The text
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture 1 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) whether he can provide a detailed account of the recent spate of fraudulent claims from SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG); (b) what are the counter-measures taken; and (c) whether a full review will be undertaken to prevent future breaches.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture 2 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) what will be the measures taken to prevent future abuses of SkillsFuture claims without stifling the growth of the SkillsFuture movement.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture 3 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) what is the outcome of the Government's internal investigation into the weakness of its controls over the $40 million scam on SkillsFuture claims; (b) whether there have been additional safeguards put in place since $2.2 million have been identified as false claims earlier in March 2017; (c) why did the rectification measures put in place from the earlier incident failed to prevent the recent occurrence; and (d) whether any staff or personnel have been suspended pending investigations on the lapse.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture Mr Deputy Speaker, can I take Question Nos 1 to 3 together, please?
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture Yes, please, carry on.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture The Members asked about two separate cases of fraudulent claims. They were unrelated and of different natures.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture In the first case, more than 4,400 individuals were found to have made false SkillsFuture Credit claims within a very short period last year, amounting to over $2 million. The fraudulent claims were made by individuals who did not attend any training but falsely claimed to have done so. They acted largely on their own accord, prompted by a viral WhatsApp message. As of December, over 90% of these individuals have either made full payment or have made arrangements for instalment payments. Those who did not respond will be blacklisted for all future SkillsFuture grant claims until they have repaid. We will also not rule out further legal and enforcement actions.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture Arising from that episode, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) has reviewed the claims processes for SkillsFuture Credit. Individuals can no longer be directly reimbursed by SSG for use of SkillsFuture Credit. It has already been implemented. Instead, payments will be made to training providers, who then reduce the course fees chargeable accordingly. This arrangement has significantly reduced the risk of false claims under SkillsFuture Credit. At the same time, the claim process is still convenient and easy and has not affected the number of individuals using their SkillsFuture Credit every month.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture The second case involves $40 million of fraudulent claims. It did not involve SkillsFuture Credit or new SkillsFuture programmes. Instead, the fraudulent claims were for training grants drawn from the Skills Development Fund (SDF). SDF was established in 1979 to support the training and retraining of workers and workforce upgrading programmes and is built up through levies collected from employers. It is, therefore, a scheme that has been around for many years.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture From its preliminary investigations, the Police believe that a criminal syndicate was behind this. The syndicate operated an organised network that utilised business entities, comprising employer companies and training providers to submit fraudulent claims. Central Provident Fund documents provided by the syndicate listed employees that the Police believe were fictitious. In short, this appears to be an elaborate and conscious effort.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture These fraudulent claims were made in 2017, with the majority being made in October. When these irregular claims were detected, SSG immediately suspended all payments of grants to the relevant business entities and reported the case to the Police. Five persons have been charged with various offences, such as engaging in a conspiracy to submit forged documents and concealing the benefits from criminal conduct. The Police have also seized $6.7 million in cash and 11 kilogrammes of gold, and frozen slightly more than $10 million in bank accounts.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture As investigations are ongoing, I am unable to disclose more details about the case. But what is clear is that this case involves fraudulent claims amounting to a large quantum. This should not have been allowed to happen. While we cannot always prevent all forms of fraudulent activities, SSG should have detected this case much earlier, especially when it was so egregious and the amounts involved were so large.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture SSG's priorities are as follows: firstly, work with the enforcement agencies on the current prosecution to ensure that any perpetrators will face the full consequences of the law; secondly, systematically plough through other claims it has received over the past year. And thankfully, so far, there is no evidence of other cases of a similar nature.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture Thirdly and very urgently, improve the system of fraud detection, checks and audits. SSG has formed an Interagency Process Review Task Force, overseen by its Board, and comprising members from SSG management, the Accountant-General’s Department, Commercial Affairs Department and the Ministry of Education (MOE). The task force is conducting a thorough review of how the fraudulent cases happened and will evaluate the current fraud detection system and make recommendations to improve the system.