Payment of Fines by Keppel Offshore and Marine to Settle Bribery Probe

Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Law in respect of Keppel Offshore and Marine's (KOM's) agreement to pay a US$422 million fine as part of a three-nation corruption probe settlement (a) whether the US Department of Justice's (DoJ's) Deferred Prosecution Agreement on the KOM corruption probe settlement, or any other agreement, includes any condition that prevents the public disclosure of the identities of the Singaporeans who are involved; and (b) when does the Government expect CPIB and AGC to formally complete investigations and to charge the individuals in question in view of the criminal findings made against KOM by the US DoJ.

Mr Png Eng Huat asked Minister for Law (a) how much more time will the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) need to complete the investigations in respect of the Singaporeans involved in the Keppel Offshore and Marine (KOM) corruption case since KOM and its wholly-owned US subsidiary, KOM USA, have agreed to pay more than US$422 million in penalty to resolve corruption charges of paying about US$55 million in bribes to secure contracts; and (b) how far back in time will CPIB go to in its investigation into the Singaporeans involved since the corrupt activities were committed as early as 2001.

Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Law (a) how many Singapore Government-Linked Companies (GLCs) or their subsidiaries locally or overseas have been investigated or continue to be investigated by local or overseas authorities for corrupt practices over the last 30 years; and (b) what role do the Ministry and Temasek Holdings play to ensure that GLCs or their subsidiaries do not engage in corrupt practices when conducting business overseas.

Thank you. As a country and as a Government, we do not condone or tolerate corruption. This has always been our position. It will continue to be so.

Domestically, corruption cases are investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau (CPIB). CPIB can investigate anyone. Thereafter, cases are assessed by the Public Prosecutor, who acts independently. Incorruptibility is a foundational value for Singapore. We must keep Singapore clean.

Internationally, we know that there are many places in the world where corruption is endemic and the business environment is very different from Singapore. We cannot be a global policeman. Singapore companies have to operate in all kinds of environments. But as a matter of principle, we expect that they must do so while keeping their systems clean and complying with the laws of the countries where they operate. They must develop ways of operating which enable them to do this. They cannot lower their own standards of integrity and they must not bring back to Singapore practices alien to the norms which we have established with such great effort here.

Let me now address the questions asked. How we handle allegations of corrupt acts overseas by Singaporeans or Singapore companies depends on a number of factors, including (a) whether the case is connected more strongly to Singapore or to other countries; (b) any practical or legal difficulty in investigating the case, bearing in mind that the evidence will mainly be overseas; (c) any actions being taken by third countries and the legal and regulatory tools they are bringing to bear; and (d) any cooperative mechanisms between Singapore and the other countries involved.

In handling the Keppel Offshore and Marine (KOM) case, the authorities in the United States (US), Singapore and Brazil worked with one another and reached an agreed approach. There was no "three-nation plea bargain agreement", as Ms Sylvia Lim puts it. What happened was that each jurisdiction acted under its own domestic laws, but in coordination with the other two jurisdictions.

In the US, the Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with KOM. This is an agreement under US law, between KOM and DOJ. Under the DPA, KOM has to pay a penalty of US$422 million. The amount was determined in accordance with US sentencing guidelines. DPA, which has been published, sets out how the amount was arrived at. Among other things, KOM was given maximum credit for its full cooperation with investigations. Out of the US$422 million, 50% would be paid to Brazil, 25% to the US, and 12.5% to Singapore. The last 12.5% is payable to Singapore, but subject to any further penalties the Brazilian authorities may impose.

In Brazil, the Federal Public Ministry entered into a leniency agreement on similar terms to the US DPA. In Singapore, the Public Prosecutor directed CPIB to administer a conditional warning on KOM. In reaching this decision, the Public Prosecutor considered the following factors.

First, that KOM had voluntarily reported its internal findings to CPIB and the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) in September 2016 and had cooperated with all three jurisdictions in the investigation and resolution process, that KOM also indicated that it will voluntarily agree to the US DPA and the Brazilian leniency agreement.

And that the key elements of this case, in particular, the recipients of the bribes and the projects connected with the bribes, occurred outside Singapore, and the jurisdictions concerned are also acting against KOM, in coordination with Singapore.

A conditional warning allows Singapore to impose on KOM conditions that are closely aligned with the terms of the US DPA. If any of the conditions are breached, KOM can be prosecuted. The aligned approach results in a robust resolution to KOM's case.

