Public Sector (Governance) Bill

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this important Bill, which I support on three counts, focused on the data section.

Firstly, the need to improve governance. Streamlining processes in the Public Service would have obvious benefits to the public and make governance more efficient and effective. Let me share some areas where I propose this can be done.

From a public perspective, it can be frustrating, and I know many residents as well as businesses are often frustrated when Government agencies lob them from department to department and sometimes even Members of Parliament (MPs) are not immune to this. To make an application or appeal, one has to go online to different websites or to different departments to get the relevant documentation because the information among the different agencies cannot be shared.

Thus, I am sure that the public will welcome this move if they can see the direct benefits that it brings them in transacting with the Government and in how they use various Government services. I hope that with the implementation of this Bill, the Government will prioritise to start with areas that can have significant social impact, especially those for the low-income, seniors and the under-privileged. I see many possibilities that data sharing can make living better for the under-privileged and those in need.

Very often, I have had residents coming to our Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) for help, especially for welfare appeals, home purchases and other declarations needed, such as immigration applications, where documents and statements are asked each time they make an appeal, whether it is CPF records, income statements, certified medical certificates and so forth.

Too often, many give up on these schemes or benefits because of the long process and when data and document sharing becomes onerous. The family situation for those in need is not always so straightforward. Family members may be difficult to locate and sometimes family members are also estranged. An example involves Government assistance schemes that need salary declarations to determine household income, but the Government may already have had some salary information either through income tax declarations or CPF contributions.

I ask that officers handling such sensitive cases for welfare, housing and health subsidies be given greater access to data to make decisions more easily and, more importantly, to reduce the burden on the residents to keep providing updated statements and data every few months when assistance needs to be renewed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that the sensitivities, as explained by the Minister earlier on, of allowing officers to see such salary data and declarations are, indeed, sensitive for the families. Thus, I have a suggestion. Can the Government work on a points-based system to determine the eligibility of citizens for various schemes, similar to what we do for credit scoring? So, systems can work in the background without having to reveal exact numbers to officers. So, in a sense, you go to the backend, get certain data, churn out a formula and, therefore, a score comes out to say whether a resident is eligible or not eligible.

So, officers making the assessments will see some form of points scoring to make it easier and quicker to approve one’s eligibility for a scheme. This will allow officers to make decisions without having to access actual data. For example, an agency can evaluate if an applicant’s household income exceeds the specified criteria through comparing CPF and/or Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) data, without having to be given actual details which will breach some of our laws. If the system can compute such a formula, this will help reduce trauma and difficulties by the applicant and reduce the burden on the processing for help. This way, more citizens will get help more expediently and with much lesser stress.

The second consideration is the possibility of achieving cost-effectiveness. In the sharing of data and making Government processes more efficient, would such services not become cheaper for the relevant agencies and, consequently, the public? I am not just talking about direct cost savings but also indirect savings in terms of neater allocation of resources, achieving optimal outcomes and leading to effective policy outcomes.

From the business point of view, for example, the amount of time and resources companies spend in administrative filings, whether for taxes, specific permits and licences or manpower quotas, can be drastically reduced through the sharing of data among Government agencies. So, I understand MyInfo is a good platform and I hope that more can be done, but also not in terms of pre-filling forms, when we were to carry forward some of these application data that was previously submitted.

In recent years, we have heard of many businesses attributing the low take-up rate of Government schemes and grants to complicated and long-drawn processes of such applications and reporting. Hopefully, we will see businesses more encouraged to do so now in light of easier data sharing among agencies, so they do not have to keep repeating their applications across agencies.

Last, but not least, the importance of taking concrete steps towards being a truly Smart Nation. Data and, more importantly, the insights that can be garnered from it, are proving to be critical and significant in this digital era. Companies and governments around the world are increasingly leveraging data to serve their customers and citizens better, and Singapore should leverage such capabilities to improve and enhance policymaking. After all, if we are truly driving Singapore towards being a Smart Nation, then the Public Service should be incentivised to lead by example.

I support this initiative to further our use of digital technology under our Smart Nation initiative, in areas that can better our lives, such as making our public transport services more efficient and enhancing our access to healthcare, amongst others. However, acknowledging these benefits, I would like to share the concerns I have on this Bill based on feedback gathered on the ground.

The main concern some have on this move is the perception that "big brother" is watching. How does the Government plan to assure citizens that they are not actively being tracked? While governance and transparency are areas to keep in mind, we need to be clear on whether the Government will make public on what datasets that the "directing" Minister has asked for across agencies, and what they will be used for. This is especially for datasets that will be used for proactive enforcement of citizens, if any, such as tax compliance or declarations.

My other concern is the erroneous or non-updated data on an individual or business which could work against them when used by the Government to approve applications for schemes and services. With this Bill, an outdated or erroneous data is now transmitted across multiple agencies. So, how can a citizen or a business find out whether the data that the Government has on them is actually correct and if they can self-update easily, without the hassle of checking from agency to agency?