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture Specifically, I have directed SSG to strengthen its fraud detection system through data analytics. Fraudsters, who are going all out to cheat, are getting more sophisticated and their plans more elaborate. They will also evolve their approach. SSG's detection system must improve and become more sophisticated, too. Through appropriate use of data analytics and drawing on data across Government agencies, we can better detect false claims without significantly affecting genuine employers applying for training grants to upgrade the skills of their workers. SSG is currently getting help from both private sector consultants and Government Technology Agency (GovTech) to get this done. It has restructured and strengthened the fraud detection and audit team. SSG has started implementing some of the measures manually and will progressively automate and systematise them. By the third quarter of this year, we will have a good and effective data analytics system in place.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture In response to Mr Zaqy Mohamad's question, as of now, no staff member has been disciplined or suspended arising from the latest fraud case as there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by any staff member thus far. But SSG will take necessary management measures to remedy this weakness in fraud detection capability. We must also take the real culprits to task, send a strong deterrent signal, so that SkillsFuture continues to serve the working people of Singapore.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture We cannot afford a repeat of fraudulent claims of such egregious nature and of such scale. SSG will do a thorough review and rectify any shortcomings in grant administration that it may have. But at the same time, we should not allow this case to detract from the important task of reskilling and upskilling the workforce in this period of technological disruptions and economic restructuring.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture Mr Patrick Tay.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for the answer and response. The Minister agrees that because of the large amount of public funds involved, we need measures to prevent such occurrences from happening in the future. Will the Ministry consider raising the bar or, in fact, having greater sanctions and harsher penalties in the review for the SDF Levy Act as well as related legislation involving public funds?
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture This will clearly come under the Penal Code. Administratively, we have a process. When we set up SSG, we enacted the SSG Act. We have provided for higher penalties. But for cases, such as this, of such an egregious nature will have to come under the Penal Code.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture Sir, I have one supplementary question. I have received feedback from residents that, very often, they were falsely told that SkillsFuture Credit will expire, for example, while some are being told that they would need further courses in order for their certificate to be valid. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any plan to make the reporting of such service providers easier. For example, is there a hotline set up for residents to report such service providers?
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture I thank the Member for the suggestion. We will definitely consider having such a hotline. I believe a hotline to SSG does exist, but we probably have to make it more widely known. The Member can assure her residents that SkillsFuture Credit does not expire.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture I welcome the Minister's approach and strategies to combat such scams in the future. Bearing in mind that this may also mean tightening of the processes, firstly, how would SSG balance not having to make it more onerous for employers to claim and, secondly, given that $40 million was involved in the scams, how does it affect the performance and results that SkillsFuture had earlier reported? Will some old numbers be taken out and the adjusted numbers re-reported?
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture We cannot count those numbers as training; that would not be honest. In any case, training numbers are not really the full outcome of what SkillsFuture is trying to achieve. We work closely with the Ministry of Manpower. The Adapt and Grow numbers drawing on SkillsFuture funding and programmes are much more important. Thus, outcomes are one thing, key performance indicators are one thing, but understand the spirit of what we are trying to do and the real ground impact of what we want to do.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture How to make it not onerous? That is an excellent clarification. The natural instinct is to think, "Because this thing happened, let us double-check everything and let us check a huge number" but this will impede the whole system. That is when genuine employers who want to train their workers will get affected. But we do not have to do that and, if we do that, we will end up putting out efforts in the wrong areas. What we want to do is, through data analytics, work out the pattern of cheating and then we can detect them much better. That pattern of detection of cheating has to keep on evolving because they are evolving, too.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture If we can do that well – and we must do that well – we will not over burden employers. We can improve the audit and fraud detection system while not over-burdening employers. The bottom line is this: the system has a big capability gap today, this could have been prevented and it should have been prevented, and we will take the necessary actions to remedy this.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture Ms Sun Xueling.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture I have two questions for the Minister. First, will GovTech be involved in the move to use data analytics to prevent fraudulent claims and, secondly, what are the terms of reference for the Interagency Task Force and will they be making their findings public?
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture Ong Ye Kung: The answer to the first question is yes, GovTech is involved. Beyond GovTech, we are also inviting private sector expertise to help us in this work. Second, on the Interagency Task Force, I do not have the terms of reference with me, but essentially, it has to, firstly, review the entire circumstances of the fraud case, how it happened; secondly, what are the gaps in our system today that led to us not being able to detect this and led to us detecting it so late; third, implement the measures; and fourth, to take a hard look at the whole structure and system, and what are the changes we need to do, including personnel, organisational reporting lines. So, it will be a comprehensive review.
