Parliamentary Replies
Application of Section 165 of the Penal Code
14 October 2024
Oral Reply by Mr Chan Chun Sing, Minister for Education and Minister-in-charge of the Public Service, to Parliamentary Questions on the application of Section 165 of the Penal Code
Parliament Sitting: 14 October 2024
Mr Speaker, Sir. On behalf of the Prime Minister, may I have your permission to take Parliamentary Questions 33 and 34 on today’s Order Paper together? In view of Mr S Iswaran’s court conviction, various members in this House (Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim) have asked about the application of Section 165 of the Penal Code, and its impact on the wider Public Service. My response today will also address the questions by Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, which are scheduled for subsequent sittings. I invite members to seek clarifications, if need be. If the questions have been answered satisfactorily, it may not be necessary for members to proceed with the Parliamentary Questions in future sittings.
2. Mr Speaker, Sir. Let me first set the context. We expect individuals in the Public Service to uphold high standards of conduct, and this expectation extends to individuals carrying out functions on behalf of the Government, even if not directly employed by the Government. This is important to preserve the integrity of our Public Service, so as to maintain public confidence and trust.
3. Section 165 of the Penal Code is one of the legislative levers that are part of a wider system of checks and balances to combat corruption in the public sector. For an offence to be made out under Section 165 of the Penal Code, the following conditions need to be met.
First, Section 165 applies only to public servants. This generally includes public officers under the employment of the Public Service and various individuals executing public duties on behalf of the Government.
Second, the public servant must have accepted or obtained a valuable thing for free or for inadequate payment.
Third, the valuable thing must be accepted or obtained from a person whom the public servant personally knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any business transaction connected to the public servant’s official functions, or where the business is transacted by the public servant in relation to his duties.
In this context, a business transaction would commonly take the form of legal contract that is being negotiated or actively performed, applications for permits, licences and exemptions, and ongoing investigations or assessments by government agencies.
4. With these as background, let me address some specific questions raised by members of this House. First, Ms Sylvia Lim asked if the definition of “public servant” under the Penal Code is fit for purpose for an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code.
Public servants carry out a wide range of functions on behalf of the Government. The definition of “public servant” in the Penal Code is broad, so as to cover individuals who are entrusted with these public duties. I should also point out to members of this House that being deemed as “public servants” under the Penal Code also offers the individuals protection when they are carrying out their public duties because there are specific provisions under the Penal Code that make offences more serious when committed against a public servant. Section 332 of the Penal Code (voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty) is one such example. Under this provision, the offender will face a higher penalty than if he had committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt against an ordinary member of the public, with all other things being equal.
We expect high standards of conduct from all public servants. Accepting or obtaining gifts from a person whom the public servant knows to be concerned in business transacted by that public servant or having a connection with that public servant’s official functions is not acceptable in Singapore’s context. Otherwise, public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Government would be undermined. This is also the ethos Singaporeans would expect of leaders in all organisations, whether private or public.
5. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about the review of Chapter 9 of the Penal Code. We review our laws regularly. The Ministry of Home Affairs is still reviewing whether and if so, how, to port over certain provisions of Chapter 9 of the Penal Code to the Prevention of Corruption Act.
6. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim have asked whether Section 165 of the Penal Code may deter individuals and top talents from the private sector from joining or contributing to the Public Service. Individuals from the private sector who are serving as Chairpersons or Board Directors on our Statutory Boards play an important role in building resilient and effective public sector organisations. I do not think our rules would deter good people from joining our boards. On the contrary, if we do not have an ethos or system that ensures clean, honest government, we would not be able to attract the right people from the private sector to join us. I would also like to assure our Chairpersons and Board Directors that if they act professionally and with integrity, they have nothing to fear.
7. Ms Sylvia Lim has asked about the impact of recent developments on public trust and whether our anti-corruption laws have to be reviewed. However stringently we act against corruption, from time to time, individuals might fall short. When this happens, we should not have a knee-jerk reaction and immediately tighten or add more rules. Instead, we ask ourselves whether it was an individual or systemic matter.
If the rules were clear, but were flouted or ignored, what we need to do is not to adjust the rules, but to take decisive action against the offender.
If the rules were unclear, we should clarify or simplify the rules.
If the rules were too lax or it was a new situation not envisaged or covered by the rules, we should update the rules.
8. As I explained to members of this House in February 2024, maintaining the integrity of our system is a multi-pronged and continuous effort.
At the individual level, we must have the right ethos and values; understand both the spirit and letter of the rules; and uphold them.
At the team or organisation-level, we must look out for one another to minimise the chances of us being compromised, subverted, or succumbing to human frailties.
At the system level, we must have regular internal audits, external audits and have institutions like Auditor-General's Office (AGO) and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) to respond to issues not picked up by other layers of checks.
9. The recent developments show that we do not shy away from doing the right thing to uphold the trust that Singaporeans have in the Government, and this is what we will continue to do.