Also, given that Government officers now have access to a full suite of data, which, put together with reasonable deduction, may lead to market or sensitive insights and the possibility of what some may call "insider trading" for use of information for personal gain. Will there be measures put in place for such officers to declare interests beyond the grade ones that the Minister shared earlier, and holdings of investment and properties? Will the Government also consider stronger penalties for breaches of data access or leaks so as to create stronger deterrents?

While the Bill covers penalties for data leaks, I do have concerns that, in recent years, we have seen Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) reports where data and systems controls remain a concern for some agencies. So, what additional measures will be put in place in terms of data security? Once data is leaked, even if we can penalise the officer, there is no retrieving the data back. So, I would like to know how the Government plans to balance security, governance and accessibility of data.

If these concerns are addressed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am confident that the Bill brings greater convenience and efficiency to Singaporeans and the Public Service. As such, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Public Sector (Governance) Bill makes interesting reading. According to the long title of the Bill, it seeks to provide for a consistent governance framework across the public bodies and to support the whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services. To this end, the Bill has several aspects.

On the one hand, it aims to standardise certain policies and practices that cut across the different public sector agencies, such as personnel matters, governance and managing conflicts of interests and financial administration. These are set out in Parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill. More critically, Part 2 prescribes the accountability relationships between Government Ministers and the public sector agencies. These accountability provisions set out how Ministers should interface with public sector agencies which wield significant state power over Singaporeans on a daily basis, how should Ministers behave and what are the boundaries that Ministers should not cross. I shall focus my speech on this aspect of the Bill.

Sir, clause 3 of the Bill states that one of the Bill's aims is to, and I quote, "clarify the accountability relationship between public bodies, their members, their responsible Ministers and the Government." As one would assume that the Government will not legislate without cause, I would ask the Minister to explain why it is necessary to clarify in explicit legislation the accountability relationships between the Ministers and the public sector agencies. Are Ministers or the agencies confused about their roles? Why legislate rather than issuing guidelines on this? Is there concern from the Public Service officials that they are being subject to political pressure from Ministers?

Part 2 of the Bill talks about Ministers issuing directions to agencies. However, the word "directions" is not defined. I note that under clause 9, it is provided that the directions may take the form of a circular, instruction or order. But clause 9 says that the directions may take such a format, not that they must take such a format. Is it safe to assume then that directions have to be in writing and signed or authenticated by the Minister? Can the Permanent Secretary, for example, sign off? Is there anything prohibiting directions in the form of emails or going further, can directions even be oral?

Part 2 envisages two types of directions from Ministers – directions for whole-of-Government approach and directions to certain Statutory Boards regarding functional responsibilities.

First, directions on whole-of-Government approach. Under clause 4, directions for the whole-of-Government approach will relate only to a pertinent subject matter. These pertinent subject matters are restricted to five areas as set out in sub-clause (3). First, employment, management and discipline of employees; second, management of official documents; third, financial and resource management and accountability; fourth, use or development of IT; and fifth, data governance and sharing.

Such whole-of-Government directions are to be issued by, I presume, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) or the recommendation of the Minister-in-charge of the pertinent subject matter. In addition, the directions can only be issued for the purposes set out in clause 4(2), such as securing economies of scale, efficiency of public programmes, ensuring business continuity and managing financial risks. Overall, I welcome the thought process behind clause 4 and the implied reminder to Ministers that directions should not be issued for extraneous purposes.

Next, I move to directions to Group 1 Statutory Boards. The second type of directions are to be issued under clause 5 to specific Statutory Boards on the performance of their specific functions. The Statutory Boards in question are listed in the Schedule to the Bill under Group 1A and Group 1B of the First Schedule. These bodies total 50 in number and include major public functions that affect the lives of Singaporeans across the board, for example, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, Central Provident Fund Board, Housing and Development Board, Land Transport Authority and Public Utilities Board. I also understand from the Minister that he would be moving an amendment in Committee to include the Group 1C public body, namely, PA, under clause 5 as well.

Clause 5 states that such agencies' specific directions are to be issued by the Ministers responsible for those agencies. Implied here is a drawing of a line that other Ministers have no authority to give instructions to agencies not under their charge concerning the agencies' functions. In this regard, it would be important to understand the spirit behind this provision. According to the Explanatory Note, there are currently inconsistencies and this clause will help to avoid duplication of laws. Could the Minister give an illustration of this problem so that one can better understand how clause 5 will help?

Next, I move on to limits on Ministerial directions. This is contained in clause 11, an all-important clause which seeks to limit the Minister's powers to issue directions to public sector agencies. Clause 11 provides that the Minister's directions must not be contrary to written law. A Ministerial direction is also not binding if it would impede or affect the performance of a statutorily independent function of a public sector agency or a quasi-judicial function of a public sector agency in a particular matter. To enable greater public understanding of this point, can the Minister give some examples of such functions? Earlier, I believe he mentioned the Courts, which are an obvious example. But it would be helpful if he could mention other examples.

Furthermore, should there be a doubt as to whether a direction from a Minister is contrary to law or tantamount to an undermining of that body's independence or quasi-judicial function, how will such an issue be resolved? Who should the public sector agencies complain to?