Measures to Prevent Further Fraudulent Claims for SkillsFuture If the Member files a question, I will be happy to report on the findings of the task force.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes 4 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether he can provide a detailed account of the recent spate of Wage Credit Scheme claims; (b) what are the countermeasures taken; and (c) whether a full review will be undertaken to prevent future breaches.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes 5 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Finance in light of recent fraudulent claims made under the Productivity and Innovation Credit, Wage Credit Scheme and SkillsFuture (a) what considerations determine whether additional audits or investigations of a forensic nature ought to be carried out for claims under these schemes; and (b) whether there is any threshold of fraudulent claims which can lead to the suspension/review of such Government schemes in view of the administrative burden of assessing fraudulent claims.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 4 and 5 together.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes Yes, please proceed.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes Sir, the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS), Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC), and the SkillsFuture movement were designed for specific economic and social objectives. For businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, the PIC provides funding support so that they can become more productive and, hence, more profitable over time. Through WCS, the Government supports businesses by sharing in sustainable wage growth for workers, especially for our lower- and middle-income workers. As for SkillsFuture, this is a national movement to empower individuals to take charge of their own learning and adapt to a changing world.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes Mr Patrick Tay asked about WCS. A total of more than $4.7 billion in Wage Credit payouts has been given out to employers from 2014 to 2017. This includes the recent payout in 2017, where more than $0.6 billion of Wage Credit payouts were made to over 85,000 employers.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes Over the same period, which is from 2014 to 2017, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) denied or clawed back $5.57 million of WCS payouts. IRAS found a total of over 1,000 cases where employers either gave false information or contrived to fraudulently obtain payouts that they did not qualify for or which were otherwise non-compliant. The vast majority of these payouts were denied upfront, with the remainder being clawed back by IRAS largely within a year. These figures cover cases of attempted fraud which IRAS detected and acted against over the four-year period. The media had reported the figures recently, but they were not a recent phenomenon. So, the 1,000 cases were all acted upon over the entire period of WCS, since it started. But IRAS recently publicised these figures to caution employers against attempts to abuse or game the system.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Pritam Singh also asked how Government agencies go about investigating fraudulent claims. The Minister for Higher Education and Skills has covered SkillsFuture, and so I will cover WCS and PIC.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes Essentially, IRAS uses a risk-based approach to safeguard against abuse. This methodology is used for all IRAS programmes, including WCS and PIC. All potential WCS payouts and PIC applications are first checked upfront against a set of predetermined criteria for signs that indicate possible gaming. This is complemented by the use of analytics, field intelligence and other sources of information, including a whistleblowing platform.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes Cases that are assessed to be of a higher-risk profile, say, claim amounts that are not commensurate with the scale of the business, are subject to more detailed investigations. For WCS, this may entail examination of supporting documents, such as payslips and bank statements, and conducting phone interviews to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the submitted wage increases. For PIC, this may entail examination of transaction details and verification of documents, such as suppliers' invoices and payment evidence. IRAS may also conduct field visits to understand the applicant’s business, for example, how the PIC equipment is used in the business.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes IRAS will continue to take strict enforcement and legal actions against those who abuse the schemes. This includes disqualifying offenders from other Government schemes and taking legal action against such offenders. Offenders can be charged under the Penal Code or the Income Tax Act for abusing the schemes. To date, IRAS has prosecuted 13 cases for fraud under the PIC scheme, and one case under WCS.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes More generally, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) undertakes periodic reviews of Government schemes to ensure that they are relevant and achieve the purposes that they are designed for. Programmes which continue to serve their purpose will be retained. Others, which are intended to be time-limited, will be terminated at their end-date. Yet others may be continued with revised criteria, based on the actual experience of running the schemes and the assessment of the scheme’s overall effectiveness, which includes a weighing of the scheme’s benefits against its administrative costs.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes Mr Pritam Singh.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes I thank the Second Minister for Finance for his reply. I refer to the latest Estimates Committee Report where it was made known that about 313,000 PIC cash payouts have been submitted over the years and 98,000 – almost one third of them – were selected for review and, out of that number, 64% of the claims were rejected upfront. The reply from MOF to the Estimates Committee also stated that for the remaining 215,000 PIC claims, I quote, "they may be selected for review based on other factors". Are there any additional factors that IRAS specifically considers for claims which fall outside their usual risk-based approach? From the reading of MOF's reply to the Estimates Committee, it appears that more review is going to be done for claims which were not originally audited.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes Mr Deputy Speaker, as I had mentioned earlier, IRAS takes a risk-based approach. Taking a risk-based approach means not 100% sampling. As Minister Ong Ye Kung earlier mentioned, doing 100% checks is going to be counter-productive to a large extent because it will entail a large bureaucratic process.
