World Governance Indicators: How Brunei ranks within ASEAN

In my previous posting I talked about why Brunei is not in the Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) ranking of the least corrupt countries due to the lack of the available data.  As a country we need a minimum of 3 independent surveys and so far I am told there are only 2 sets of independent surveys available. However, the World Governance Indicators (WGI) a research project commissioned by the World Bank did come up with some sort of an indicator known as the Control of Corruption.  The WGI captures six key dimensions of governance (Voice and accountability, Political Stability and Lack of Violence, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of law and Control of Corruption) between 1996 and the present.

The Control of Corruption Indicator for Brunei was based on 2 available data, Political Risk Services (www.asiarisk.com) and Global Insight Business Conditions and Risk Indicators (www.globalinsight.com). You can download a full report on Brunei by visiting (www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance) which shows how we fare in all the 6 dimensions of governance. The website provides an interactive database of the whole of the six indicators. However I am more interested to show you how we fare in the "Control of Corruption Indicator". Although the WGI does not rank countries, you can however use its interactive database to make a comparative ranking between the countries surveyed. So I came up with the graph on the left of the 10 countries that make up ASEAN for 2007 to see how we fare amongst our neighbours. We are slightly edging above Malaysia in number two spot but the graph clearly shows that we still have a lot of room for improvement if we were to compare ourselves with Singapore.  

Why is Brunei not on the CPI survey?

I often get queries on why Brunei is not included in the widely-known annual Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Survey Index (CPI). I myself have been trying to get Brunei on the Index as I would like to know how Brunei would fare in that ranking. I know I would be shooting myself on the foot if Brunei were ranked badly but it is obviously important we all know on the “perceived” level of corruption in this country. Unfortunately to get Brunei on the Index is not that easy as it may sound as Brunei is in that category of countries that lack the availability of independent surveys. This is because TI relies on other surveys. That is why the CPI is often called as “a survey of surveys”. What TI does is that it uses the data that are provided by other independent surveys conducted by institutions like Columbia University, Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Information International, International Institute for Management Development, Merchant International Group, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, World Economic Forum and World Markets Research Centre.
As a country, Brunei needs a minimum of 3 of these independent surveys and to date I am told Brunei  has not met the minimum 3 independent surveys required. I have been in contact with TI which is based in Berlin, to help us on this. At first I thought we could conduct the survey by seeking the assistance of our university as our appointed consultant. However, I was advised by TI that this is not appropriate as it may appear that we might influence on the outcome. I obviously concurred as they do have a point. If the result of the survey was in ACB's favour, the public would say that the survey was not independently done.

My criticism of the CPI Survey was that in the past, the experts surveyed in the CPI sources were often business people from industrialised countries. The viewpoint from the less developed countries was underrepresented. I remember attending a conference once where a delegation from Bangladesh stood-up and was critical on the CPI arguing that it only reflected “perceived” level of corruption at the point of the bribe takers but not at the point of the bribe givers. The person said that, the CPI only looked at the perceived prevalence of bribes on the streets when it was companies from the western world which bribe the nationals of the less developed countries.
As CPI is based on polls, the results are also very subjective, and less reliable for countries with fewer sources. What is legally defined (or perceived) to be corruption also differs between jurisdictions. A political donation legal in some jurisdiction may be illegal in another. Thus, the CPI must be understood quite specifically as measuring a poorly defined public perception, rather than being an objective measure of corruption. TI has now come up with more direct corruption-survey, such as bribe-payer index and the corruption barometer.
I am hoping that Brunei will soon be taken on board this more direct surveys. I am now talking with TI and will keep you updated on it, insyaallah.

Message from Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director of UNODC

Calls for Greater Financial Integrity on International Day against Corruption

BRUSSELS, 8 December 2009 - On the International Day against Corruption (which falls on 9 December), the Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Antonio Maria Costa, called for full implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption. The Convention, which came into force in December 2005, includes detailed measures to prevent and fight corruption applicable to both the private and public sectors. There are 128 Parties.

"Governments and banks should make better use of the United Nations Convention against Corruption to restore confidence in the international financial system. The world's anti-corruption treaty should be the basis for strengthening integrity and oversight and curbing economic crime", said the Executive Director of UNODC.