The trilateral resolution requires KOM to pay a total of US$422 million. If KOM fails to pay the penalty, there will be consequences under the US, Singapore and Brazilian law. Of the US$422 million, KOM must pay US$52 million to the Singapore Government within 90 days. Another sum of up to US$52 million must be paid to the Singapore Government within three years from the date of the conditional warning, after taking into account any further sums to be paid by KOM to Brazilian authorities.

Any penalty or claim that KOM might be subject to under Singapore law would be far less than what KOM is now liable for under the coordinated resolution. Furthermore, KOM is also required under the US DPA to strengthen its internal controls and compliance and anti-corruption programmes. The current resolution, therefore, achieves more than what we would have been able to do if we had proceeded against the company solely under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).

Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Png Eng Huat asked about the action to be taken against the individuals concerned. As AGC has stated, investigations into the individuals concerned are ongoing. The Singapore investigations are conducted on the same timeframe as the US and Brazilian investigations and go back to 2001, when the corrupt acts first took place.

There is no agreement, whether in the DPA or otherwise, which prevents the disclosure of the individuals under investigation. However, for criminal investigations, it is standard practice in Singapore, and in many other jurisdictions, not to identify individuals under investigation. This is for the simple reason that investigations can lead to the conclusion that no offence is made out, or that prosecution is unwarranted, in which case disclosure would have been prejudicial to the individuals concerned. Individuals will be identified if and when charges are preferred in Court.

As for the investigation's timetable, this is not a case where CPIB and AGC are acting alone in a domestic case. This is an international case where many different investigating agencies are involved. The case involves many projects in Brazil and goes back many years to 2001. Most of the evidence, including documents and witnesses, are located in different jurisdictions, including Brazil and the US.

Legal proceedings have also taken place in these jurisdictions. AGC needs evidence from these jurisdictions, and it has sought assistance, and it is continuing to work with foreign authorities. AGC has asked for certain information from them and some of its requests are still pending. AGC anticipates that further requests will have to be made as the investigations develop.

AGC is also working on a request for Mutual Legal Assistance. This is a procedure whereby one country formally seeks assistance from another to obtain or secure evidence for use in its own investigations and proceedings. This request will be reviewed and administered by the courts of the foreign country. How quickly and to what extent these requests and applications will be processed is a matter for the jurisdiction to which the request is made. Likewise, any incoming requests from foreign jurisdictions would also have to be considered and acted upon.

Obviously, the intention is to move as expeditiously as possible. However, as I have explained, not all aspects of the investigation are within our control. Only after the investigations are completed can the AGC properly assess the case and decide on the appropriate response. This is something for the Public Prosecutor to decide, independently.

How the Public Prosecutor decides will depend on several factors, including the culpability of each individual, the available evidence and what is appropriate in the circumstances. For example, it will be important to determine, for each individual, what he knew, the extent of his involvement, his motivations, any personal benefit he obtained, the circumstances under which the relevant acts took place and any cooperation rendered.

Mr Pritam Singh asked for statistics on concluded or ongoing investigations into corrupt practices by Government-linked companies (GLCs) by overseas and local authorities. I cannot speak for what foreign jurisdictions may be doing. Insofar as Singapore is concerned, past investigations which have resulted in prosecutions are a matter of public record. We do not comment on ongoing investigations, if any, for good reason: so as not to jeopardise the investigations or prejudice individuals or companies if it turns out that no offence is disclosed. Suffice to say, if there is good reason to investigate, the authorities will do so, whether or not the company is a GLC. For example, from 2014 to 2017, seven former Singapore Technologies (ST) Marine officers were investigated and subsequently charged and convicted for giving corrupt payments to secure business and for other offences under the Penal Code.

Finally, Mr Pritam Singh asked about the role of Government and Temasek Holdings in relation to GLCs. The Government's relationship with Temasek Holdings is that of a shareholder. Temasek is a shareholder of Keppel Corporation, with a minority stake of about 20%.

The Government does not interfere in, nor influence the business decisions or operations of Temasek and its portfolio companies. Likewise, Temasek does not interfere in the business decisions or operations of its portfolio companies. These are the responsibilities of the respective companies' boards and management. Temasek holds the boards of its portfolio companies responsible for running the companies honestly and competently. If the boards do not perform, Temasek can, collectively with the other shareholders, change the board.

To reiterate, the Government expects all Singapore companies, their officers and their employees to comply fully with the laws of Singapore and the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate. They have to find ways to keep their own systems clean even when doing business in complex and challenging environments. Above all, they must not import corrupt practices into Singapore.