Next, clause 11(3) goes further to say that Ministers are not authorised to direct any public sector agency or any public body or public officer to perform or not to perform a particular act with respect to a particular person or persons. I have a few queries about this.

First, the clause is very widely worded as there is no definition of what sorts of acts are contemplated. Read literally, does this mean, for example, that henceforth, a Minister cannot direct a Statutory Board to scrutinise the accounts of a particular company? Does this mean that Ministers cannot instruct Ministries or Statutory Boards to issue specific media releases affecting particular persons? Next, which agencies are protected under this clause from Ministerial abuse?

Clause 11 says that Ministers cannot issue the offending directions to public sector agencies, which are defined in clause 2 to mean Statutory Boards listed in Groups 1, 2 and 3 of the Schedule, a Ministry or department of Government, an Organ of State, or a public officer or person as gazetted by the Minister. Public bodies are also mentioned in clause 11 which means it protects all Statutory Boards, even those not listed in the Schedule.

To be absolutely clear, does clause 11 apply to the Public Service? We just defined to include the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and the Police. Are these considered departments of the Government and, therefore, public sector agencies for the purposes of this Bill? This is important because if clause 11 applies to the services, a Minister would not be able to direct them to take particular actions, for example, to direct the Police to arrest a particular person.

Third, Sir, while these restrictions on Ministerial directions are impressive on paper, they appear to me easy to circumvent. For instance, what is there to stop a Minister from speaking to a public officer on the side to get such things done, thus bypassing the prohibitions in clause 11?

Finally, Sir, according to the Explanatory Note, clause 11 is there, and I quote, "to ensure that the public sector, like the Singapore Public Service, does not become politicised." This sounds well and good on paper and there also seems to be an assumption that the Public Service is not politicised. But with the public sector that has known only one ruling Party for nearly 60 years, how do we entrench a culture of political neutrality of the Civil Service in substance? How do we achieve depoliticisation in reality?

For instance, buried in our Statute Books is a piece of legislation called "The People Association's conduct and discipline rules". These rules expressly state that, I quote, "Every employee shall refrain from engaging in party political activity and shall maintain complete reserve in all matters of party political controversy."

Besides this, I believe there are similar pronouncements elsewhere. But are these quotes being observed on a daily basis? Are the Ministers themselves all mindful of letting public servants do their jobs professionally and not putting them under political pressure?

Sir, let me conclude. This Bill is an attempt to entrench the relationships of accountability and demarcate out-of-bounds markers for Ministers vis-à-vis the public sector agencies. That is certainly a good thing. The Workers' Party welcomes this development, after nearly 60 years under the same ruling Party. Nevertheless, as I have said, I have some doubts and concerns about how the Bill will be operationalised and what appear to be gaps that may allow the Bill's intentions to be circumvented.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. It is laudable that efforts have been made to establish a consistent system of governance across public bodies in Singapore as well as to enable a whole-of-Government approach to make policy planning and service delivery more efficient via this Bill.

Under the Bill, the Minister may give sector agencies directives to share information under the control of the sector agency with another sector agency to improve, whether directly or indirectly, the efficiency or effectiveness of policies, programme management or service planning and delivery by public sector agencies, whether by carrying out data analytics work or otherwise. This is a step in the right direction, especially as we develop Singapore into a data-centric Smart Nation.

Corporations are leveraging big data insights to improve their processes and bottom lines and spark innovation, the public sector can also tap on data to identify valuable insights which can be used to develop and enhance initiatives for public good.

As we recognise data as a valuable strategic asset, we have to ensure that data is not subject to abuse as the data residing in public sector agencies are personal data of our fellow Singaporeans. Data security must be a priority. I have a few questions arising from these concerns.

First, could the Minister share some examples of data sharing projects which are envisioned in the promulgation of this Bill, such as which sector agencies are involved in these data sharing projects, what are the objectives of these projects and the types of data that are being shared. I really hope provision of data and information can be one-stop so that we do not to provide the same piece of information or document to many different Government agencies.

Second, under the Bill, data sharing includes the sharing of information or re-identification of anonymised information under the control of the sector agency. Under what circumstances would a re-identification of anonymised information be required?

Third, are there guidelines in place to ensure that the collection, transfer and handling of data are secure, bearing in mind that the public sector is exempted from the provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA)? For example, data could be categorised by different levels of sensitivity and different guidelines on collecting, transferring and handling of data would apply to the different categories. Also, what safeguards are in place to ensure these guidelines are complied with?

As we embark on developing data-centric digital solutions to enhance service delivery by sector agencies, I would also like to ask the Minister if there is a framework in place to evaluate the costs, benefits and risk of data sharing projects envisioned under this Bill. What audit processes are in place to ensure that any automated processing of information and algorithms are soundly evaluated to minimise bias and error?

Are there are any guidelines for sector agencies to comply with in the implementation of initiatives which require people to engage in a new way with new digital channels? Take for example, the recent Centrelink debacle in Australia. Centrelink is an Australian government organisation responsible for administering welfare services. Centrelink had launched an automated debt recovery system which used data supplied by organisations, such as the Australian Tax Office, to match information recipients gave to Centrelink. The automated system promised to be more accurate than the manual matching process and would improve the capability for the identification and recovery of debt owed to taxpayers while avoiding mistakes that would adversely affect the recipient’s payments.

