Debated in Parliament on 4 Jul 2017.
Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Prime Minister for the public sector corruption cases registered for investigation by CPIB in 2016 (a) what is the total amount of money involved; (b) what are the top three Ministries from which these cases originated; (c) out of the 92 cases brought forward from the previous years, how many are more than two years; and (d) what is the breakdown on the number of such cases alerted by internal staff and external sources respectively.
Madam, on behalf of the Prime Minister, Singapore adopts a culture of zero-tolerance towards corruption, no matter how big or small the amount. Corruption offences can occur at any level as long as there is greed and opportunity. CPIB takes a serious view of all complaints or information on suspected corruption. They will not hesitate to take action without fear or favour against any individuals or entities. According to CPIB's corruption statistics that were released recently, there were 118 cases registered for investigation in 2016, out of which, 15% was from the public sector. The percentage of public sector cases that CPIB registered for investigation remains consistent over the last three years, averaging about 14%.
However, I wish to highlight that not all cases that CPIB registered for investigation will result in prosecution. In the last three years, the number of persons prosecuted in Court by the CPIB has been on a decline. In 2016, there were 104 individuals who were prosecuted in Court by the CPIB, out of which, four were public sector employees. However, not all the four individuals were charged for corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
To answer Mr Png's question, the total bribe amount, or personal gains involving public servants prosecuted last year was $24,800. The CPIB takes, on average, less than a year to complete investigations. Nevertheless, this also depends on the complexity of the cases, many factors, such as the availability of witnesses or, if the case is transnational, also affect the duration of the investigations.
For 2016, there were 13 cases from the 92 uncompleted cases that were carried forward from 2015 that took more than two years. Even though the Singapore Public Service is known to be one of the cleanest in the world, the Government remains vigilant and constantly seek new ways to maintain the integrity of the Public Service. As with all corruption cases, they start and end with humans.
Ministries are required to put in place measures to ensure accountability and transparency. Such measures include rotation of officers, having more effective supervision, holding surprise checks and conducting regular internal audits to ensure processes are in order.
There is a reporting framework for officers to report wrongful practices of behaviour they have observed to their supervisors or the Permanent Secretary in their Ministry. This includes the mismanagement or misuse of Government funds or actions that call into question an officer's integrity, such as in conflict of interest situations. This helps the agency to be alerted to problems early and allow them to promptly take appropriate actions.
The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2016 ranks Singapore as the seventh least corrupt country in the world. Singapore has also maintained its first place in the 2016 Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Annual Survey on corruption. This is only possible because of strong political will and leadership over the years as well as the trusted Singapore Brand that is built upon our clean and honest system of governance in the business environment.
Madam, there was one more part of the question that was not answered and I have one extra supplementary question. In the original question, I asked what is the breakdown of the number of cases alerted by internal and external sources respectively.
And my supplementary question is, out of the 18 cases involving public employees registered for investigations, four were prosecuted in Court. The rest were given warning or departmental actions. So, what are the grounds for recommending such action in lieu of prosecution for these cases from the Public Sector?
To answer the first question first. The answer is three and one to make the four. The second question as to which case will be prosecuted will depend on the nature of the case itself and also the strength of the evidence, the complexity and the severity of the case. Is that what the Member was asking? Because when a case is being prosecuted, once it has breached our rules and our guidelines, it will be prosecuted in Court. If let us say, there are no clear evidence for us to take the person to task, then if there are any other things that are tantamount to any wrongdoing but not enough for us to cross the threshold, then there may be other administration guidelines for us to take punishment action if someone is in the wrong.
Mr Png, please address your queries to the Chair.
Sorry, Madam. There were 18 cases registered for investigation for the Public Sector. Four were sent to Court but then the rest, they said that they administered warning and given departmental actions. So, I just want to know what are the grounds for recommending such action, in lieu of prosecution, since they are already registered for investigation.
First, let me clarify that registered for investigation does not prove that they are guilty. It just means that there might be a case for us to follow up and pursue. Out of the cases mentioned, four were eventually prosecuted in Court. Where there is not sufficient evidence of severity to prosecute them in Court, we will see whether there is any ground for us to take other actions. There is always a range of actions required for us. But for those cases that go to the Court, that is when there are very clear guidelines as to when you crossed the legal threshold.
PAPERCUTS