"Not only is corruption destroying jobs, productivity and markets in the developed world, it is stealing development assistance from the world's poorest people in developing countries, making it harder to achieve the Millennium Development Goals", said Mr. Costa. "If more governments and businesses implemented the Convention we wouldn't be in such a mess", he said.

Mr. Franz-Hermann Brüner, Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) underlined the growing operational collaboration between OLAF and the UN. "It is a privilege for OLAF to contribute to UNODC's international campaign against corruption because raising public awareness of this problem - also with the support of the OLAF Anti-Fraud Communicators Network (OAFCN) - is a key to bringing about its prevention", said Mr. Brüner.

Mr. Martin Kreutner, Chair of the European Partners against Corruption (EPAC) and Director of the Austrian Federal Bureau for Internal Affairs highlighted international cooperation as "a key component in the fight against corruption since corruption hits us all". He stressed the need for partnership, "not only for the investigational side of the phenomenon but also for the preventive and educational spheres."

In addition to trying to prevent corruption, the UN is helping states recover money that has been stolen. One year ago, the World Bank and UNODC launched the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (StAR) to help developing countries recover stolen assets and the developed world - particularly financial centres - to eliminate barriers to returning these assets. "The barriers to asset recovery are coming down: the days of banking secrecy are over", said Mr. Costa.

To train a new generation of corruption busters, an International anti-Corruption Academy will open in Laxenburg, Austria in 2009.

Link to UNODC campaign " Your 'no'counts"

Courtesy of UNODC

official message in conjunction with the International Anti Corruption Day 9 December 2008

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim.  We are grateful to Allah SWT the Almighty for granting us this opportunity to celebrate this auspicious event, the International Day Against Corruption in Brunei Darussalam together with other communities all over the world.  On this special occasion, I wish to recall the Titah of our beloved ruler, His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam, given in conjunction with the commencement of the New Year 2008. Amongst others, His Majesty stressed that every member of the society in Brunei Darussalam must be united in their effort to combat the scourge of corruption. Corruption according to His Majesty is like a disease, it will eventually erode and damage our national and social progress if we fail to close all the doors that will provide the opportunity for it to flourish. Furthermore, His Majesty also reiterated that any act of corruption or bribery should not be taken lightly even though the amount involved may seem to be small and insignificant. His Majesty added that, it is the duty and responsibility of every member of the Public Service to ensure that the administration and management of the Public Body is really clean from any form of corruption.  The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Brunei Darussalam which was founded in 1982 is now 26 years old. Ever since its establishment, ACB has faced diverse challenges while at the same time we have also achieved some commendable progress with regard to our duties and undertakings as one of the many entrusted law enforcement agencies in Brunei Darussalam.  In 2008 ACB to date has received 189 information and complaints from members of the public out of which 64 Investigation Papers were opened. Meanwhile, 14 completed Investigation Papers were forwarded to the office of the Attorney General and 4 cases investigated by ACB were referred to various Ministries and Departments for their appropriate action. This year ACB has also succeeded in having several cases dealt with by the judiciary. A total of 15 cases are now being heard or ‘on trial’ out of which 4 cases are those completed and forwarded this year.  At this juncture, I would like to take the opportunity to express my sincere and utmost appreciation to all the members of the Civil Service as well as members of the public and individuals, who have relentlessly extended their support and trust upon the Anti-Corruption Bureau in our duty to detect and eradicate corrupt practices in Brunei Darussalam. It is hoped that such assistance and strong support can be further enhanced for the purpose of improving the image, integrity and credibility of Brunei Darussalam which we all love dearly. I also wish to reiterate our commitment to investigate into any cases of corruption in a just and fair manner without fear or favour. Members of the public can also be rest assured that ACB will deal with their information and complaint with utmost confidentiality and impartiality.  As a result of the rapid progress in the globalisation of trade and services, ACB has therefore faced several new challenges, especially in ensuring that the much cherished peace, progress and prosperity of our nation are not threatened and compromised by any elements that would take advantage to enrich and profit themselves by criminal means, especially through bribery and corruption. Meanwhile, in the midst of rapidly expanding use of ICT as well as the reasonably easy and cheaper means of travelling abroad, the margin of success for an enforcement agency such as the ACB will be much curtailed and its effort become less effective in dealing with cases which involve the use of sophisticated electronic and communication devices and at the same time where the perpetrators are no longer constrained within a single geopolitical boundary. Therefore, future successes will also depend on the ACB being able to acquire mutual support and partnerships with other regional and international like minded agencies. The exchange of knowledge, expertise and best practices with such foreign partners go a long way in enhancing our overall effectiveness, success and credibility. Touching on this issue, we are grateful that the ACB has been successful in establishing close relationship and cooperation with both regional and international partners and organisations. For instance, through our Bilateral Cooperation with the Anti-Corruption Agency, Malaysia as well as the Multilateral Cooperation with anti-corruption agencies from seven countries within ASEAN namely, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and the Republic of Indonesia which are presently grouped under the name of South East Asia Parties Against Corruption or SEA-PAC. It is hoped that one day all the relevant anti-corruption agencies from all members of ASEAN will be partners in this worthy cause.  Meanwhile, in the international perspective, we are very grateful that by the consent of His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam, last year ACB was admitted as a member of the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (IAACA) which comprises 137 anti-corruption agencies from all over the world.  In addition, Brunei Darussalam signed the United Nations Convention (UNCAC) against Corruption on 11 December 2003 during the High Level Political Meeting for the Signing of the United Nations Convention against Corruption in Merida, Mexico. In December 2005, UNCAC became the first legally binding, global anti-corruption agreement. His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam in October this year has graciously consented for Brunei Darussalam to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. Therefore with such participations and partnership established both regionally and internationally, ACB will be able to become a more dynamic, effective and credible agency in its endeavour to fight against the scourge of corruption either within or outside Brunei Darussalam.  Finally, let us be united and continue to work together and improve our effort towards ensuring that our beloved country Brunei Darussalam will continue to enjoy lasting peace, harmony and prosperity which are free from the threat that comes from bribery and corruption. This is also in keeping with our national pillar of Melayu Islam Beraja, whereby in Islam, it is clearly stated that Allah SWT the Almighty, condemns and abhors any form of bribery and corruption.  Thank you and say ‘NO’ to Corruption.  ‘Together In Building the Nation by Avoiding Corrupt Practices’