While the system resulted in thousands of debt recovery notices, in a significant portion of cases, there was no debt or the amount had been over-estimated and thousands of clients had to spend many hours and days disputing debts they did not actually owe. As clients were only given a three-week deadline to repay the debt, some were forced to repay debt they did not believe they owed because they could not successfully dispute the debt before the deadline. Service delivery was worsened and this impacted people’s trust in the government organisation.

Following a probe into the system, the Commonwealth Ombudsman found that the implementation problems could have been mitigated through better project planning and risk management at the onset. This includes more rigorous user testing with customers and service delivery staff, a more incremental rollout and better communication to staff and stakeholders. The Ombudsman’s report stated that a key lesson for agencies and policymakers when proposing to roll out large-scale measures which require people to engage in a new way with new digital channels, is for agencies to engage with stakeholders and provide resources for manual support during transition periods.

This is a key lesson which we can take reference from as new or enhanced public initiatives are launched further to this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Public Sector (Governance) Bill aims to harmonise the rules governing the operation of all public bodies in Singapore in respect of dimensions, such as the relationship between a Minister and the public body, values, data protection rules and so on and so forth. On the whole, the Bill marks a step in the right direction and I cannot oppose the Bill. Before I continue, I declare that I serve as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a research and consulting firm that has, on occasion, undertaken public sector projects in the past.

My speech will focus on clause 11 which seeks to limit the Minister's powers to issue directions to public sector agencies so as to reduce the risk of the politicisation of the Public Service. Clause 11(3) states that Ministers are not authorised to direct any public sector agency or any public body or public officer to perform or not to perform a particular act with respect to a particular person or persons. This is clearly a step in the right direction and I welcome this.

Having said that, I share the concerns and support the questions raised in relation to this clause by my colleague and party chairman Sylvia Lim. I shall not repeat them here but will focus on one additional consideration.

In Singapore, we have a history of public servants moving on to take up roles in politics immediately upon leaving the Public Service, primarily by joining the ruling Party and serving as MPs or Ministers in the PAP Government with little or no break in between. There would always presumably be some public servants who possess the necessary ambition, aspiration and willingness to seek to exit the Public Service and join politics and perhaps to become a Minister or even Prime Minister one day.

So as to increase their chances of successfully joining the ruling Party and becoming MPs or Ministers, such public servants may try to second-guess what their Ministers would like them to do. Even in the absence of any explicit instruction from a Minister to do the said act, they may then just go out and do it. The intended goal of such a strategy may be for that individual public servant to be looked upon favourably not just by his or her Minister but by the leadership of the ruling Party in respect of consideration for being fielded as a ruling Party candidate in the next election.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not arguing that this necessarily happens today, but it is something that may happen in the future. My focus is on the principle and managing future risks. To be sure, there would be nothing illegal about any public servant attempting to pursue such a strategy and this law does not change that. But is it healthy for Singapore for such a culture to become widespread? After all, becoming a Minister is an attractive career option for a high performing public servant as it means taking on the role of the boss under which he or she ultimately serves.

So, the incentive for such a culture to grow is there. And if such a culture takes root in the future, it would mean that the Public Service would become partisan and eventually and inevitably be seen by the public as partisan, which would be a terrible outcome not least in terms of attracting and retaining good public servants who have no wish to be partisan or to eventually enter politics.

To be sure, the risk of subordinates second-guessing their boss and doing what their boss wants in the absence of a formal explicit instruction is not new. In fact, it is a risk that has been noted for centuries in the context of all kinds of organisations.

I will cite one famous example from history. There is a sentence attributed to a former King of England from the 12th century, Henry II. He was supposed to have said in the council of his senior advisors and noblemen, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome Priest?", referring to Thomas Becket, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, with whom he had had repeated conflicts. This was not a direct order, but it is said that, upon hearing this comment, four senior knights attending the meeting then went on to kill Becket in one of the most famous political assassinations of medieval times. I cannot, of course, attest to the historical veracity of every part of the story but it is a story that has been told through the centuries to illustrate the perils of subordinates in any organisation second-guessing their boss and taking actions that they think may please their boss and even perhaps going to greater extremes than their boss would have thought necessary.

So, this problem is not a new one and not specific to any organisation or context. So, how do we prevent a culture of ambitious public servants second-guessing their bosses and take partisan but legally permissible actions which may, over time, tend to erode the reputation of the Public Service for non-partisanship?

I would like to make one suggestion here, which is to impose a mandatory time gap between when an individual leaves the Public Service and when that individual enters politics. In the debate on the Banking Act, I had asked then, coincidentally Minister Ong Ye Kung as well, if such a mandatory time gap, referred to in that context as "garden leave" or a cooling-off period, existed for Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) officers who wished to resign from MAS and join the financial institutions. He confirmed that such a mandatory time gap existed.

