Update on Internal Investigations into Police Officers Involved in Parti Liyani v PP 2020 SGHC 187 Case

I thank the Member for the question. In respect of the case, the Police's Internal Affairs Office (IAO) has completed its internal investigations relating to the Police Investigation Officer (IO) and his supervisor.

Generally, the IAO will take this approach: one, look at the facts of the case, the actions of the officers involved, how they have handled any lapses; two, listen to the explanations given by the officers; and three, assess and recommend the disciplinary action, if any, to be taken.

When the IAO started its investigations against the two officers, I made clear the following two points, which I have made in the past in the House as well as outside.

First, our approach must always be to do our duty, conduct investigations without fear or favour.

Second, at the same time, we do not look to scapegoat or act unfairly. We do not go out to blame and punish, just because there has been a lot of public interest in the matter and because some call for heavy punishment. We must deal with this case as we would deal with any other case, regardless of publicity. We must deal with it professionally and properly.

This is important for the public and the Police to know. Police officers have to often exercise their judgement and discretion in the course of their duties – sometimes on an urgent basis but always under some sort of pressure.

We want our Police officers to be confident in exercising their discretion, when they are performing their duties. We cannot fault officers, just because we think, with the benefit of hindsight, that we would have exercised our discretion differently in their situation or just because we do not agree with their judgement or exercise of discretion. And the officers must know that action will be taken against them, only if there are discipline issues or misconduct, or some breach. The management culture, all the way from the top, must be that we ask that the matter be dealt with fairly, be prepared to explain in public what action is fair and why.

The investigations in this case found that both the IO and his supervisor had neglected their duties. Neglect of duty means the failure to take proper action to perform a required task. The penalty for neglect of duty depends on the officers' degree of culpability and the harm caused by their actions. Penalties can range from a reprimand, or financial penalty, to demotion and dismissal from service. The maximum financial penalty imposed under the Public Service Commission (Delegation of Disciplinary Functions) Directions is a fine equivalent to the stoppage of increment for two years. There are, of course, other more severe penalties possible, under legislation, and that really depends on the conduct.

The IO who handled the Police report handled it as a routine theft case; and it was so. But there were some lapses. The lapses include the following.

First, the IO did not visit the scene of crime promptly to carry out investigation and gather evidence. This contributed to a break in the chain of custody for some exhibits.

Second, the IO did not properly verify some of the claims made by the parties during the investigation.

Third, his supervisor did not provide sufficient guidance, which contributed to the lapses.

The IAO also took into account the intense pressure that the IO was working under. He was handling many ongoing investigations, prosecutions and conducting arrest operations at the same time. I have spoken before about the workload challenges that Police IOs face. The only way to deal with this is to increase Police's headcount. We have not solved that issue yet. It is a difficult problem and not easily solvable because of the general manpower shortage.

In the event, a financial penalty, equivalent to the medium range, was imposed on both officers for neglect of duty. The Public Service Commission, as the authority for disciplinary control of civil servants, has concurred with the penalty imposed on both officers.

As I said, the two Police officers were doing their jobs under difficult circumstances and, up until this incident, they have discharged their duties dutifully. I have sympathy for the situation that they find themselves in. But they have fallen short of expectations, and they have been dealt with in the way other officers would have been dealt with in similar circumstances.

I thank the Minister for the clarification and the answer. I am heartened to see that we are putting our officers at the heart, front and centre of the things that we do, even during investigations. Our officers are all human beings. They face pressures of family, professionally and personally as well. I am heartened that there is some form of review on the workload distribution and the manpower challenges.

In this regard, may I ask if there are any avenues for our officers to escalate the pressures of the workload or the stressors that they are facing, both at work and elsewhere, within the institution of the Police organisation and the investigation body? So, whether or not there could be a bit more support in terms of counselling, mentorship, perhaps? I note that the supervisor in this case has been found to have lapsed in his supervision, but could there have been other channels of oversight or avenues for the officer to escalate those stressors and the pressures that he may face?

Thank you, Sir, I will make two points in response. First, we put the officers at the heart of what we do because there is something even more central and fundamental – which is public interest. The officers are there to serve public interest and if public interest is affected in some way, we have to take action. But the institution can only do well if the officers are treated fairly. The officers have to be treated fairly so that they can do their job and so that public interest – which is the fundamental, primary, central goal – is achieved.

So, it is not putting officers above the public but serving the public through making sure that there is a strong institution. And in order for there to be a strong institution, there have got to be good officers who know that they will be treated fairly. So, that is the approach.

On the second point, how do we take care of the officers, there are many avenues. In every context, there are officers' senior officers who are tasked to take feedback, collect, understand and, in fact, part of leadership, that has to be emphasised – not just in SPF, but in other places, too – is to make sure that the morale of your officers remains high. Surveys – both internal as well as independent – show that the morale of Police officers is high. And public confidence in the Police force, despite some scurrilous attempts by some third parties to continuously run down the Police, remains extremely high. Contrary to the way people perceive police forces in many other parts of the world, the Singapore Police officer is held in very high esteem, very high regard. And we have to continue with that.

As to whether we can do more, I have explained the difficulties. The fundamental difficulty is that there are not enough officers. There is only so much more that you can do when your central problem is that there is more work than can reasonably be done by the workforce we have. And I have said we do our best in those circumstances.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister on what he just told the House. First, he mentioned that the punishment that was recommended for the two officers, meaning the IO and his supervisor, was a fine which was equivalent to a stoppage of pay, or something along those lines. So, I would like to ask him whether he means that the officers concerned will not receive their pay for a few months. That is the first question.

The second question is, were the IO and the supervisor punished similarly? In other words, was one assigned more responsibility than the other and will one have stoppage of more months of pay compared to the other?

I thank the Member for that question. In context, what happened is that a fine was imposed on them, plus, in addition, a number of months of increment are forgone. So, there were actually two penalties imposed on them. The number of months differs for the two officers but, as I have said, it is at the mid-point of what could have been imposed.

And how were the two officers approached? On the respective roles that they played. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Home Affairs", Official Report, 14 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 47, Clarification section.]