Making a case against corruption in the private sector: Your NO also count!

Just earlier this year His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan in his new year Titah (speech), had made it clear that fighting corruption is everyone’s responsibility. Here I want to make a case that fighting corruption should also be borne by the private sector. Your NO to corruption also count.  

In 2004, at the UN Global Compact Leaders Summit it was announced that the UN Global Compact should include a tenth principle against corruption. The principle states that  "Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery."  This principle makes it clear that the business community must also play its part in the fight against corruption.  It’s all too easy for one to blame that it is inefficiencies and too much red tape in the delivery of public service that encourage corruption in the public sector.   Whilst I do not deny this fact but I have seen that the resulting corruptions are often described as petty bribes which of course are still punishable under our laws. I find it however very difficult to attach the same blame when it comes to corruptions that occur in the procurement sector.  All too often I am seeing that it is pure greed that drives why business vendors are willing to commit corrupt practices.  There are those who are willing to go all the way at any cost to ensure that they would get the Government tenders even at the expense of ignoring whether their conduct is ethical or not.  Their argument is simple “if we don’t do it, others will”

There are more businesses in Brunei which are registered as self-proprietorships under the Business Names Act as opposed to companies registered under the Companies Act. Few actually audit their accounts and the businesses registered under the Business Names Act are not required to file any tax returns.  Good governance is therefore still a foreign word to most of these businesses let alone having anti-corruption policies. I realise convincing these businesses to place ethical business conduct such as having anti corruption policies as part of their core business values would be an uphill task.  However, all is not lost. Bigger companies here especially big MNCs like international financial institutions which have branches here and the international oil companies have already put in place good business ethics as part of their core values and internal policies.  I am hoping that they will become examples in this good cause.  Already we are constantly engaging the private sector through the chambers of commerce and inculcate in them on the need to jointly fight corruption. We are encouraging companies to disclose what they pay in accordance with internationally generally accepted accounting principles. Here, I am laying out my case to businesses and business owners alike on why you must get on board and jointly fight with us against corruption.

