Question:
Mr Murali Pillai: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether there remains any utility in maintaining the provisions in Chapter 9 of the Penal Code 1871 dealing with corruption involving public servants after the enactment of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960.
Answer:
Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law:
1. While the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 (PCA) is the primary anti-corruption legislation in Singapore, it is complemented by other laws that deal with related forms of misconduct, such as the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992; the Penal Code 1871; and the Customs Act 1960.
2. The offences under Sections 161 to 165 of the Penal Code deal specifically with bribery and other forms of corrupt practices involving public servants. Compared to the offences in the PCA, they are more targeted in scope toward tackling the various forms of bribery of, and the taking of bribes by, public servants. For example, Section 165 makes it an offence for a public servant to accept any thing of value, without payment or with inadequate payment, from any person with whom he is involved in an official capacity. Unlike in the PCA, there is no need to further establish that this was an inducement or reward for the public servant to act in such a manner.
3. Therefore, there is utility in retaining these Penal Code offences, which, together with the PCA and other related laws, provide a comprehensive set of legislative levers for corruption control.
4. That said, there may be utility in siting these Penal Code offences in the PCA. The Government will review this.
