By Mak Yuen Teen

The title of this article is a common reaction I get from others in response to news about enforcement actions by CPIB against bribery, whether it is for small bribes or “ang pows” in the case of forklift operators or crematorium employees, or the $700,000 bribery case against the Keppel Shipyard employee. It is a fair question to ask: will there be any enforcement action against the individuals involved in the Keppel O&M case where a total of $55 million in bribes were paid, especially given the enforcement actions for much smaller bribes. My fear is that this question will echo through the years and be a blot on our hard-earned reputation for low corruption which we can never erase and that no one will forget – if no serious enforcement action is taken.

This brings me to something that I have raised in the past. Recently, the fact that we have climbed back up to number three in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) – which measures perceptions of corruption in the public sector in 180 countries – was well-covered in the local media. However, in September 2018, another report by the same organisation which put us with 21 others in the category of countries with “little or no enforcement” against foreign bribery received no coverage here to my knowledge. An article accompanying the report (https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/exporting-corruption-2018) has this to say:

“The bad news is that there is still a long way to go. Four countries, accounting for 6.7 per cent of world exports, have deteriorated in their performance and a total of 33 exporters, accounting for about 52 per cent of world exports, still have limited or little to no enforcement against foreign bribery. That includes all four of the exporters not party to the Convention — China, Hong Kong, India and Singapore — all of which get the lowest rating of little or no enforcement.

The results show that we are far from bringing enforcement against foreign bribery to a tipping point. Governments must scale up their foreign bribery enforcement. This means investigating allegations and pressing charges, as well as courts convicting guilty individuals and companies, and imposing substantial sanctions where appropriate.

The enforcement gap that exists in China, Hong Kong, India and Singapore needs to be closed by joining the OECD Convention and, along with all other countries involved in global trade, stamping out foreign bribery with the necessary legislation and enforcement.”

Not only do we have little or no enforcement against foreign bribery, we have shown no interest in committing to doing something about it by joining global efforts like the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

In a way, the dissonance between our high ranking on the CPI (which is a measure of public sector corruption at home) and our “bottom of the class” ranking for enforcement against foreign bribery is worse than countries with a consistently low ranking on both. This is because it may be perceived as hypocrisy – as long as we keep our own house clean at home, we can do whatever we like when we are in other countries. It’s like we are sending a message to the world that we don’t really care how bribery by our companies and people wreck havoc in other countries as long as our own country is clean. Of course, we can make the excuse that it’s too bad if those countries have corrupt regimes that do not curb bribery and it is not our job to do it on their behalf. But we are talking about our own people and companies paying bribes, and I think we should be more responsible for their actions.  Further, our laws do cover bribery committed overseas.

Those who are interested can download the full report here: file:///Users/bizmakyt/Downloads/2018_Report_ExportingCorruption_English.pdf

On page 101 to 103, there is a write-up on Singapore. Interestingly, it mentions that in February 2018, CPIB arrested a number of individuals in connection with the Keppel O&M case. I do not recall reading about this and assuming this is correct, perhaps we may yet see further action taken. We will just have to wait and see. The report also talks about Singapore “been mentioned in the context of allegations and investigations in other countries”, such as the Unaoil scandal. If our companies and individuals pay bribes overseas or we allow subsidiaries of MNCs incorporated here to be conduits for overseas bribery, it will erode our reputation for low corruption.

While on the subject of bribery and corruption, I am delighted that CPA Australia will be organising an event with Front-Line Anti-Bribery LLC and Governance for Stakeholders where Richard Bistrong will be speaking. Richard violated the US FCPA and now shares his personal views and experience. I first got to know Richard online through his blog, and we have met several times since while I was in New York attending meetings. I am also delighted to be moderating a panel at that event. Other panelists will include a regional ethics and compliance leader in an MNC and a former Asia-Pacific CEO of an UK MNC who is an experienced company director. Some issues that we hope to discuss in the event include:

* Does your compliance function really understand the corruption risks that frontline business teams face in their work,  as Richard confronted during his career,  and which continue to exist today in commercial operations?

* Does your organisation understand the fluid nature of anti-corruption risk and appreciate the dangers of “vetting and forgetting?”

* Is everyone in your organisation vested in deeds and not just words in anti-corruption compliance? In other words, are ethics, integrity and compliance coming through the corporate narrative, as anchored to operations, not just the compliance one?

* Do you have all the risk assessment and monitoring tools you need to gauge risk, understand compliance gaps, and educate your workforce as to how poor decisions can impact the entire organisation?

* Are boards and senior management of companies adequately considering corruption risks in their business strategies when they do business overseas?

* What should companies do when doing business in countries or industries where bribes are considered norms?

* How do corporate culture, strategies, budgets and remuneration policies affect corruption risks and how can boards and senior management play an effective role in mitigating these risks?

Unfortunately, due to limited seats available, it is an invitation-only event and we expect an audience comprising compliance leaders, internal auditors, CFOs, CEOs, directors and other senior professionals.

I hope to share some insights from that event in due course.