The ethical argument

Corruption is inherently wrong and you dont have to wait until the Bureau catches you.  You can look in any religion or faith or in any language that you know, it is just plainly unethical. It undermines the integrity of all involved and damages the fabric of the society to which you belong. The reality that laws making corrupt practices criminal may not always be enforced is no justification for accepting corrupt practices.  Just like being honest and trustworthy as universal values that everyone must have irrespective of your religious view, fighting corruption in all its forms is simply the right thing to do.

The business argument

There are many reasons why it is in any company's business interest to ensure that it does not engage in corrupt practices. All companies, large and small, are vulnerable and the potential for damage to them is considerable. The following are just key reasons on why you should avoid involvement in corrupt practices:

Risks of getting caught

Regardless of what form a corrupt transaction may take, there are obvious legal risks involved. The Bureau places strong emphasis on law enforcement as an effective deterrent measure.  We will detect corrupt practices where ever they occur and we will strike hard.  This is an intended strategy.  We want to send a strong message that you will get caught and once you get caught, you can be guaranteed on the prospect of you facing the court and jail term plus hefty fines and possibly your assets confiscated.  You will lose your reputation as an honest businessman and your family will also suffer consequently.  The message is all too clear: DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN CORRUPTION!

Reputational risk

Based on the experience of recent years, companies whose policies and practices fail to meet high ethical standards, or that take a relaxed attitude to compliance with laws, are exposed to serious reputational risks. Often it is enough to be accused of malpractice for a reputation to be damaged even if a court subsequently determines that they have not been involved in corrupt practices. It is of critical importance for a company to be able to quickly quash any unfounded allegations by demonstrating that it acts in a transparent manner and has in place policies and procedures designed to prevent corruption. The argument that although what they may have done may have been against the law or international standards, it was simply the way business was done.  Nor is it good enough to claim that other companies and competitors have engaged in similar practices. 

Financial costs
There is now clear evidence that in many countries corruption adds upwards of 10 per cent to the cost of doing business and that corruption adds as much as 25 per cent to the cost of public procurement. Your cost of doing business  would increase unnecessarily.  I often heard that in our neigbouring countries you can be sure to add between 10-15% in your business overheads simply to pay for “entertainment costs” which are basically bribes-in-disguise.  To the Government, the costs of corruptions would simply divert public resources from legitimate sustainable development. Just imagine if $100 million was allocated for public development and 25% of that amount was taken out just to pay bribes to various public officials then the Government would have lost in terms of an opportunity cost of using that 25% ($25 million) for other useful projects. For a start a school could be built for $5-10 million or a school computer lab for less than $1 million each!

'Known as clean' and repeat demands
There is a growing evidence that a company is less likely to be under pressure to pay bribes if it has not done so in the past. Once a bribe is paid, repeat demands are possible and the amounts demanded are likely to rise. Once you have the habit of paying bribes, you have become a habitual accomplice in the wrongful enterprise and it will become more difficult for you to say NO.  Conversely a company which takes a firm and principled stand against all forms of corruption will become known for this and the risk of its employees being exposed to demands will lessen.  'Zero tolerance is the only practical solution'. 

What goes around will come around
If a company engages in or tolerates corrupt practices, it will soon be widely known, both internally and externally. Unethical behavior erodes staff loyalty to the company and it can be difficult for staff to see why high standards should be applied within a company when it does not apply in the company's external relations. Internal trust and confidence is then eroded.  If you as the business owner can cheat the Government or behave dishonestly then your employees will then try to justify that they can also cheat or behave dishonestly against your company too.

Companies have a vested interest in sustainable social and economic development as part of nation building as it will also benefit you in the long run
It is now clear that corruption has played a major part in undermining the world's social, economic and environmental development. Many poorer countries are getting poorer because of rampant corruptions.  In fact the World Bank estimates the the worldwide cost of corruptions now exceed $1 trillion. If countries are poorer and the people are poorer, what business opportunities could there be?  Would you be willing to set up your businesses in the most corrupt countries say in Rwanda or Chad?   So it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that Brunei remains and continues to be prosperous.    I have visited many countries and see for myself on the impact of corruption that  affect  the very person on the street.  Resources were diverted to improper use and the quality of services and materials used for development seriously compromised. Businesses have a vested interest in social and political stability and in the economic growth of the country. Just look at the countries around us, many of their peoples have lost confidence in their Governments because of their corrupt officials and people in power.  This has led to countless public discontent and numerous public demonstrations. Once that happen the countries become destabilized and foreign investors lost their confidence.  The business opportunities would therefore become reduced.  