Deputy Speaker, I have four supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.

Earlier in her response, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that I was not correct to categorise the arrangements reached between Keppel and the Singapore authorities as a three-nation plea bargain agreement. What we read, however, from the statement by CPIB and AGC in December, is that this DPA in the US was reached, of course, with the US government. But in discussion with Brazil and Singapore, and as part of that global resolution, Singapore was issuing a conditional warning to KOM here. So, my question is: is the Senior Minister of State actually saying that these agreements that we have reached with Keppel for the conditional warning were not taken in consultation or as part of arrangements with the US and Brazil, which seems to be what the statement is implying, and that we reached it independently, and we could have actually gone on to prosecute KOM if we had wanted to, it would not be in breach of any global arrangement? So, that is the first question, whether we are completely free to decide whether to prosecute or not in these discussions with Brazil and the US.

The second question is that the Senior Minister of State mentioned in her response that the conditional warning, of course, carried certain undertakings from KOM which were closely aligned with the undertakings in the US agreement, but she did not really specify whether they were coterminous or whether there were variations. So, I would like the Senior Minister of State to give some examples of some of the key undertakings that we have included in the Singapore agreement with KOM.

The third question is, in the Senior Minister of State's response, she mentioned that by reaching this arrangement, we would have achieved much more than we could have on our own. The CPIB and AGC statement says that KOM is being given a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution under PCA. I am not sure whether the Senior Minister of State, in her response, was actually saying that it would have been quite difficult to successfully prosecute KOM, because the evidence was overseas and so on and so forth, in which case, then it is a question of whether this "in lieu of prosecution" really means anything.

Finally, of course, I think the Government would be aware that there has been much interest in this case. Looking at what has been happening to Keppel as a GLC, as a corporate entity, given the large sums of money involved and the damage to our reputation, people perceive that they are just being given a slap on the wrist, whereas it is a daily affair that individuals who are not well connected, they are prosecuted for corruption offences involving $10 or $20 and they go to jail. So, I would like the Government to respond to that because I think there is some public concern about this, what is perceived to be some lenient treatment being given to KOM.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions and the opportunity to clarify certain things. Her first question was whether I had, in my reply, suggested that the actions taken by the AGC were not done in consultation or coordination with the other authorities. I did not say that at all. Let me just read what I actually said. I said that there was no "three-nation plea bargain agreement". What happened was that each jurisdiction acted under its own domestic laws, but in coordination with the two other jurisdictions.

What I was trying to explain is the legal basis or the legal concept behind it. Because when you say "three-nation plea bargain agreement", it suggests that there is either some kind of agreement or treaty to which all three countries are a party to and we are acting under the same instrument. That is not the case. What I was seeking to establish was that each country is acting in accordance with its own laws. But even whilst acting in accordance with its own laws, they reached a coordinated global resolution.

So, that is what I said in the main reply and the intent of it was to explain the underlying basis, which is, that each country is actually acting in accordance with its own domestic laws. That is why in the US, they are acting under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and they are using the DPA mechanism. In Singapore, we use the conditional warning and PCA. And, of course, in Brazil, they had the Leniency Agreement. So, that was all that was being said in relation to that.

The second question was in reference to the main answer where I said that the terms of the conditional warning were closely aligned. Ms Sylvia Lim wanted to know whether it was coterminous and, essentially, asking what are the terms of the conditions. It is not our practice to disclose terms of conditional warnings, not just for Keppel, but for all cases. In other words, conditional warnings are things which had been given in the past by the agencies but, as a general practice, we do not disclose their exact terms. What I can say is what I have said, which is, that it is closely aligned with what has been done in the US.

The third question was whether, when I said that we have achieved more than if we were acting on our own, and acting in lieu of prosecution, if I could just clarify with Ms Sylvia Lim her third question, what was the purport of that?

I thank the Member for her clarification. In this particular case, since Keppel has actually come forward and cooperated, it has, in effect, as a company, admitted its part in this. So, the next question that arises is: do you prosecute or do you give a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution? And in this particular case, it was decided to give a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution because of the factors which I had outlined earlier.

But the point I was making, when I talked about being able to achieve more than we otherwise would have been able to do if we had proceeded solely ourselves, is for a number of reasons. First, the maximum fine under PCA is $100,000 per charge. So, this would not get us anywhere near the penalty under the global resolution or even Singapore's share of the current penalty. And with respect to disgorgement, there will be issues of which country gets what. So, under the global resolution, what it means, essentially, is that we are able to achieve all the things that we would have been able to do with prosecution, but even more. And, in addition, under the US DPA, there are requirements for an enhanced compliance programme.