Investigation and Review into Fraudulent Claims for Government Schemes So, taking a risk-based approach means sampling according to risks and when IRAS says that it has done audits for 98,000 cases, then it has identified these as the higher-risk cases and done detailed audits on them. To the extent that there are cases with lower risks, then the sampling will be lower as well.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers 6 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the processes involved before the Ministry decides to ban a foreign religious preacher from entering Singapore.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers 7 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the criteria used in banning foreign preachers of different faiths take into account the location and environment in which their speeches justifying their bans were made; (b) whether these views have been or would have been applied to their sermons in Singapore; (c) what is the estimated number of congregants who follow the banned preachers; and (d) whether the Ministry finds the move effective given that their speeches and sermons are still pervasive through other mediums, such as the Internet.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers Sir, with your leave, can I take Question Nos 6 and 7 together?
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers Yes. Please proceed.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers Sir, we hold a clear position on the preaching of religious intolerance and we draw a line on teachings that seek to divide our society along religious lines.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers Second, we should also be clear that a foreigner's entry into Singapore is neither automatic nor a right. It is a privilege. It will only be granted if we assess that his entry will not harm Singapore's interests. In this context, the foreigner who wants to deliver a talk in Singapore, if the talk is related to religion, race or politics, he has to obtain a Miscellaneous Work Pass (MWP) from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) because the issues are sensitive. MOM will consult other agencies in its assessment of MWP applications. Each application is assessed on its own merits, through a process.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers From a security perspective, one of the principles is that a foreigner should not have antecedents of radical preaching and teachings. For example, if he has advocated violence or promoted segregationist, intolerant teachings that are inimical to our multiracial, multi-religious society, he will not be allowed in.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers It is not material whether the previous comments were made in relation to Singapore or whether they intend to touch on these issues when they speak here. If they hold views that are inappropriate or unacceptable in our context, then it is not in our national interest to give them a platform in Singapore, whether to propagate their teachings or to build up their followings.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers It is also not material to consider how large their following is in Singapore. We should be concerned even if a small number in Singapore take in their radical, intolerant or segregationist teachings. And we should not allow them to preach or speak here to spread these viewpoints amongst Singaporeans and build up anger amongst the different faiths.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked about the effectiveness of banning such foreigners, given the accessibility of digital platforms. There are obviously limits to the extent to which we can prevent access to such content, in particular, through the Internet. But this does not mean that we should make it even easier for such foreigners to spread their views more directly and personally to Singaporeans and build up a following here by allowing them to come into Singapore and giving them a physical platform. Preaching and grandstanding "live" and in person are quite different a proposition from doing so on the Internet.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers Mr Faisal Manap.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I have one supplementary question. I just want to know whether the Ministry engages these foreign religious preachers to give them an opportunity to explain themselves prior to the imposition of the ban or after the ban had been imposed, in a way to allow them to make an appeal against the ban.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers Let us take someone who says, referring to Islam, communism and other societal problems, such as human trafficking, are referred to as "goliaths standing at our door". He had also described Allah as a false God, asked for prayers for those held captive in the darkness of Islam, refers to Buddhists as "tohuw people", which is a Hebrew word for lost, lifeless, confused and spiritually barren. Do you think we should invite him into Singapore and give him an interview? Let me know.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers Mr Faisal Manap.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers I believe the Minister did not answer my question. I just want to know whether there is a process involved or a channel for an appeal to be made.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers Let us look at specific facts. Will you answer my question, so that we can take this discussion further?