So please, come and join me.  Say NO to corruption!

Damned if we disclose, damned if we don't disclose

Since I took over the post at the Bureau, I have been trying to change the public perception that the Bureau is only targeting the “small fish” but never the “big fish”.  I was once sent an anonymous letter which in Brunei we term as “surat layang” (literally this means “flying letter”).  The sender complained that the Bureau appeared to only take on the “small fish” and never the “big fish”.  Despite several complaints, the sender claimed that the Bureau never took any actions against the person the letter alleged to be corrupt.  The letter ended with a question “ACB tidurkah?” (Is the ACB asleep?).  I can assure the sender of the letter that we do not sleep on the information we receive.  However, he must realise the distinction between what is information and what is evidence. Our courts do not convict anyone based on information but purely on proven facts or evidence. They convict based on evidence gathered by law enforcement agencies like this Bureau carefully presented by the Public Prosecutor.  If information is based on one’s perception or his perceived conjecture, for instance, if the complainant stated that the he saw a minister playing golf with a businessman and he drives many expensive cars, therefore must be corrupt, this is hardly evidence under our law.  It is definitely a good first information for the Bureau to initiate its investigation.  It would only then become evidence, if the Bureau found out say one of the expensive cars driven by the Minister was actually paid for by the businessman friend in return for a government contract awarded to him.  The Bureau would still need to prove the fact that the businessman’s money was infact used to pay for the car driven by the Minister and indeed it was “corruptly” received or accepted by him.  The Bureau would still need to prove in some form of evidence that the car was a corrupt gratification in return for the favour which in this case was the Government contract.   I can assure everyone, we do not reject any information outright simply because the information is related to a “big fish”.  But what I cannot assure is that the information which is purely based on pure conjecture or assumption would lead to a subsequent prosecution.

Anonymous letters form essentially the bulk of the complaints and information that we receive at the Bureau. When the Bureau first receives the information, It is always impossible for the Bureau to distinguish which information is genuine or which information is solely intended to injure the reputation of someone especially if it is sent anonymously. The Bureau has a permanent complaint evaluation committee which comprises of senior officers of the Bureau whose responsibility it is to evaluate the information that we receive.  Information is then valued in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.  If the information does disclose possible offences of corruption as defined under the Act, a decision is then made collectively by the members of the committee either to initiate a discreet enquiry, perform further surveillance or open an immediate Investigation Papers (IP).  This is done essentially to build up the necessary evidence needed to prove someone’s guilt based on the first information the Bureau receives.  As of January this year, every complaint or information that we receive from the public is entered into a computer system.  This computer system is a fully integrated information and workflow management system that allows every complaint and information received to be processed completely from the time the information or complaint is received until it is fully investigated (if the decision is to open an Investigation Paper or IP). The complaint or information we receive will be given a computer Information Receipt (IR) number.  This number is generated automatically with a time stamp and it allows audit tracking on how the information and complaint gets processed at the Bureau. This avoids the possibility of the information or complaint received being lost or simply not processed through. 

Because of the nature of our investigation which relies heavily on intelligence gathering, we have to work in stealth. I cannot blame the public for having this impression that the Bureau appears to be "sleeping" on the information given. The difficulty that we often face is how to strike a balance between the need to be transparent to the complainant that we do appreciate his effort in providing us the information and the need to ensure that the person investigated is not stigmatized as corrupt when his guilt has not yet been proven by the competent court of law.  The Bureau also needs to work covertly simply because vital evidence could easily be lost or destroyed if the person investigated were alerted that investigation was initiated against him. This is indeed a case of damned if we don’t disclose and damned if we do disclose.

Part 1: Seeking Hari Raya Sponsorship and understanding The Subscription Control Act

I have been receiving a number of public complaints that certain departments have been going around seeking for "sponsorships in kind" to host their Hari Raya functions.  This so called "sponsorship in kind" is sought for the lucky draw prizes that the departments will give out to their employees during such gathering. Apparently this has become a tradition in some departments to the extent that they do not see anything unethical about it. Their argument is that the sponsorship sought is only "in kind"(non-monetary) and they never force the members of the public to contribute even if these members of the public have official dealings with the departments.  Further, they argue they have already sought approval from a relevant Ministry in seeking this "sponsorship".  

