CPIB can at present only be prosecuted for the general offence of giving false information to a public servant under the provisions of the Penal Code section 182. But the penalty for that offence under the Penal Code is imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both, a penalty hardly adequate to deter persons from deliberately giving false or misleading information to the CPIB. Such persons who commit these offences must be subject to greater penalties because their actions can not only detract the CPIB in its investigations but can cause a great deal of harm to others.

The remaining amendments are more of a technical nature. Clause 2 empowers the Director, CPIB and his officers to release an arrested person on bail or bond. At present, all matters concerning bail or bond are referred by the CPIB to the Police who have powers under section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Code to release arrested persons on bail or bond. The powers conferred on the Director and his officers are similar to those in section 352 of the Code.

At present, section 16 of the main Act confers on the Director and his investigating officers certain powers of investigation into seizable offences which are conferred on police officers by the Criminal Procedure Code. These powers are contained in sections 120, 121, 125 and 126 of the Code. Clause 3 seeks to amend section 16 to confer on the Director, CPIB and his officers all the powers of investigation of a police officer under the Code and not merely under those four sections. The amendment therefore, will give the CPIB wider powers of investigation, including the powere to sumon the production of documents.

If I may move on. Clause 4 empowers the Public Prosecutor to authorize the Director, CPIB or any of his special investigators to exercise the powers of investigation conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with any offence under any written law. This is to provide for exceptional situations where it may be necessary for the Public Prosecutor to authorize the CPIB to investigate any offence under any written law.

Finally, clause 5 covers a loophole in the main Act, specifically section 20(1)(b). The amendment will empower the Public Prosecutor to require a suspected person to furnish a sworn statement of any money or other porperty sent out of Singapore by his spouse, sons or daughters. This amendment is to bring the provision into line with section 20(1)(a) of the main Act.

Sir, I hope this Bill receives the support of Members.

Question proposed.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, the Minister has said that this is a technical Bill. I do not think it is completely a technical Bill. And as I have told him a little while ago outside this Chamber, I am tempted to give my support to the Bill but I just cannot and I will explain why.

Sir, the increase in fines in the various sections of the principal Act should certainly help to deter many would-be corruption offenders. But, of course, much depends on the value of the gratification that is offered, promised or expected in comparison with the risks involved and the possible penalties, if caught. If the gratification amounts to very huge sums, the person committing the offence may well feel that that is sufficient compensation for the risks involved. Then even the proposed increase of fines up to $100,000 will not deter any big corruption offences. In the past, Sir, there were cases of persons willing to go to prison for a few years because of the few million dollars stashed away for a cushy life after the prison term. Nevertheless, the proposed increase in fines will certainly be seen by many people that the Government is very serious about prevention of corruption in Singapore.

Clause 5 which introduces the amendment to section 20(1)(b) of the principal Act, I agree, Sir, is very timely. It will definitely block up a loophole by which money is sent out of Singapore by persons who have corruptly received large sums of money or other property. But merely inserting the words "his spouse, sons and daughters" may not be sufficient. I would have thought that such a person could also send money or other property out of Singapore through a girlfriend or a boyfriend. In recent years, we have seen cases of girlfriends and boyfriends having been involved in taking money out of Singapore. Therefore, if the Minister should think fit, some appropriate word or phrase relating to boy or girl friend could be added to the proposed amendment.

Under clause 6, a new section 26A is proposed to be added to the principal Act. Both subsections 26A(a) and (b) refer to any person giving, and I quote:

''false or misleading information relating to the commission of any offence under this Act ...''. Now, what is "misleading information"? Would information honestly believed to be true misleading? I believe that information honestly given could be false. But it is up to the investigator to investigate, to find out the actual position and the facts of the case. That is what the investigator is paid to do.

We must remember, Sir, that corruption offences, especially the big ones, are usually well camouflaged. It is not easy for an outsider to know the facts and all the full facts. If the facts are well-known, then there is no longer any corruption offence. Therefore, if there should be a strong suspicion that corruption offences are being committed in spite of the scanty information available and if someone is public-spirited enough to forward such information as is available to the CPIB, then it is the duty of the CPIB to investigate. If the information should turn out to be untrue or if the information should lead to a blind alley, then that is not the fault of the person who gave the information. It is just sheer bad luck. In fact, we should be thankful to such public-spirited people who venture forth to give information to the CPIB, sometimes with some danger to themselves.

Instead I now that see in the Bill, we want to penalize him for giving misleading information. As I said, Sir, information is difficult to come by and we should encourage whatever information that is available if we are serious in detecting and preventing corruption. But the Bill does not encourage but discourage people from giving information to the CPIB. Information honestly given should not be penalized. Otherwise no one would dare give any information about suspected corruption offences to the CPIB.

I support the principle of prevention of corruption but I cannot support the Bill that discourages the giving of information. Indeed, Sir, the Bill gives the impression that it is intended not to encourage the giving of information but, on the contrary, to discourage the giving of information. Therefore, Sir, I cannot support the Bill.

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I support the amendments proposed in the Bill. Having listened to the arguments put forward by the Minister for Law, I am convinced of the necessity to impose stiffer penalties in today's circumstances to check corrupt practices.