The analogy here with what I am proposing is not perfect. But it is useful to note that there is a precedent for such a mandatory time gap proposal. Imposing a mandatory time gap between when one can leave the Public Service and when one can join politics, say, three years, would give pause to any ambitious public servant who might seek to read their political masters' mind and do their partisan bidding unasked, so as to facilitate their chances of joining the ruling Party as an elected politician. He or she would know that they would need to find employment outside the Public Service in the private sector or not-for-profit sector for some years before joining politics.

Hence, there would be a period of time when they would need to find alternative employment and the fruit of their partisan action or actions could not be reaped immediately. And with the passage of time, the memory of their acts in the Public Service and their links to their former political masters may become more attenuated, thus further reducing the motive to commit such acts in the first place.

Imposing a mandatory time gap may send a signal to aspiring public servants that if they choose to second-guess their bosses and speed the path to a Ministerial post, the link between their actions and the hoped for results will be weaker than it is now. It may cool the ardour of such public servants to second-guess their boss and act for him or her.

Such a rule would also have other benefits than the one I have mentioned. It would ensure that future MPs and Ministers from the Civil Service would need to have private sector and/or not-for-profit sector experience prior to becoming MPs and Ministers.

The relative lack of such experience in the Cabinet has often been bemoaned by experts and commentators. In Singapore's first Cabinet, upon the attainment of self-government, the proportion of civil servants was far, far less than in the Cabinets that followed.

And the period of time during the mandatory time gap would also allow them an alternative form of employment to give them the time and space to reflect if they really do want to enter politics, so that those who eventually do take that step may prove to be more committed to that pathway. I hope that some form of mandatory time gap can be considered for ex-public servants seeking to join politics.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Public Sector (Governance) Bill's explanatory statement says the Bill is designed to improve the consistency of our governance framework for Statutory Boards by standardising and formalising several key provisions that have whole-of-Government importance.

But the spirit of the Bill was more ambitious though, particularly the use or development of IT, such as big data analytics, block-chain technology and artificial intelligence (AI).

Speaking at a technology conference last September, Deputy CE of GovTech, Mr Chan Cheow Hoe, suggested that the Government has changed its approach to delivering services in the past few years, away from a prescriptive view where "Ministries and the agencies know everything", in his words, to providing what they think "is good for the citizens, and somehow or rather people should accept it" in the past but now "the social contract has changed quite a fair bit". He says, "more and more citizens are very demanding”, and finally concluded that "it is really about understanding what people need at various moments in their life and delivering this service". I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Chan.

While I support the Bill’s intent to codify a uniform corporate governance framework for public bodies and the Public Service in the interests of consistency, transparency and efficiency, I have some concerns as to whether the Bill best furthers this aptly termed new "social contract" in public sector governance. My concerns are as follows, Mr Deputy Speaker, and allow me to take them in turn.

One, provisions, such as the Obligation of the Statutory Boards to keep proper accounts and present its audited financial statements to the Minister-in-charge in a timely manner, are straightforward. Apart from being contained in the Statutory Board's constituent Acts, there should be no question as to whether or not there is an obligation to do so. The same can be said perhaps of requirements of information sharing, disclosure of certain interests, and submitting budget estimates on time. What then, Mr Speaker, has prompted the Ministries to seek to further hard-coding Statutory Board obligations which implement Government policies and deliver public services?

Two, are Ministers concerned that there may be directions that have not been complied with by Statutory Boards? Have any Statutory Boards suggested thus far that they may choose not to comply with a request or direction made by the relevant Ministry in relation to “pertinent subject matter” as envisioned by clause 4(1) because it does not have or carry the force of law?

Three, are there specific instances of public sector governance lapses regarding certain Statutory Boards, such as perhaps the Land Transport Authority (LTA), that have moved the Government to highlight the importance of standardising, formalising and strengthening regulatory oversight? Have there been recent lapses in financial auditing or reporting to the AGO or other authority that are a cause for concern?

Four, is there any clarification on the mechanism for and the scope of data sharing under clause 6 of the Bill? Will further guidance be given to both the public sector agency that requests and the one that receives the data, and will any protective measures be available to guard against unwitting data privacy breaches?

Five, could the Minister give examples perhaps to illustrate the broad point that is made in relation to clause 7(2) on when, in certain circumstances, unauthorised data sharing may not be an offence? Looking at the explanatory note, it suggests that this may not be an offence if the “sharing may have been done on the basis of the common law exception of public interest”, and there could be a further elaboration on this point.

Six, is the position of CE within each public body a new point? How is this any different from the current position inferred to the top administrator who helms the very directorate of each Statutory Board?

Seven, clause 27 appears somewhat counter-intuitive. It says that even if a member of a public body does not disclose a conflict of interest or does not abstain from being involved in decision-making that might benefit him, the public body's decision remains valid. Will that rob the duty to disclose a conflict of interest of having any real consequence? Should any decision of the consequences of the failure to disclose not be made by a Public Service administrative tribunal, perhaps even a Court?

Eight, given the importance the Bill appears to place on data sharing for big data analytics, what are the benefits that the Government hopes to reap in sectors perhaps like healthcare, and how will it insulate against the risk of data privacy breaches?

