KEPPEL CORPORATION LTD (Action against directors for giving bribe)

Mr J B Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Law whether any action will be taken against any of the directors of Keppel Corporation Ltd for the bribe given to Mr Cornelius van der Horst and for which the company was fined and, if not, why not.

The Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Law): Sir, the Public Prosecutor has the discretion to decide whether he will prosecute in any particular case. The Public Prosecutor decides on these matters based on the law, the facts of the case, the reports of the investigating agency, the available evidence and the public interests involved. In this particular case, the Public Prosecutor decided that the company should be prosecuted, not the employees who gave the bribes. He did so after considering all the facts of the case, including the fact that they did not act for their own personal gain.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Minister of State can be assured that I know that it is the Public Prosecutor's decision. But may we know why was it not thought necessary to prosecute the Managing Director and at least one other director who would appear to have been actively involved in giving this bribe to Mr Cornelius van der Horst? Is the Minister aware that, under section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is the person who should be prosecuted? I know the Interpretation Act says "person" includes "companies". But may we know why these directors are being let off?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Like I said in my answer, under the Constitution, the discretion to prosecute lies with the Public Prosecutor. So he has considered all the facts of the case, including, like I said in my answer, the fact that the directors did not act for their own personal gain. Having considered all these factors, he has decided to prosecute only the company.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I know whether Parliament should not be told what are these facts upon which the Public Prosecutor made this decision? May I also ask whether any attempt will be made to recover the $8.3 million that was lost to the company as a result of the directors giving the monies away in bribes?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the decision of the Public Prosecutor in individual cases should not be the subject of Parliamentary scrutiny. As I mentioned just now, in every case, depending on the merits of the case, the Public Prosecutor has to decide based on the law, the facts of the case, the reports of the agency, the available evidence and the public interests involved. I think that is the assurance that we have - that the Public Prosecutor would exercise his discretion judiciously, carefully and indeed wisely.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I know from the Minister of State, in view of his answer, are we to understand that the Government will condone companies giving bribes to foreign companies or organisations to secure contracts and let the directors go scot-free every time this happens?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the Government's position on corruption is very clear. The Government's stand on corruption is very tough. We have in fact fared very well internationally in terms of this criterion. So there is no question of letting people off if they are corrupt. But, like I said, in any particular case, the Public Prosecutor would have to consider all the factors and decide first whether or not to prosecute and, if so, who to prosecute.