Sir, all of us know that corruption is something that is not easily seen or detected and that it takes long time to uncover. More often than not, its detection depends on the willingness of the parties involved to volunteer information and cooperate closely with the CPIB by reporting such malpractices. And in this regard, I disagree with Dr Lee that the amendments in this Bill well discourage people from giving information. Corruption is a serious offence and anybody who wishes to offer information must be serious about it, because the penalty involved is severe.

Thanks to the relentless efforts and the determination of the Government in combating corruption for the past 29 years, Singapore has now achieved international reputation as a clean, honest and efficient country. It is an achievement not easily attained, and it has brought about prosperity and peace to all our citizens.

Sir, last week we read in the Business Times that Singapore has been rated highest in terms of competitiveness (ahead of Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea) in a group of 10 Newly Industrialised Economies (NIEs). This finding is contained in "The World Competitiveness Report of 1989" - a clear reference to Singapore's attractiveness as an investment centre. I believe, Sir, the amendments prescribing heavier penalties in this Bill would be welcomed by many of our citizens and viewed in its correct perspective, that is, as a means to safeguard, protect and preserve a valuable national asset (the integrity and honesty of our public institutions). This is a priceless asset that has taken us three decades to build.

With regard to the additional powers granted to the CPIB, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Law whether there will be sufficient check against any abuse of power although he has informed the Housethat these additional powers will be used only in "exceptional situations".

On this note, Sir, I once again support the amendments in this Bill. 2.30 pm.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill moved by the Minister for Law.

I have read the Hansard report of the previous Parliament regarding the investigation committee on Teh Cheang Wan's case. Obviously all people would like the CPIB to be very meticulous and thorough in their investigation into corrupt cases. The amendments moved by the Minister will give them more powers and facilities to enable them to conduct investigations into corrupt cases with better efficiency and thoroughness. It is hoped that CPIB officers with added powers will also be able to exercise such powers with care and fairness to ensure that innocent people will not be victimized or suffer any unfair treatment. After the passage of this amendment Bill, cases of corruption will naturally decrease. Senior officers both in the Government services and in the private sector will also be able to continue to set good examples of integrity to the people of Singapore. This kind of corruption-free society of equal opportunity will encourage the people of Singapore to achieve success through their own effort and merits. It is not easy to achieve integrity of public organizations which is a precious asset to our country. Through this amendment Bill, we will be able to continue to preserve suchstate of integrity in Singapore.

I support the amendment Bill moved by the Minister.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. If I may first deal with the point raised by Mr Zulkifli who asked in regard to the power which the amendment seeks to give to the CPIB to investigate additional categories of offences, whether there are adequate safeguards. The answer to that is yes. First, they cannot investigate under these provisions on their own. They must first be authorized by the Public Prosecutor. They cannot initiate it. Secondly, no new offence is created under the Act which they can investigate and any persons who are investigated will not be charged under the Act if they are being investigated for an offence other than under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Let me now turn to the points raised by the Non-Constituency MP. I thank him for the support of some of the provisions of the Bill. He asked why confine to spouse, sons and daughters. There are two reasons for this. This amendment is to bring it into line with the existing provision in the Act which uses the same phraseology. As to whether we can extend it to cover girlfriends and others, we can give consideration to it but I believe these time-honoured provisions in the law have a certain assumption in them. The assumption is that where you place the onus on a party to provide information about sons, daughters and spouse, it is reasonable to expect him to have such knowledge so as to comply with the provisions of the law. If we extend the categories, one can question whether that same assumption applies because you are really creating a legal obligation which carries with it sanctions and penalties.

But the main point made by the NCMP related to the new provision which provides for the offence of knowingly giving false or misleading information. This gives me an opportunity to explain a bit further and I hope, after my explanation, the NCMP will be able to give unqualified support to the Bill. It is not right, Sir, to interpret this provision as discouraging the giving of information to the CPIB. The phrase used by the NCMP was we should not discourage knowledge or information or facts which are honestly given. I completely agree with him and I would like to inform him that from the viewpoint of law and interpretation, this is exactly the scope of this provision. I would like to draw his attention to a key ingredient in the very first line of the new section 26A which says, "Any person who knowingly - ". So the prosecution will have to prove in a court of law knowledge that that person knew that the information that he was supplying to the CPIB was false or misleading. And when a person is proved to have knowingly given false or misleading information, it cannot be said that he was honestly giving such information and it also cannot be said that he was giving such information in good faith. If I may put it the other way round, Sir, this section should not in any way cause apprehensions among people who give information in good faith.

Apart from the fact that corruption offences are serious and persons who give information must be expected at the minimum to give information in good faith, let me also explain what happens if information which is false and misleading is deliberately given. It will throw the CPIB off track. Supposing we have CPIB investigating a case involving corruption by Mr A. Now, two other persons come to CPIB and knowingly giving false information that Mr A is innocent and that the corruption was done by Mr B. If the information is given in good faith, this section does not apply at all. But if those two persons knowingly give false information, the effect is that it impedes and hinders CPIB's investigations and throws them off the track. So, far from causing any apprehensions, this protects those who give information in good faith or honestly, as the NCMP has described it, and the only persons who need to worry about this provision are persons who deliberately, wilfully and intentionally give false and misleading information.

With that explanation, I hope the NCMP is clear in his mind and that he and other Members can support the Bill.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Would the Minister still explain what is "misleading"?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I would have thought the answer is quite clear what is misleading and what is false.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Prof. Jayakumar].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.