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers If the Minister does not mind, can the Minister repeat his question?
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers I started out by saying, often, it will be quite clear whether we should or we should not allow, and I gave you a passage. Let us say, a preacher says the following, he describes Islam, communism and other societal problems, including human trafficking, categorising all of them together, as "goliaths standing at our door", describes Allah as a false God, asks for prayers for those held captive in the darkness of Islam, refers to Buddhists as "tohuw people", which is a Hebrew word for lost, lifeless, confused and spiritually barren individuals, who can be saved by converting to Christianity. Do you believe we should invite him into Singapore and interview him, or should we ban him outright?
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers Sir, I have officially stated my stand on this issue when we discussed in this Chamber on the private Motion moved by Mr Christopher de Souza, regarding using multiculturalism approach as a weapon to fight against terrorism. So, my simple answer to the Minister is no.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers That is the approach we take.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers I have a question on the issue of context. It is a tricky one because many scriptures of the various religions do deal with the non-believers, and many religious leaders and preachers have had to address this and speak on such topics when they are overseas. So, it may not be easy for them to align the speeches to the context of multiracialism or multi-religionism, to what we believe here in Singapore; we are an exception. So, how do you differentiate whether it is through their views or it is a context in which they were giving that speech or sermon in those countries? And how can we do more to help our own religious leaders to also counter such radical beliefs?
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers It has a number of different facets, if you look at it within Singapore, then you look at it outside of Singapore. Within Singapore, we are very clear on the framework. We have complete freedom of religion. We encourage the different faiths to carry on, you have seen the consequences, we are ranked one of the most religiously diverse societies in the world. So, we guarantee freedom of religion, including to the minorities and, in fact, we support them. Both Members of Parliament as well as officeholders turn up at many of these events. The line that we draw and, if you look at it, the Penal Code has legal provisions. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act has a framework. But essentially, if I were to identify one principle, do not do harm unto others, do not advocate violence, do not put down somebody else's religion. As long as you keep to that, propagate your faith.
Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers That, I think, has seen us being an oasis of religious peace in a world that is highly troubled. So, when we look at foreign preachers, we would have to look at who is bringing them in, we will have to talk to them, and we will have to look at the context of their sayings. But on the whole, we take a fairly conservative approach in that whatever you have said elsewhere, if those represent your viewpoints, like what I just said, if someone calls Allah a false God and then he wants to come into Singapore and say, "Well, you know, that was in a different context", I think, nevertheless, it runs the serious risk of people following such a preacher, and then they go on to look at what else he has said elsewhere and the context is not always apparent to people to be understood. So, I think it is better for us to be careful.
Payment of Fines by Keppel Offshore and Marine to Settle Bribery Probe 8 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the penalty of US$422 million to be paid by Keppel Offshore and Marine Ltd for corrupt payments between 2001 and 2014 to officials of Petroleo Brasileiro SA and Brazil's then ruling party was part of a three-nation plea bargain agreement, involving the United States, Brazil and Singapore, and Keppel companies; and (b) what are the considerations in reaching such arrangements, which have implications on local law enforcement and prosecutorial decisions.
Payment of Fines by Keppel Offshore and Marine to Settle Bribery Probe 9 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.
Payment of Fines by Keppel Offshore and Marine to Settle Bribery Probe 10 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.
Payment of Fines by Keppel Offshore and Marine to Settle Bribery Probe 11 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.
Payment of Fines by Keppel Offshore and Marine to Settle Bribery Probe Mr Deputy Speaker, may I take Question Nos 8 to 11 together?
Payment of Fines by Keppel Offshore and Marine to Settle Bribery Probe Yes.
Payment of Fines by Keppel Offshore and Marine to Settle Bribery Probe 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.
Payment of Fines by Keppel Offshore and Marine to Settle Bribery Probe 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.
Payment of Fines by Keppel Offshore and Marine to Settle Bribery Probe 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.
Payment of Fines by Keppel Offshore and Marine to Settle Bribery Probe 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.