Nine, the Bill seems to be silent on an important point, which is about whistleblowers. Will whistleblowers within the Public Service be encouraged to come forward? The Bill focuses on a policy change that the Bill represents but this would be an important component of that policy change. Individuals will not come forward to volunteer information if they fear that they would attract criticism or blame. So, it is essential, in the absence of obvious or serious wrongdoing, to encourage such individuals within the Public Service that there is an "open culture" of sharing and questioning, rather than the culture of blame.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, let us move to the situation where there is serious wrongdoing. We heard earlier this morning about Keppel Offshore and Marine's (KOM's) recent cooperation with investigative agencies both in Singapore and abroad. But I must say that this comes as small comfort to Singaporeans, who fear that Singapore's image regarding anti-corruption has been irreparably tarnished. KOM pays a large fine, Singapore pays an incalculably higher one.

In such instances, as far as public sector governance goes, could there be something that Parliament can do? So, I am not talking about the legal accountability, I am not talking about criminal procedure and justice, but is there a role for Parliament to play, perhaps within select committees or Parliamentary commissions, to look at situations that could guide Government-linked companies and Statutory Boards were there ever to be a situation where they would fear that someone should come forward to speak about a point or there is a danger of a serious wrongdoing?

A critical issue, Mr Deputy Speaker, and let me end on this point, is to identify why a hazard occurred, what factors – environmental, organisational, human, cultural – were potential causative factors, and how the risk of a similar event occurring again can be reduced. This requires patience to recognise that no system will be able to prevent every adverse event from occurring, that people should work together collaboratively to ensure this does not happen again.

This Bill gives Government Ministers powers to direct all Singapore public sector agencies relating to certain matters so as to “uphold the values of the Singapore public sector.” This includes powers to give directions relating to the management of official records.

Today, the management of public records falls under the purview of NLB, which controls and directs the National Archives of Singapore. NLB conducts a records management programme that includes the retention and preservation of public records. The Board has the authority to decide which records of the Government or another public office are of national or historical significance and should be transferred to the National Archives. No records of the Government or another public office may be destroyed or disposed of without the authorisation of the Board. Nor may any person excise, mark or otherwise deface or send out of the country any public records without the authorisation of the Board.

How would the proposed powers of the relevant Minister to direct public sector agencies or public bodies in the management of official records work in conjunction with the existing powers of the NLB relating to the retention and preservation of public records? Could the Minister clarify?

Sir, the proper retention and preservation of our public records are of great importance. Many of us tell ourselves that things may be the way they seem now. But time lends perspective and, with the proper keeping of public records and, in time, with greater accessibility to them, history can be the judge.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in reviewing this Bill, I cannot help but notice that some years ago when McKinsey came up with five main implications for the public sector moving into the future in a paper titled "Global trends affecting the public sector," there were five important and critical points which I think are relevant and I am going to share them today.

Firstly, we must radically increase the productivity of our public sector and public services; secondly, the Public Service has to evolve and change their relationship with citizens in order to address changing and increasing needs; thirdly, the Public Service has to redraw their organisation landscape in order to deliver high-quality services; fourthly, the Public Service has to achieve major cultural change that puts data at the heart of policymaking; and finally, the Public Service must find new ways to attract and retain scarce talent and thus there will be competition with the private sector. I agree that these five points serve as broad guides for us.

This Bill, Sir, aims to create a uniform governance framework across the public sector in Singapore. Many agencies currently have their own internal policies and guidelines, but this Bill will provide an overarching legislation and benchmark the standards of governance that should be adhered to. Can I please make some points?

Firstly, currently, various provisions of this Bill are already found in the constituting Acts of some public sector agencies. Examples are, disclosure of interest, proper financial record keeping, budget estimates, annual reports submission and so on. Can the Minister clarify for us whether some of these will prevail or will they be considered defunct with the new Act in place? The clarity will be necessary to ensure better compliance and adoption of this Bill.

In section 6 of the Bill, pertaining to the “data sharing directives”, can we have some more details on this? Clarification as to how it will be aligned with PDPA, where relevant, the scope of the information that will be and can be shared, and the mechanisms of sharing, such as will it be electronic, for example, and what protective measures will this be guided by? Also, how about compliance with the Protection of Secrecy Acts which Statutory Boards and Government companies have to abide by currently? Will we be seeing some changes, or will the clauses from this Act need to be incorporated into this new Bill that we are debating today?

With many steps in our processes in the Public Service involving human factors, we know there is a likelihood of errors happening. Take, the example, the recent Ministry of Education (MOE) school data leak. How can we learn from these incidences and incorporate some of the lessons into policy?

As across the public sector, there will be more handling of this big data, can the Minister share with us how all this data will be stored? Will there need to be standalone personal computers or other approved devices? Who will have access to the data? How much and which parts of the data are permissible for research purposes?

Also, moving into all these, will there need to be some informed consent, a generic one perhaps, by the public and users of the public services at some point in time?

Finally, with the better coordination and oversight this Bill has to offer, it is a strategic move forward. But who will play the coordinating role? Will it be the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI)? Or what about the the Smart Nation and Digital Government Office? So, perhaps some clarification on that as well.

