By M Santhananaban
A former senior member of the government with a dozen years of good standing as a cabinet minister was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of 12 months in neighbouring Singapore on 3 October.
The judge found the prosecution’s request for six to seven months and the defence’s plea for six to eight weeks “manifestly inadequate”. So he imposed a harsher sentence.
The judge considered that the offence committed by the accused was serious enough to undermine or affect trust in public office. But he granted the accused the freedom to present himself for the sentence on 7 October.
Singapore is well known for the good reputation of its public service. In order to uphold a clean image, public officials are paid the highest reasonable salary to ensure integrity and fairness. So there are high expectations of their integrity, loyalty and unblemished conduct.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
In this specific case, the judge did not regard the accused as a ‘passive acceptor’ of the gifts.
Yet the judge conceded that no evidence was offered that the gifts had in any way influenced the accused.
Gauging gifts
In reality, there is no such thing as a benign bribe. A gift to a government or company official or press person somehow reflects that person’s power, influence and prestige in the system.
Like Singapore, Hongkong has a history of enforcing perhaps the most remarkable and robust anti-corruption laws. Hong Kong’s anti-corruption or prevention of bribery laws were promulgated in the early 1970s.
The difference seems to be that Hong Kong authorities from the beginning gave equal attention, emphasis and importance to the issue of bribery and corruption in both the public and private sectors.
The Hong Kong example
Leo F Goodstadt in his Uneasy Partners – The Conflict between Public Interest and Private Profit in Hong Kong (Hong Kong University Press, 2005) references a quote stating that Hong Kong had such ‘draconian’ anti-corruption and bribery laws as “to be almost unique among Western based-legal systems”. Before these laws were enacted, many believed corruption was widespread in the then British-administered territory.
Evidence of such corruption emerged unexpectedly. Following the riots and stand-off between the mainland’s Communist Party activists and the Hong Kong authorities at the tail end of the Cultural Revolution, some police officers, concerned about their safety and that of their families, applied for migrant status in Canada. The requirements for migrant status included possession of assets worth 250,000 Canadian dollars.
The prevailing practice within the Commonwealth was to share such information with the British and Hong Kong authorities.
When alerted, the Hong Kong authorities were aghast to discover public servants who had such enormous assets on their relatively modest salaries.
That set the stage for the enactment of the toughest anti-corruption and bribery laws. Kowloon-based Peter Godber, once regarded as a brave and dedicated high-ranking police officer, was accused of corruption and fled the territory. He was later apprehended and extradited from the UK and tried. Godber did four years of prison time in Hong Kong.
By the late 1970s, Hong Kong had become noted for its burnished, clean corruption-free image. That reputation was sullied when Malaysia’s errant Bumiputra Malaysia Finance bankers engaged in outrageous bribery and corruption, losing about US$1bn.
This reference to the BMF fiasco is necessary to remind ourselves of the trends of growing dangers of bribery and corruption within Malaysia. One particular gift that a BMF banker allegedly gave George Tan, a major beneficiary of BMF’s money, was a Rolls Royce!
What is fascinating and instructive about Hong Kong’s bribery and anti-corruption law is that accepting, offering and soliciting a gift is manifestly wrong even if there is no evidence of resulting advantage.
The word advantage was broadly defined to include money, gifts, loans, forbearance to excuse or overlook an infringement, employment, facilities that cannot be extended without proper authorisation, tickets, passage on land, sea or air, as well as other services emanating from a local or foreign source.
With this comprehensive definition of advantage, it was impossible for anyone in the public or private sector to accept, obtain, offer or solicit valuable gifts or engage in bribery or corruption.
The Hong Kong law recognised the fundamental importance and interplay between the animal spirits of creative private enterprise that sustained the vibrant territory and the efficiency, impartiality and integrity of the public sector.
Iswaran’s case
The recent court proceedings and sentencing of the former Singapore transport minister S Iswaran were remarkable for their clarity, celerity and civility. There was an almost understated, chilled, circumspect cultural panache about it.
Iswaran has decided not to appeal.
When first accused and charged with corruption in January this year, Iswaran had vehemently maintained his innocence and indicated he would fight the charges strenuously.
Proving corruption would have involved a laborious, lengthy and costly process which may not only further embarrass and intimidate the clean image of Singapore but also carry other unforeseeable negative consequences.
A lesser charge of the acceptance of gifts, despite partial disgorgement and the obstruction of justice elements, was somewhat conveniently agreed to by the accused.
The judge gave a rational and well-reasoned verdict in sentencing Iswaran. Beyond the judgment, it demonstrated the state’s superb efficiency and expeditiousness in dealing with an awkward episode that had severely damaged the impeccable character of a smart, self-assured superbly administered city state.
All this was done within a span of nine months.
Malaysia’s measly moment
Here in Malaysia, cases involving a former prime minister who left office in May 2018 are still ongoing. While one case has concluded with imprisonment and a fine, other cases continue.
The trial, conviction, sentencing and imprisonment of the former prime minister in the previous case went through a hierarchy of the higher courts over a four-year period.
Former Prime Minister Najib Razak and his counsels continue to speak of a gift as if it had dropped from heaven. They claim the gift was from a foreign party with Najib suggesting it was a respectable and rewarding token for his exceptional personal standing.
By the Hong Kong bribery law, there is only defect and disgrace that borders on disloyalty and lack of sovereign pride when a gift is accepted from a local or foreign party.
While Najib’s persistent plea of innocence is understandable, he seems unconcerned about the inherent inviolability of Malaysia’s reputation and sovereignty, its institutions, its laws and the need to move forward to endeavour for long-term peace, progress, prosperity and greater national unity.
No criminal trial involving any individual, whatever his or her status, should bog down a country or be allowed to become a festering, fractious issue that casts aspersions on the sanctity and supremacy of those institutions that uphold law and order.
Equality before the law must be always upheld. Meanwhile, the prosecuting and defence counsels, as officers of the court, have a duty to refrain from assertions and actions that diminish the dignity of the courts.
Singapore’s handling of its former transport minister’s case is phenomenal.
Dato’ M Santhananaban is a former ambassador with 45 years of public sector experience.
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
Only in Singapore!