So, all of these are things which we have obtained, which is more than what we would have been able to obtain if you had proceeded solely under DPA. That is what I meant by that.

Let me proceed now to the last question where Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that people may be getting off lightly because it is a conditional warning. For this, I think it is important to understand that there are actually two different things.

First, there is a company; second, there is the individual. Insofar as the company is concerned, it is not a light thing at all. They have not got off lightly. They paid something to the tune of ─ in the DPA, it says US$55 million worth of bribes. They have been slapped with a penalty of US$422 million. That is something like eight times whatever they would have paid out. They have been subject to an enhanced compliance regime. As I have pointed out, we have actually achieved more than what we would have been able to do if they were prosecuted solely under PCA and the company itself has obviously taken remedial actions. So, as far as the company is concerned, make no mistake. There has been a heavy price to pay and deservedly so.

With respect to the individuals, as I have explained in my earlier reply, investigations are still ongoing. That outcome has not been determined. Nobody has got off or not got off, as the case may be. That is something that the Public Prosecutor has to decide, and I have explained some of the challenges that the Public Prosecutor is facing in terms of getting the evidence. But that is something we have to let the Public Prosecutor deal with independently.

But let me just say one other thing on this, which is that it is not a matter of letting individuals off lightly. We have, in the past, taken actions against people irrespective of their status. In the ST Marine case that I mentioned, all seven individuals were senior management, including former Presidents of ST Marine. There was Patrick Lee, the former Group Financial Controller of ST Marine; there was Ong Teck Liang, former Group Financial Controller; Han Yew Kwang, former Chief Operating Officer; Mok Kim Whang, former Senior Vice President; Tan Mong Seng, former President (Commercial Business), ST Marine; Chang Cheow Teck, former President, ST Marine; See Leong Teck, former President, ST Marine.

Government officials and politicians have been investigated in the past by CPIB and charged. These include the Minister of State Wee Toon Boon, sitting and former Members of Parliament Phey Yew Kok and Choo Wee Khiang, the Singapore Civil Defence Force Commissioner Peter Lim, National Kidney Foundation Chief Executive Officer (CEO) TT Durai, and the Deputy Chief Executive of the Public Utilities Board Choy Hon Tim. There was a Cabinet Minister, Teh Cheang Wan, who took his own life after CPIB started to investigate him.

So, there is no doubt about CPIB's record and there is no doubt that we will take action if there is cause to do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I would like to ask three supplementary questions. As background, if a prominent company, especially one linked to the Government, fails to uphold the law and proper standards of conduct wherever they are, it hurts our national reputation. As my residents have told me, it is not enough just to win or get the job done.

My first question is: even if the Government or Temasek Holdings do not manage the day-to-day operations of GLCs, what measures are there to send a clear signal that Singaporeans and Singapore companies overseas must not engage in corrupt behaviour, whether directly or through proxy agents?

My second question is: does the Government have a view on whether KOM should conduct a claw-back of bonuses paid out to ex-employees implicated in illegal behaviour? Even if KOM has no legal means of claw-back, should such bonuses be subject to forfeit by law under the Penal Code or the PCA, if not so already?

Thirdly, for Government tenders, what incentives are there to shape the behaviour of proxies and agents to minimise the risks of illegal activity? For example, should there be punitive liquidated damages written into a tender in the event that a contractor is found to have breached the law either in Singapore or overseas?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. I certainly agree that it does hurt our reputation and, for that reason, we do not condone this. We are extremely disappointed as well in what has occurred.

With respect to the first question that the Member asked about what measures Temasek can take to send a clear signal to Singaporeans and Singapore companies, as I have said − and I repeat − the Government expects Singapore companies and Singaporeans to do business honestly and lawfully even in complex environments.

For Temasek, their position is that they foster an ethos of integrity and good governance and sustainability, and they, too, do not condone improper conduct and malfeasance. So, Temasek expects companies in its portfolio to abide by sound corporate governance and robust codes of conduct and ethics. Temasek holds the respective boards and managements responsible and accountable for the day-to-day decisions and actions of these portfolio companies, but Temasek does not direct the day-to-day business decisions or operations of the Temasek portfolio companies. But what Temasek can and does do is to conduct regular roundtables, forums, educational programmes, all essentially directed at encouraging not just its portfolio companies but all other companies to keep and maintain clean systems and avoid corrupt practices.