I look forward to these clarifications with this important Bill. The protection against all and potential abuses and misuse are preventive steps and we have to incorporate these now at the planning stages before the final implementation of the Bill. I support the Bill.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied) (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, this Public Sector (Governance) Bill seeks to provide a consistent framework and practice amongst Public Service bodies. I support this Bill but, at the same time, I would like to seek two clarifications.

Firstly, I would like to request further information from the Minister on Part 5, titled Financial Administration, which contains clause 33 to clause 41. Based on my understanding, clause 33 states that the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), categorised in Group 3A Public Bodies, is exempted from clauses 34 to 41. Is my understanding correct? If it is correct, can the Minister provide the reasons for this exemption?

(In English): My second clarification is regarding clause 11. My colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim, had earlier touched on that explanatory note stating that the introduction of clause 11 was "to ensure that the public sector, like the Singapore Public Service, not be politicised". It would be much appreciated if the Minister can define and elaborate more on the word "politicised" as stated in the explanatory note and also to cite an example or two so that Members will have a clearer and better understanding of the phrase "not be politicised".

Additionally, I will share two scenarios and would like to ask the Minister to provide his views whether, in these two scenarios, the Public Service entity mentioned has more or less been politicised.

The first scenario, an individual who is a member of the political party and who contested but was defeated in the General Election who is now holding two designations at the same time – one, a branch chairman of a political party and two, as an advisor to grassroots organisation which, in fact, is a position appointed and endorsed by PA's executive board.

Second scenario, a grassroots advisor appointed by PA, a Statutory Board, conducts house visits accompanied by staff of Statutory Boards, such as the HDB, inviting residents to his MPS if residents require him to appeal on their behalf. Nonetheless, the MPS session is held in a political party branch office by the grassroots advisor who writes referral or appeal letters using a political party letterhead and signs off as the branch chairman of a political party.

As such, I seek the Minister's reply as to whether PA, a Statutory Board, which is a public service entity, is being politicised in the above-mentioned scenarios.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. Much good can come out of it, if we use it wisely, for example, the directions on data sharing. Although the PDPA does not apply to Government agencies, I understand that there have been constraints in the sharing of personal data between public bodies due to the Government’s own data policies.

From a social service perspective, data sharing has advantages. From the perspective of a client, data sharing enables multiple public bodies serving the same client to construct a holistic profile for more timely and relevant intervention and support. Data sharing equips public bodies to anticipate the onboarding of a client, prepare the relevant support, and monitor the progress of a client or a former client. This will enable public agencies to provide further intervention and further support. It also saves the client time and effort in having to produce the same information to different public bodies at different times. These are some of the advantages from an individual's perspective.

For public bodies, data sharing enables public bodies to develop more holistic profiles of the clients and their needs, thereby informing policymaking in the planning of services and their delivery, through analytics and research. It enables public bodies to better understand the trajectory of the clients, which would improve the planning of the respective downstream and upstream services and interventions.

From that perspective, I support it. There are, however, a number of concerns, one of which being how members of the public do not fear the sharing of personal data. We are very happy to give our identity card number for lucky draws. We do not realise that the giving of such important pieces of information for not so critical functions or purposes can do a lot of harm to us. I also wish to seek a few clarifications concerning privacy and confidentiality, security, non–discrimination, consent, transparency and accountability.

First, privacy and confidentiality. I would like to request the PMO to clarify (a) the scope of data that could be covered by data-sharing provisions. I understand it is not possible to enumerate but it would be helpful if we could have some indications; (b) when disclosure could be authorised; (c) when the use of information would be considered proper; (d) the consequences of failing to ensure end-to-end encryption or failing to ensure anonymisation of data that should have been anonymised; (e) the consequences of re-identification of anonymised information by a former "relevant public official". The current provisions, as drafted, cover only abuse by current relevant public officials; and (f) the consequences of unauthorised access to data. The current provisions, as drafted, cover only unauthorised disclosure or use.

Next, security. Members of the public, some of us would be concerned with security breaches, including hacking. Would PMO address this concern? Could the Minister also address obligations to report security breaches to the appropriate Minister as well as the requirement to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation as soon as practicable?

A third consideration would be non-discrimination. Would we consider a provision regulating the manner in which shared data would be used to address concerns of possible discrimination? Anonymised shared data should be used in a manner that is not discriminatory or stigmatising to persons to whom the data relate.

Consent. I have noted the impracticalities of obtaining consent. Would the Minister clarify if there could be circumstances under which informed consent or opting out may be provided for?

In terms of transparency and accountability, these would also be a big concern. How would the Government propose to inform members of the public about the sharing, analysis, use of and access to their personal data? For example, some may be afraid of unlawful surveillance. I hope the Minister would address these concerns.

In determining guidelines for data-sharing, perhaps we could also have reference to the Caldicott principles. These are principles in the Caldicott Committee’s Report on the Review of Patient-Identifiable Information. It is a United Kingdom committee and the report may serve as a reference for us. A few of the principles are as follows: the proposed access to, sharing of or use of the information should be justified and only allowed if it is necessary; the amount of identifiable information to be shared should be kept as minimal as possible. As noted in the earlier portion of my speech, greater clarity is requested and we hope to hear more from the Minister.

