CORRUPTION can be attributed to a COMBINATION of FACTORS: LEADERS LEAD and SET the Good EXAMPLES.
- Strong Leadership: The government’s commitment to eradicating corruption started with Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in the 1960s.
- Independent Anti–Corruption Agency: The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was established in 1952 to investigate and prosecute corruption cases.
- Effective Laws and PENALTIES : Singapore has strict laws and penalties for corruption, including the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Transparent Processes: Government processes are transparent, reducing opportunities for corruption.
- High Salaries for Public Officials: Paying public officials competitive salaries reduces the temptation to accept bribes. ( Note: Public Companies matched the salaries for TALENT retention)
- Public Education and Awareness: Campaigns and programs educate the public about the importance of integrity and the dangers of corruption.
- Whistleblower Protection: Whistleblowers are protected, encouraging reporting of corrupt practices.
- Judicial Independence: Singapore’s judicial system is independent, ensuring fair trials and punishments.
- Meritocratic System: A MERIT-BASED STSTEM ensures that officials are appointed based on ability, not connections. MPH 3 KEYS: MERITOCRACY > Best Persons to be Employed, or Involved; PRAGMATISM> Use what works, Capitalism or Socialism; HONESTY> NO Corruption. Salaries and Benefits Package BASED on ACCOUNTABILITIES, DELIVERABLES, OUTCOMES and SCHIEVEMENTS.
- Continuous Monitoring and Improvement: Singapore regularly reviews and refines its anti-corruption strategies to stay effective.
These factors combined have contributed to Singapore’s success in minimizing corruption, earning it a reputation as one of the least corrupt countries Globally.
Singapore’s LAW for Corrupt persons to PROVE Their Wealth.
In Singapore, the burden of proof is reversed for corruption cases involving substantial amounts of UNEXPLAINED WEALTH. The “Proceeds of Crime Act” and the “Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau Act” enable authorities to SEIZE ASSETS and CHARGE INDIVIDUALS with corruption IF THEY CANNOT EXPLAIN the SOURCE OF THEIR WEALTH.
Specifically, Section 43 of the Prevention of Corruption Act states that if a person is accused of corruption and is found to have unexplained wealth, they must prove that their wealth was acquired lawfully. If they fail to do so, the court can assume that their wealth was obtained through corrupt means.
This approach is designed to make it difficult for corrupt individuals to hide their ill-gotten gains and to hold them accountable for their actions. It is a key aspect of Singapore’s robust anti-corruption framework.
SOME CASES of CORRUPTION in Singapore
– Minister Tan Kia Gan (1966): investigated for attempting to assist a businessman in securing the sale of a Boeing aircraft to Malaysian Airways in exchange for shares.
– Minister of State Wee Toon Boon (1975): found guilty of corruption and sentenced to four years and six months in prison, reduced to 18 months upon appeal.
– Minister Teh Cheang Wan (1986): investigated for alleged corruption but died by suicide before he could be charged in court.
– Koh Seah Wee & Christopher Lim Chai Meng (2011): former Singapore Land Authority deputy director and manager sentenced to jail for cheating and money laundering charges.
– Peter Lim Sin Pang & Ng Boon Gay (2012): two senior civil servants arrested under graft charges relating to an IT contract.
– Bernard Lim Yong Soon (2012): National Parks Board assistant director dismissed and fined for lying to auditors about his relationship with a bicycle firm awarded a tender.
– Edwin Yeo Seow Hiong (2013): CPIB assistant director charged with misappropriating at least $1.7 million from the anti-graft agency.
– Lim Cheng Hoe (2014): former Ministry of Foreign Affairs protocol chief sentenced to 15 months’ jail for cheating.
– Victor Wong Chee Meng (2016): General manager and secretary of Ang Mo Kio Town Council removed from position and placed under investigation by CPIB.
– Rajkumar Padmanathan (2018): jailed 25 months and six weeks for 28 counts of corruption, cheating, and breach of the Official Secrets Act.
– Minister S. Iswaran (2023): arrested and interdicted for alleged corruption, with investigations completed and the case under review by the Attorney General’s Chambers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Singapore
Singapore’s success in minimizing corruption can be attributed to a combination of factors:
SAMPLE DRAFT LAW for Persons to PROVE their WEALTH.
DRAFT LAW for people to PROVE their WEALTH:
Title: Unexplained Wealth Provisions Act
Section 1: Purpose
This Act aims to prevent and combat corruption by requiring individuals to explain the source of their wealth.
Section 2: Definitions
– Unexplained wealth means assets or income that cannot be accounted for by an individual’s known sources of income.
– Declared wealth means assets or income disclosed by an individual in their financial declarations.
Section 3: Financial Declarations
– All public officials and individuals with a net worth exceeding [insert threshold] must submit annual financial declarations to the relevant authority.
– Declarations must include details of all assets, income, and liabilities.
Section 4: Investigation and Notice
– If the authority suspects unexplained wealth, it may investigate and serve a notice on the individual to explain the source of their wealth.
– The individual must respond within [insert timeframe] with satisfactory evidence.
