Singapore’s envoy to UK refutes The Economist’s claim that CPIB cannot be independent
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Singapore’s High Commissioner to the UK said on Friday that the article misrepresented the process of CPIB’s investigations.
ST PHOTO: ONG WEE JIN
Follow topic:
SINGAPORE – Singapore’s envoy to Britain has refuted a “serious charge” made in an article in The Economist that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) cannot be independent because it reports to the prime minister.
The British magazine, in its issue published on Thursday, ran an article titled A Slew Of Scandals Puts Singapore’s Government On The Back Foot.
The article touched on the ongoing CPIB probe into Transport Minister S. Iswaran
Singapore’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom Lim Thuan Kuan refuted the assertions made in the article in a letter to the magazine on Friday, and said it misrepresented the process of CPIB investigations.
The CPIB does not require the prime minister’s permission for its investigations, said Mr Lim.
He added that the CPIB sought PM Lee’s agreement before initiating a formal investigation of Mr Iswaran because it involved a Cabinet minister. PM Lee, he said, agreed within a day of receiving the CPIB director’s report.
Mr Lim, in his letter, said: “No prime minister in Singapore has ever prevented the CPIB from investigating anyone.
“But even if the prime minister does not consent to CPIB investigations, under the Constitution, the director of CPIB can still proceed with the investigations if he obtains the concurrence of the president.
“This is a constitutional provision unique among Westminster-style democracies.”
He added that there are also safeguards for the appointment or removal of the CPIB director that require the agreement of the president.
In its article, The Economist also noted that the CPIB’s review of the rentals of two state-owned bungalows in Ridout Road a review by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean
It said: “The Senior Minister is both a friend of Mr Shanmugam’s and in the same branch of government. The case for an independent judge to be appointed to head such reviews is a strong one.”
In his response, Mr Lim said that in the case involving Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan’s rental of the two bungalows, it was PM Lee himself who had asked the CPIB to investigate
He said: “The bureau conducted a thorough examination and found no evidence of wrongdoing or corruption. The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) concurred with the finding.
“The Leader of the Opposition accepted the CPIB’s finding, stating in Parliament that he did not believe anybody was making an allegation that the ministers were corrupt.”
As for Mr Iswaran’s case, Mr Lim added that when the CPIB investigation is completed, it will submit the findings to the AGC, which will decide what to do with them.
He said the CPIB’s “fearsome reputation for thoroughness” means that few Singaporeans doubt its ability to see any case of corruption to its logical conclusion.
Mr Lim said: “This is why The Economist’s charge, that simply because the CPIB reports to the prime minister calls into question its independence, would strike many Singaporeans as deeply offensive and uninformed.
“Would The Economist suggest the head of Scotland Yard is not independent because he is appointed on the advice of the UK Home Secretary, in consultation with the Mayor of London?”
Scotland Yard is the headquarters of the London metropolitan police force.
Mr Lim also questioned The Economist’s claim that the CPIB lacked independence, given Singapore’s consistently high rankings
Mr Lim said: “The Prime Minister – as well as his successor, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong – are as determined as their predecessors were to investigate any case of corruption, no matter who it involves, thoroughly and transparently.
“Singaporeans and foreign investors alike can be certain of this.”