The second question the Member asked was about whether we have a view on whether KOM should claw back bonuses paid out to ex-employees and so on. The Government does not intervene in internal corporate disciplinary actions. This is a matter for KOM and its board. But, as stated in the US DPA, KOM has imposed about US$8.9 million in financial sanctions on 12 former or current employees as part of the disciplinary process.

The third supplementary question, I think, was with respect to tenders. Government tenders explicitly state that tenderers can be debarred if, for instance, they are convicted of corruption by our Courts. Debarred entities will not be eligible to participate in any tender by Government agencies for a period of time. The directors of a disbarred company will also be debarred, and any new companies or businesses they set up during the debarment period will also not be considered for award of tenders. Beyond disbarment, the track record of a supplier is typically an evaluation criterion in Government tenders. Any known facts that reflect on the commercial integrity of the supplier will be taken into account in evaluating the supplier's track record.

Sir, I have five questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first question is, in view of the Government's status as the largest single shareholder of Keppel, will Temasek Holdings call for an extraordinary general meeting with a view to pursue civil action against board members and senior executives found responsible for the bribery scheme for breach of fiduciary duties and to seek equitable compensation from those responsible?

The second question pertains to the questionable P-61 contract which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. It would have likely required board approval for it to be approved. Is the Government aware whether the Keppel board gave the CEO broad powers to enter into the contract? If not, what is the nature of the board's oversight and their culpability in the bribery scheme? Is this something the Public Prosecutor or CPIB is going to look into, or is this a matter for shareholders to consider?

Thirdly, in its information release, the US DOJ shared that a KOM subsidiary in Singapore paid the bribes amounting to $17-odd million into an entity based in Miami, Florida. What is the name of this subsidiary? This is only a question of fact. And who are the officers of this subsidiary?

Fourthly, a former Keppel CEO and Senior Adviser, Mr Choo Chiau Beng, was the Singapore Ambassador to Brazil from 2004 till 2016, I believe. Was Mr Choo removed as Ambassador because of his involvement or knowledge of the bribery scheme and, if so − and I stress, if so − which month or year did the Government first come to know of Mr Choo's involvement? Finally, is CPIB or the Public Prosecutor investigating whether Mr Choo used his position as Ambassador to dishonestly assist Keppel secure contracts corruptly in Brazil?

My final question pertains to the matter of the identities of the individuals identified in the DPA. There is a dissonance between what the public reads in the newspapers for individuals who are being investigated, for example, the General Manager of Ang Mo Kio Town Council. No charges, I understand, have been preferred against him yet, but his identity, his name, is well-known to the public. How does the Minister reconcile that with the non-disclosure of the names of the individuals involved in the Keppel matter?

Let me just deal with the last question first, in which I think the Member wanted to know how does the Government deal with the fact that the names are out there. The Government's position is very simple. The Government deals with the Government's actions. So, the Government's actions are that when investigations are ongoing, we do not disclose the identities of people being investigated. What other people may say outside, what other information may be floating outside, what other comments may go on in social media, that is separate. But as the Government, as an investigation authority, the Government does not disclose names of individuals who are being investigated. And we are not alone in that. All civilised jurisdictions which observe the rule of law uphold that principle simply because, as I have mentioned earlier, we do not want to prejudice either the investigations or the persons being investigated, depending on how the investigation might turn out.

With respect to the first question, I think Mr Singh asked can the Government, as a shareholder, call a meeting and ask for a resolution to be passed to commence civil action. I think that was the thrust of the question.

Let me just correct a few factual inaccuracies here. First, the Government owns 100% of Temasek. The Government is not a direct shareholder of Keppel. That is number one. Temasek owns just over 20% of Keppel Corporation, which is not the entity in question here, which means that there is 80% of other shareholders. Keppel Corporation then owns 100% of KOM, which is the entity in question here. So, the general principle of corporate governance, with which Mr Singh is familiar as a lawyer, is that the shareholders deal with their companies in which they have shares at the shareholder level. Shareholders appoint the boards. The boards then, depending on whether the members are executive or non-executive, it is their business to make sure that the policies and so on for the company are proper, that governance is proper, and then the day-to-day operations are done by the executive team or the executive management.

