We do not foresee significant changes to the law. However, we do expect that the government procurement rules set out in the IM on Procurement should provide for more checks and balances and mitigating controls against fraud and other instances of non-compliance.

For example, in what is perhaps the most massive case of public sector fraud uncovered in Singapore, several officers of the Singapore Land Authority and their accomplices were recently charged with cheating the Authority of approximately S$12 million over the course of 2 years. The two senior employees were accused of rendering false invoices for fictitious IT maintenance and other services through various business entities set up by external parties. They apparently escaped detection by conspiring with each other and the external parties to circumvent the checks and balances that were in place. As a result, new roles and other requirements were implemented by the Singapore government in order to strengthen the system against similar crimes in the future.

Further, the Auditor-General's Office ("AGO"), which audits government ministries, organs of state, statutory boards and government funds on the proper accounting of public funds and use of public resources, has reported various instances of non-compliance with government procurement rules over the years.

In its report for 2010/2011, the Auditor-General notes that many of the lapses found in the audits are in respect of procurement, and arose when the fundamental principles of government procurement are not adhered to. Examples offered by the AGO include agencies "waiving competition based on weak grounds, setting an unrealistically short period for submission of bids thereby limiting competition, not giving equal opportunity to tenderers to revise their bid price when requirements were changed, and accepting a tender which did not meet tender specifications". In this report, the AGO found pervasive lapses in two projects undertaken by the Police Coast Guard, which resulted in the department "being grossly overcharged and making large payments for materials before delivery". Several agencies were also censured for providing inaccurate or incomplete information to TAAs for their decision on the acceptance of a tender. Since then, there may have been a tightening of processes to prevent a recurrence of such lapses. We note that in its most recent report for 2016 (accessible athttp://www.ago.gov.sg/docs/default-source/report/18599c06-73f0-4965-a32b-db9394110e4a.pdf), whilst the report had highlighted several lapses by various agencies in respect of procurement, procurement lapses were not specifically highlighted by the Auditor-General as a significant issue.

In any event, we expect that the Singapore government to continue to be vigilant and will continue to tighten processes to prevent a recurrence of such lapses.