Section 5: Consequences of Non-Compliance
– Failure to comply may result in:
– Fines
– Asset forfeiture
– Criminal charges
Section 6: Burden of Proof
– The individual bears the burden of proving the legitimacy of their wealth.
Section 7: Confidentiality and Protection
– Declarations and investigations shall be kept confidential.
– Whistleblowers and witnesses shall be protected from retaliation.
Section 8: Review and Appeal
– Individuals may appeal decisions to an independent tribunal.
Section 9: Implementation and Enforcement
– The relevant authority shall establish procedures for implementation and enforcement.
This DRAFT LAW serves as a STARTING POINT and may require modifications to suit specific jurisdictions and contexts.
15 Countries with Laws for Unexplained Wealth:
Singapore. The “Criminal Justice Reform Act 2018” introduced the “Unexplained Wealth Provisions” in Singapore’s legislation. These laws aim to COMBAT CORRUPTION, money laundering, and organized crime by targeting UNEXPLAINED WEALTH.
3 Key features of Singapore’s Unexplained Wealth Provisions are as follows:
- REVERSAL OF BURDEN OF PROOF: Suspects must prove that their wealth is legitimate.
- PRESUMPTIOM OF UNEXPLAINED WEALTH : If suspects cannot explain their wealth, it is presumed to be derived from criminal conduct.
- POWER TO SEIZE and FORFEIT ASSETS: Authorities can seize and forfeit unexplained wealth.
- Singapore: Unexplained Wealth Provisions (2018)
- 2. Australia: Unexplained Wealth Laws (varies by state/territory)
- United Kingdom: Unexplained Wealth Orders (2018)
- Ireland: Criminal Justice Act 2011 (unexplained wealth provisions)
- 5. South Africa: Prevention of Organized Crime Act 1998 (POCA)
- India: Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA)
- Malaysia: Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA)
- Indonesia: Law on Eradication of Corruption (2002)
- Philippines: Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (AMLA)
- Sri Lanka: Finance Act 2018 (unexplained wealth provisions)
- Kenya: Unexplained Wealth Declaration Form (2018)
- Uganda: Anti-Money Laundering Act 2013 (unexplained wealth provisions)
- Nigeria: Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act 2004 (unexplained wealth provisions)
- Mauritius: Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2002 (FIAMLA)
- Argentina: Law on Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism (2018)
USA LAWS related to UNEXPLAINED WEALTH:
- 1. Forfeiture laws: The Tariff Act of 1930, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Money Laundering Control Act allow for the forfeiture of assets connected to criminal activity, including unexplained wealth.
- Money Laundering Control Act of 1986: Requires financial institutions to report suspicious transactions, which can help identify unexplained wealth.
- USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: Expanded financial reporting requirements and increased penalties for money laundering and terrorist financing.
- Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) 2010: Requires foreign financial institutions to report assets held by US citizens, helping to identify unexplained wealth.
- Title 18, Section 1956 of the US Code: Makes it a crime to engage in financial transactions with the intent to conceal the source or nature of the funds.
In 2020, the US Senate passed the “Corporate Transparency Act” (CTA), which requires companies to disclose their beneficial owners to the Treasury Department. This can help identify and track unexplained wealth.
The US government is also considering new legislation, such as the “Enablers Act,” aimed at expanding reporting requirements for financial institutions and increasing transparency.
GUYANA President with Immunity from CIVIL charges BUT NOT CRIMINAL (Corruption) Charges
In Guyana, the Constitution provides immunity for the President from civil proceedings, but not criminal proceedings. Article 182 of the Guyana Constitution states that the President shall not be liable to proceedings in any court for acts done in the exercise of the office.
Article 182 (2) specifies that this immunity does not apply to proceedings for treason, treason-felony, OR any offense under the Integrity Commission Act OR the Prevention of Corruption Act.
This means that if there is EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION, the President can be tried in a Court of Law for offenses related to corruption, despite the constitutional immunity. The Guyana Parliament can also impeach the President for misconduct or violation of the Constitution.
It is important to note that THE IMMUNITY IS NOT ABSOLUTE and has limitations, allowing for ACCOUNTABILITY and CHECKS on the PRESIDENT’S POWER.
8 Former PRESIDENTS being tried for Corruption.
Here are some examples of former Presidents being tried for corruption. These examples demonstrate that former Presidents can be held accountable for corruption, even after leaving office.
- Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines): Tried and convicted in 1993 for embezzlement and corruption, Marcos was found guilty of amassing $10 billion in ill-gotten wealth.
- 2. Alberto Fujimori (Peru): Sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2009 for corruption, human rights abuses, and murder.
- Carlos Menem (Argentina): Served a 7-year sentence for corruption and money laundering from 2013 to 2020.
- Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Brazil): Convicted of corruption and money laundering in 2017, Lula served 18 months before being released due to a Supreme Court ruling.
- Park Geun-hye (South Korea): Imprisoned since 2017 for corruption and abuse of power, Park was sentenced to 22 years in prison.
- Jacob Zuma (South Africa): Charged with corruption, fraud, and racketeering in 2020, Zuma’s trial is ongoing.
