ST Engineering

(31-12-2014, 01:14 PM)Muck Wrote:

(31-12-2014, 08:47 AM)hurricane Wrote:

(30-12-2014, 04:21 PM)natnavi Wrote: I do not understand the law. Why are they being charged when they are the one giving the bribe. It is not ok if they are bribing government officials.
However in this case, they are bribing companies to win businesses for their own company. I see no fault in that. It happens frequently in the business world.

I agree. The recipients of the bribes are greedy and dishonest and in all cases, must have demanded the bribes before agreeing to show favour to the givers who don't have much of a choice in this competitive world. All they want is to win a contract or two for their companies. On the other hand, the greedy employees on the take are secretly enriching themselves, not helping their companies in any way. They are the ones who should be punished for being corrupt.

I respect both your views but I disagree. A bribe is an inducement for someone to enrich themselves by doing something under table or outside of a transparent process. That to me is wrong.

Hi Muck, I understand where you are coming from. In this case, the members of ST Engineering were not enriching themselves. They were enriching members of another company in order for ST Engineering to earn more.

(31-12-2014, 06:23 PM)LionFlyer Wrote: I hate to say this, but it happens and it happens in a lot of the developing countries. More than often, I've heard that Singaporean companies lose out because of our inability to "play the game" (most recently, in Myanmar by our "big red").

Agree with you LionFlyer. In fact, it is happening in developed countries as well. Just that it happens in a more subtle way. So subtle that if you are not the key person making the decision, it will be hard to see it. It can come in many forms. From the simple treat to a nice restaurant, to gifts for Christmas.

(01-01-2015, 12:13 PM)natnavi Wrote: Hi Muck, I understand where you are coming from. In this case, the members of ST Engineering were not enriching themselves. They were enriching members of another company in order for ST Engineering to earn more.

In other words, they were helping those individuals to cheat their employer. Does that sound right?

Since we do not know the detail of the case and the allegation is still not proven court, let's use a fictitious scenario for illustration: STE submitted a bid. X and Y are part of the evaluation committee. Based on merit, STE's was not the best proposal. X and Y, having been bribed, decided to award the contract to STE. Are X and Y not cheating their company? Are those individuals giving the bribe not guilty?

let's wait for CPIB to present their case in court? believe it will be quite detail and well reported in news as per previous cases,

Another point of view here is, should the company pick and choose which customer to work with? A client from China once remarked to my colleague that sometimes he don't know who is customer because we imposed strict legal conditions (aka black n white) to safeguard ourselves.

It's easy to take the moral high ground here. But are companies willing to walk away from a prospective client if he asked to be 'entertained'?

The bribe happened in 2004 and Singapore had just recovered from the the 2003 SAR.
ST marine should be in a very bad shape then and probably contracts were hard to come by.

I thought their jobs were pretty secured and they probably would still be paid if they had done nothing.
However, no contracts would probably mean that some ST marine employees would have to be let go to cut cost.

Anyway, I am not sure what is happening but it will be interesting to see why they did that.

(01-01-2015, 12:13 PM)natnavi Wrote:

(31-12-2014, 01:14 PM)Muck Wrote:

(31-12-2014, 08:47 AM)hurricane Wrote:

(30-12-2014, 04:21 PM)natnavi Wrote: I do not understand the law. Why are they being charged when they are the one giving the bribe. It is not ok if they are bribing government officials.
However in this case, they are bribing companies to win businesses for their own company. I see no fault in that. It happens frequently in the business world.

I agree. The recipients of the bribes are greedy and dishonest and in all cases, must have demanded the bribes before agreeing to show favour to the givers who don't have much of a choice in this competitive world. All they want is to win a contract or two for their companies. On the other hand, the greedy employees on the take are secretly enriching themselves, not helping their companies in any way. They are the ones who should be punished for being corrupt.

I respect both your views but I disagree. A bribe is an inducement for someone to enrich themselves by doing something under table or outside of a transparent process. That to me is wrong.