I am trying to understand this argument better by first comparing the practice anywhere else. Obviously countries that are ranked as least corrupt do not tolerate this practice in their civil service. Unless our civil service is to be compared with Chad or Somalia and many more of the worst ranked countries then this practice cannot be tolerated and it ought to stop.  I am not here to be a party spoiler of sort and ruin the real intention why this sort of function is organised in the first place. Indeed departments and government agencies are free to organise their private functions that will help foster better relationships amongst the employees and staff of these organizations. I wholeheartedly think that this is good way to build better bond and affinity amongst employees.  After all its not too often that employees can get together in a less formal setting where you see everyone's faces sparkled with merriment. However there ought to be certain acts which are off limits. If the actions of the departments might bring their reputation and integrity into question then the best decision is to avoid the actions altogether as I always believe, it takes a lifetime to build a good reputation and only one mistake to destroy it!

I am somewhat baffled at how this "approval" could be given in the first place. Herewith I will try to give some understanding on  some of the legal positions involved.

Let me state this outright that as a legal practitioner and as a common citizen, I hold dearly to the notion that Brunei is a country governed by law rather than by men. When power is exercised by men, it must first be assigned to him by law. This is the basic tenet of the principle a country with a Rule of Law. This is the reason why our Constitution clearly states that the Government has no right to impose any kind of tax or rate on the people unless it is authorised by law. This is the reason why any Government department or any public office cannot impose any financial burden on the people unless it is authorised by law.  

Thus any department which attempts to seek for public contribution either in pecuniary term or otherwise it must first be authorised by law. The relevant law in this instance is the Subscription Control Act.  This Act lays out clearly how the relevant approval should be acquired.   The extract of the relevant provision is as follows:

2. (1) No person shall without the prior authority of the Minister receive or solicit contributions or subscriptions from any other person — 

(a) for any purpose deemed to be a public purpose under this Act; or 

(b) for any purpose which the Minister may by notification in the Gazette declare by any general or particular description or in any particular case to be a purpose to which this section applies. 

(2) A purpose shall be deemed to be a public purpose within the 

meaning of this section if — 

(a) it relates to an object or matter which is normally the function or concern of Government or of any public or local 

authority; or 

(b) it is charitable; or 

(c) it is for the benefit of any race or community within Brunei Darussalam, including a community constituted by virtue of residence within a particular part or parts of Brunei Darussalam or by reference to the members of racial or religious groups so resident:

It is clear under the law that approval must be for a public purpose or a purpose declared in the gazette by the Minister. A "public purpose" is further defined in the Act which includes a charitable purpose. (to be continued)

The separation of powers of those who investigate and those who prosecute

When the Anti Corruption Bureau was established in 1982, its mission was to ensure the integrity of the public service through the effective enforcement of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) by imposing punitive criminal sanctions against those who are found guilty of corrupt practices. This mission still holds true till this day and it is the main core business of the Bureau. 

We perform the tasks of investigating every complaint and report that we receive and complete the investigation papers (IPs) before we forward them to the Public Prosecutor.  It is the Public Prosecutor (PP) who is assisted by Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPPs) who assesses every IP that we forward and prefer the appropriate charges against the subject arrested in the IP. Under the Act, the sanction of the PP is required before every criminal prosecution can be commenced. This system ensures a check and balance between those who have the power of investigations and those who have the power to prosecute. 

There are more than one occasion that the Public Prosecutor disagrees with our findings which can result in a No Further Action (NFA) on the IPs forwarded.  The separation of powers ensures that no single authority has a complete domain on the way the criminal justice system works in this country. Personally and as a former DPP myself, I really honour this system as I know power corrupts and absolute power can corrupt anyone absolutely. I have kept reminding my officers that the system is put in place not to make our life more difficult but rather to ensure that our investigation is done in complete fairness. When there is an independent third party who assesses our investigation, there is always a conscious effort on every Investigation Officer to improve his quality of investigation.

Preventive measures on corruption

Our primary function at the Bureau is for the effective enforcement of the Prevention of Corruption Act.  This legislation is primarily a criminal law legislation that punishes anyone who is bent on corruption with severe imprisonment and fines. The position has always been that the Bureau will always take a tough stance against those who are corruptible. This zero tolerance approach has been the mark of the Bureau since its inception more than 25 years ago. This tough strategy is hoped to act as a strong deterrence against those who are tempted to commit the corrupt offences.