- Omar al-Bashir (Sudan): Facing trial for corruption and money laundering since 2019, al-Bashir was ousted as President in 2019.
- 8. Rafael Correa (Ecuador): Sentenced to 8 years in prison in absentia for corruption in 2020, Correa remains in exile.
- “LIMA, Oct 21, 2024 (Reuters) – PERUVIAN former President Dr. Alejandro Toledo was convicted of taking bribes from Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht and sentenced to 20 years and six months in prison on Monday. The verdict marks Peru’s first high-profile conviction related to Brazil’s continent-spanning Lava Jato corruption scandal. Toledo, a 78-year-old economist who holds a doctorate from Stanford University, governed the Andean nation between 2001 and 2006.”
3 Former VICE PRESIDENTS being tried for Corruption.
Malawi: Vice President Saulos Klaus Chilima was arrested in 2022 over graft allegations, but the charges were later dropped ¹.
Zimbabwe: Vice President Constantino Chiwenga’s wife, Marry Mubaiwa, was arrested in 2019 on corruption charges ².
Guatemala: Former Vice President Roxana Baldetti was charged with corruption, along with former President Otto Perez Molina ³.
These cases demonstrate that HIGH-RANKING officials can face accountability for CORRUPTION.
GUYANA types of corruption that have been reported or identified are as follows:
- Political corruption: Abuse of power, nepotism, and cronyism within the government and political parties.
- Bribery and extortion: Soliciting or accepting bribes, especially in law enforcement, customs, and licensing authorities.
- Embezzlement and fraud: Misappropriation of public funds, theft, and fraudulent activities in government agencies and state-owned enterprises.
- Money laundering: Concealing the source of illicit funds, particularly in the gold and diamond mining sectors.
- Corrupt practices in the extractive industries: Bribery, fraud, and environmental degradation in the mining, logging, and oil sectors.
- Judicial corruption: Bribery, favoritism, and delay of justice in the court system.
- Police corruption: Bribery, extortion, and abuse of power within the police force.
- Customs corruption: Bribery, smuggling, and undervaluation of goods.
- Procurement corruption: Bribery, favoritism, and manipulation of procurement processes.
- Land corruption: Bribery, fraud, and illegal allocation of land.
- Environmental corruption: Abuse of power, bribery, and neglect of environmental regulations.
- Electoral corruption: Bribery, vote-buying, and manipulation of electoral processes.
- CRONYISM or POLITICAL CORRUPTION: Involves members of the Government’s cabinet and high officials. Known as the 3Fs. FAMILES, FRIENDS & FAVORITES.
These types of corruption can have significant impacts on Guyana’s economy, society, and development. Addressing corruption requires a multi-faceted approach, including strengthening institutions, promoting transparency, and encouraging citizen engagement.
Guyanese are saying, in the media and the social media, that, Cabinet Members are with Companies in VARIOUS NAMES to secure Contracts for themselves.
This practice is commonly referred to as:
- Self-dealing: Using one’s position of power for personal gain.
- Conflict of interest: Using a position of trust for personal benefit.
- Insider dealing: Using confidential information or influence for personal gain.
- Crony capitalism: Using connections and influence to secure contracts and favors.
- Nepotism: Favoring family or friends in business or professional matters.
In Guyana, this practice might also be referred to as “CRONYISM” or “POLITICAL CORRUPTION.” It is essential to note that such practices can undermine transparency, accountability, and fair competition, affecting the country’s development and citizens’ trust in the government.
In GUYANA , the STATUTE of LIMITATIONS for CORRUPTION OFFENSES varies depending on the specific offense and the legal framework that applies. Hereunder are three general guidelines:
- Under the Prevention of Corruption Act (1997), there is NO STATUTE of LIMITATIONS for CORRUPTION OFFENSES.
- The Criminal Law (Procedure) Act (2010) sets a general limitation period of 6 years for summary offenses and 12 years for indictable offenses. However, corruption offenses are typically indictable, and the 12-year limit may apply.
- The Integrity Commission Act (2019) establishes the Integrity Commission to investigate and prosecute corruption cases. While it does not specify a statute of limitations, it is likely that the 12-year limit for indictable offenses applies.
PHOTO: Corruption Do not Belong, Let Us Make it Gone. Peace, Security, Development: Stop Corruption’s Ravagement. Be the Change: Speak Up Against Corruption’s Range. Together We Stand, Corruption Cannot Land.
QUOTE ISLAM. “ Allah warns Muslims in Surah al-Baqarah verse 188: “Do not consume one another’s wealth unjustly, nor deliberately bribe authorities in order to devour a portion of others’ property, knowing that it is a sin”. For a Muslim who is a true believer, the warning is sufficient for him to abstain from any unlawful wealth.”
QUOTE HINDI: “ Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today.” Sri Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
QUOTE CHRISTIAN: The Bible clearly says that giving or receiving a bribe is evil: “You must not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and corrupts the words of the righteous.” (Exodus 23:8). This law is also repeated in Deuteronomy 16:19 where God our Lord says: “Do not deny justice or show partiality to anyone. Do not accept a bribe, for it blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.”
Onward & Upward towards, One People, One Nation, One Destiny.