SINGAPORE — Several Members of Parliament, including The Workers’ Party’s Louis Chua (Sengkang GRC), raised questions in Parliament last week over the Keppel Offshore and Marine bribery case, which were addressed by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Indranee Rajah on Feb 6.
In a Facebook post on Sunday (Feb 12), however, Mr Chua wrote that “there have been concerns that the non-prosecution of the six individuals could damage Singapore and its reputation more so than the acts perpetrated by the Government-linked company per se.”
He had asked questions about the decision against prosecuting the six individuals involved in the case, specifically “what weightage has been given to the various relevant factors such as the culpability of each individual, the available evidence and what is appropriate in the circumstances; and whether this is consistent with the Government’s political commitment and leadership and a culture of zero tolerance against corruption.”
The Public Prosecutor had decided to issue stern warnings instead of prosecuting the case. The six individuals in question had been former senior management staff from Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited.
“There is a lack of sufficient evidence, either documentary, or through witnesses, which would establish any criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt against a specific individual,” Ms Rajah had said in her reply.
The Minister also underlined that there have been no changes to the country’s zero-tolerance policy regarding corruption. She also said that the CPIB (Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau) and AGC (Attorney-General’s Chambers) “are observing the basic rules for a fair and just criminal justice system” adding that “what can be inferred from this is that while Singapore has zero-tolerance on corruption, it also strongly adheres to the rule of law.”
Mr. Chua had also filed a question asking what the offenses are under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 (PCA) that were considered for prosecution for the six former Keppel management and what the maximum penalty is for these offenses under the PCA.
“I am advised that relevant potential offences were considered by the PP (Public Prosecutor),” Ms Rajah said.
Mr Chua asked supplementary questions regarding whether the six individuals in question had authorized the payment of the bribes and whether they had been aware of its payment.
Had they been aware, what did they do with this information, he asked.
Ms Rajah said that she did not know, because she did not conduct the investigations.
“What I do understand from the investigations is that CPIN says that the six have not made any admissions.” /TISG