However as we all say, prevention is better than the cure.  All public servants must 

When can a gift be a corrupt gratification?

I am often asked this question when can a receipt of a gift be considered a corruption offence? well the exact question should be when can a gift be considered as a corrupt gratification? As public officers we will inevitably come across with members of the public who will give us presents or gifts in certain occasions such as your birthdays, their visit to your office etc.

There are rules in the General Order or Perintah Am which govern the receipt of gifts or presents given to public officers.  The General Order or commonly called the GO is the primary regulation that governs the conduct and discipline for public servants in Brunei.  This is a subsidiary legislation under the Public Service Commission Act.  As the name of the Act suggests, the competent authority that governs the enforcement of this Act is the PSC.  The regulation lays out carefully how public officers should handle gifts or presents.  The very basic rule is that you can accept gifts if they are from your relatives or friends.

However I should stress here that you are absolutely prohibited under the Prevention of Corruption Act if the gift is tainted with corrupt intent even if it is from your relative or friends.  Let me give you an example.  Lets say that my father gave me a rolex watch for my birthday.  It is obvious that under the GO I could accept it as my father is considered a "relative".  But if I knew that he wanted to give that Rolex watch hoping that I would stop investigating him for an alleged corrupt offence then I should not accept that gift as it is already tainted with a corrupt intent.  But how would I know that the gift is tainted with corrupt intent as intention is intangible? This is very true and in criminal law we call this the "mens rea" or the state of mind of the person who gives (in the case of the briber) or the person who receives (in the case of the bribee) .  To answer this question you would have to look at the circumstances the gift was given.  As a public officer you would know these circumstances. If you received a Rolex watch from your friend who is bidding for a contract in your department, that is one circumstance that the gift is tainted and you should not accept the gift.

If you received gifts from members of the public who have official dealing with you, even if they are your friends, then you must tread on this carefully as it is easier to see that the giving of these gifts as tainted.  This is because the members of the public who give you these gifts are expecting that their dealings with you can be "greased".  This is where the acceptance of the gifts can make you run foul of the law.

Section 165 of the penal code even prohibits you as a public servant from receiving anything of value from members of the public who have official dealings with you without any consideration or the consideration of which you knew is inadequate.  What does this mean? well to put this simply, if you were owed $500 from a friend who happened to have official dealing with you, the repayment of that debt to you would be an adequate consideration. Hence no offence is committed. But if the same $500 was given to you for approving a licence that your friend applied to your office even if you would have approved the licence with or without the $500, you would commit an offence under section 165 of the Penal Code. 

What is corruption?

There is no single universal definition of corruption.  But the simplest form of definition is "an abuse of authority or office for personal gain". Transparency International focuses more on the "abuse of public office for personal gain". The main law that criminalises corruption in Brunei is the Prevention of Corruption Act which can be found in Chapter 131.

Black's Law dictionary defines corruption as "an act done with an intent to give advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.  The act of official or fiduciary person who unlawfully uses his status or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person contrary to duty and the rights of others" 

Corruption involves the dishonest or preferential use of power or position or organisation being advantaged over another.

Under our laws, corruption is the solicitation, receiving or agreeing to receive, giving, promising or offering any gratification as an inducement or reward to a person to do or forbear to do any act, with a corrupt intention.

Gratification can be a gift, service, favour or any advantage, money, loan or fees, reward or anything of value.

So if a licensing officer asked for $200 or anything of value from you say, a top up easi card, he is committing a corruption offence.

If a police officer asked for $200 to let you off from a speeding offence, he is also committing a corruption offence.

What you must know about corruption offence in Brunei..

1. It is an offence to give or receive a bribe.

2. It is not necessary to prove that the receiver of a bribe is in the position to carry out the required favour for the purpose of conviction.

3. Any gratification received by a public officer is presumed corrupt, unless the contrary is proven.

4. Public officers under investigation may be required to furnish sworn statements on their properties.

5. You can be charged for possession of wealth disproportionate to your regular income.

6. Brunei citizens are liable for corrupt offences committed outside Brunei.