As I had mentioned earlier, in this particular instance, the Government and Temasek do not interfere in the day-to-day running or management of the Temasek portfolio companies. What I can say and what I can point Mr Pritam Singh to, is what is already in the public domain which is in the DPA, paragraph 4(d) – which I am sure Mr Singh is familiar with – the company has engaged in extensive remedial measures, including taking disciplinary action against 17 former or current employees in relation to the misconduct described in the statement of facts. They have caused seven employees who participated in the conduct described in the statement of facts to separate from the company. They have issued demotions and/or written warnings to seven employees who failed to detect the misconduct and failed to take appropriate steps to mitigate corruption and compliance risks. They have imposed approximately US$8.9 million in financial sanctions on 12 former or current employees as part of the disciplinary process and have conducted individualised anti-corruption and compliance training for six employees.

Anything further than that is a matter for the Keppel group, or for the company in this case, to determine, not for the Government.

Going back to a couple of other questions asked by Mr Pritam Singh, on the P-61 contract, he asked whether—I am sorry, could the Member clarify his question on the P-61 contract?

That is actually not so much a question for the Government. As to what is known and not known within the Keppel group, that is, really, a Keppel matter. The only thing that I can do here which would be useful is to point Mr Pritam Singh to one of Keppel's media releases, where Keppel said that the current boards of directors of Keppel Corporation and its unit KOM were not aware of the illegal payments made to secure projects in Brazil. That is Keppel's position. As far as the Government is concerned, as I have explained, the Government is a shareholder in Temasek, Temasek has a just over 20% shareholding in Keppel Corporation and the operations of Keppel are run by Keppel itself.

Mr Pritam Singh also had a question on the name of the subsidiary company. I do not have that information with me. And he asked about the circumstances in which Mr Choo Chiau Beng may have stepped down as ambassador, I do not have that information. What I can say is that he has stepped down and he is not involved in an ambassadorial role at the present time.

Sir, US$422 million is a huge sum. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State who will pay the US$422 million if KOM is unable to pay? Will it be paid from our Government budget?

Mr Deputy Speaker, the monies will have to be paid by KOM. It would not come out of the Government budget. There will be no impact on the Government's fiscal position. Temasek's 20% stake in KOM is just one part of its portfolio. The Government's spending limit in relation to its Reserves held by the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and Temasek depends on the long-term expected returns on those assets. It is not based on actual cash contributions of the entities to the Government.

Sir, three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. She mentioned whether any KOM staff will be prosecuted depends on whether they benefited from this scam.

One, would the Senior Minister of State clarify whether bonuses and salary increases given to senior staff, past and present, for meeting profit and revenue targets are deemed as personal benefits?

Second, the Senior Minister of State also mentioned that the corruption is done outside Singapore. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether the email trail leads back to senior staff in Singapore? In the investigation of the scam, did the email trail lead back to Singapore, which means were senior staff in Singapore actually orchestrating or sanctioning all these from Singapore?

Third, would the Senior Minister of State not agree with me that the money earned by KOM through illegal and corrupt means are highly improper, and would the Senior Minister of State not agree that the dividends paid out by KOM who knew very well that its earnings were derived from bribing people and the political party in power would also be deemed illegal, and would then need to be clawed back from members of senior staff, board of directors past and present, and the only way to ascertain the amount is through a forensic audit? Would the Government be ordering one?

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member said that I had mentioned that whether or not there is action taken will depend on whether the individuals had benefited. Let me just go back to my original answer, which I hope will be clear. I said how the Public Prosecutor decides will depend on several factors; so not just one factor but several. It includes the culpability of each individual, the available evidence, what is appropriate in the circumstances, the knowledge of each individual, the extent of his involvement, his motivations, any personal benefits he obtained, the circumstances under which relevant acts took place and any cooperation rendered. So, it is not a single factor; it is a whole array of factors which the Public Prosecutor will have to take into account.

The second question was – could the Member just repeat the second question, that the corruption was done outside Singapore and therefore—?

All these are matters which are subject to investigation. I do not have this information and it certainly would not be appropriate for me to enquire on this point. This is something which the Public Prosecutor and CPIB are looking into. Let them deal with it. Let proper process, due process take place and, in time, they will have to make the appropriate decision.

As I have said, US$422 million is going to be paid out by the company. That is by the company. Insofar as the individuals are concerned, I have already pointed to the fact that in the DPA, it has been disclosed that the company has gone against the individuals. So, basically, as far as any monies that should not have been obtained, were obtained, they have actually, effectively, been disgorged.