Hi Muck, I understand where you are coming from. In this case, the members of ST Engineering were not enriching themselves. They were enriching members of another company in order for ST Engineering to earn more.

Are we kidding ourselves ? When the company you are running do well especially so you are the one who enables it to secure businesses for the company, your future prospect will be Bright, Bonus will be rewarding and Share Options will be flowing into your pocket.

Very interesting discussion here. I always start with definition, so what corruption means under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA)?

I hate law clauses, it is always more confusing than enlightening, to me. I would like to refer to a layman article on the topic from Singapore Academy of Singapore below

http://www.sal.org.sg/digitallibrary/Lis...hyWong.pdf

The definition is debatable, even among professionals. I refer to the following "tests" from our former CJ Yong Pung How i.e. ‘twin touchstones’ of corrupt intent and corrupt element.

"First, the giving must be accompanied by a corrupt intent. Secondly,
it is implicit that there must be a corrupt element in the transaction
itself.”

“(T)o my mind, I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that
there is a corrupt element in the transaction and a corrupt intent
present on the part of the person giving.”

A biz transaction, with "rebate" involved, but without a proven "corrupt intent", it is just a usual mutually beneficial business arrangement. Secrecy in the payments also a good indicator for corruption.

We need to be clear, otherwise it will become an obstacle in business dealings.

(02-01-2015, 09:53 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: Very interesting discussion here. I always start with definition, so what corruption means under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA)?

I hate law clauses, it is always more confusing than enlightening, to me. I would like to refer to a layman article on the topic from Singapore Academy of Singapore below

http://www.sal.org.sg/digitallibrary/Lis...hyWong.pdf

The definition is debatable, even among professionals. I refer to the following "tests" from our former CJ Yong Pung How i.e. ‘twin touchstones’ of corrupt intent and corrupt element.

"First, the giving must be accompanied by a corrupt intent. Secondly,
it is implicit that there must be a corrupt element in the transaction
itself.”

“(T)o my mind, I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that
there is a corrupt element in the transaction and a corrupt intent
present on the part of the person giving.”

A biz transaction, with "rebate" involved, but without a proven "corrupt intent", it is just a usual mutually beneficial business arrangement. Secrecy in the payments also a good indicator for corruption.

We need to be clear, otherwise it will become an obstacle in business dealings.

I find this segment interesting though.

"
The starting point of our enquiry is the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(Cap. 241) Section 53 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) states
that:–

Any person who shall by himself or by or in conjunction with any
other person —

corruptly solicit or receive, or agree to receive for himself,
or for any other person;

or

corruptly give, promise or offer to any person whether for
the benefit of that person or of another person

"

(02-01-2015, 10:03 AM)corydorus Wrote:

(02-01-2015, 09:53 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: Very interesting discussion here. I always start with definition, so what corruption means under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA)?

I hate law clauses, it is always more confusing than enlightening, to me. I would like to refer to a layman article on the topic from Singapore Academy of Singapore below

http://www.sal.org.sg/digitallibrary/Lis...hyWong.pdf

The definition is debatable, even among professionals. I refer to the following "tests" from our former CJ Yong Pung How i.e. ‘twin touchstones’ of corrupt intent and corrupt element.

"First, the giving must be accompanied by a corrupt intent. Secondly,
it is implicit that there must be a corrupt element in the transaction
itself.”

“(T)o my mind, I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that
there is a corrupt element in the transaction and a corrupt intent
present on the part of the person giving.”

A biz transaction, with "rebate" involved, but without a proven "corrupt intent", it is just a usual mutually beneficial business arrangement. Secrecy in the payments also a good indicator for corruption.

We need to be clear, otherwise it will become an obstacle in business dealings.

I find this segment interesting though.

"
The starting point of our enquiry is the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(Cap. 241) Section 53 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) states
that:–

Any person who shall by himself or by or in conjunction with any
other person —

corruptly solicit or receive, or agree to receive for himself,
or for any other person;

or

corruptly give, promise or offer to any person whether for
the benefit of that person or of another person

"

The debate-able one is the determination of "corruptly"...