In relation to Part 4 of the Bill, given that non-disclosure of a conflict of interest is a serious matter, what is the position of the Government in this respect, and is there a particular reason why there is no specific provision to penalise non-disclosure?

In relation to section 40, I noted the Minister's comments earlier that he would be seeking an amendment at the Committee stage. I am not sure if the amendments would include section 40. If not, I would request for clarification as to the exemption of PA from the requirements of that provision.

Having sought the clarifications, Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to now make some general comments.

The long title of the Bill reads, "An Act to provide for a consistent governance framework across public bodies in Singapore and to support a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services in the Singapore public sector, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts."

I am curious why the reference to a consistent governance framework in the long title refers only to public bodies and not to Singapore public service agencies as a whole.

I also note that in section 3 of the Bill, the purposes of the Bill are stated as follows: (a) to establish a consistent system of governance and accountability across public bodies in Singapore that meets high standards of accountability; (b) to clarify the accountability relationship between public bodies, the members, the responsible Ministers and the Government; and (c) to require and support a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services in the Singapore public sector.

This is an important piece of legislation. I support it. It can potentially change the landscape of Public Service agencies in Singapore, creating Public Service agencies more effective and competent than many others in other countries. But if this piece of legislation is inadequately understood or executed, it will fall to be another set of compliance burden.

It is noted that the Bill does not require and support a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services by the public sector to the public. One would have thought that in times like these, given the complexity of the issues facing Singapore, given that it is no longer possible for a single Ministry or a single public agency to adequately address such issues, the Government might wish to enshrine the principle of a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services to the Singapore public within the same piece of legislation. This would have set a very clear context for the legislation and the implementation to follow.

Somewhat disappointingly, also, this piece of legislation appears to embody the form but not the spirit of public service. It sets out a framework that is forward-looking and relevant to the complexity of issues faced by our country. It shows a clear legislative will to hold the public sector to high standards of governance and accountability, and I applaud and commend the Government and the public service sector for initiating and putting the proposed legislation before Parliament. But this is not sufficient. Public service is not about a set of regulations. It is about the people within the public service sector, and the people for whom the public sector exists.

Developing and implementing a consistent system of governance and accountability, meeting high standards of accountability are worthy aspirations, soon to be legislated. They are fundamental and integral to an effective and impactful Public Service, and they are integral to public trust. But they are not our end goals. Our end goal is to serve the Singapore public.

Likewise, developing and implementing a whole-of-Government approach in the delivery of services in the Singapore public sector is integral to an effective and impactful Public Service. But it is not our end goal. Our end goal is to serve the Singapore public.

This is an important piece of legislation. It can potentially revolutionise the delivery of public sector services and shape the public sector to come. I would submit that it should at least enshrine two cardinal principles of public service.

Firstly, that the Singapore public sector exists to serve the Singapore public.

Secondly, the Singapore public sector must, beyond strengthening its systemic integrity, be comprised of individuals with uncompromising integrity, a dedication to his/her calling, an unshakeable commitment to the good of Singapore.

The first cardinal principle, that is, the public service exists to serve the public, that principle must set the tone and context for the subsidiary legislation, policies, instruction manuals and the implementation to follow. This cardinal principle will be a constant reminder to public servants of a higher duty of accountability to the Singapore public, not just to Ministers and the Government.

The second cardinal principle is what gives humanity to our public sector. It is that which gives us hope for the future. It is that which assures us that our public sector will do that which is right and good for Singapore, regardless of political masters, regardless of vociferous demands from the public.

The means and the end are different. Without the means, the end fails. Form and spirit are different. Without the spirit, the form kills. One cannot replace the other. Each is essential to the other. Without the spirit of public service, we will be an AI administration − clean, efficient, clinical. But we know that compliance with a set of rules does not make an honest or effective public service agency. Efficiency alone will not, in every case, serve our people well. It is a scrupulous adherence to the integrity of regulations and a conscientious adherence to the welfare of our people that will make our Public Service honest and effective – human.

Let our Public Service continue to serve our people with conviction, commitment, courage, professionalism and empathy. Always fearless to do that which is right and good, yet exercising humility, empathy and kindness. Then and only then are we a public sector, a Government, able to meet the highest accountability standards to our people. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. May I please, first, speak in Malay, followed by English?

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, to my understanding, MUIS is not really affected by this amendment. I support this amendment that guarantees the standards of administration and governance for each of our public agencies because it ensures that quality as well as accountability and transparency standards continue to be upheld.

At the same time, there are some suggestions within this amendment that are already familiar to MUIS, which already possesses and implemented accountability and transparency standards, which were determined by the Government under the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA).

The appointment of MUIS' CE is still based on the MUIS Council's approval with the Minister's concurrence. This ensures that the amendment does not erode the responsibility or influence of MUIS Council members regarding the appointment of the CE that is based on the experience and expertise of each MUIS Council member.

I would also like to acknowledge the support and funding by the Government for the corporate and administrative functions of MUIS, which have allowed MUIS to channel money from donations and zakat from the Muslim community towards the community's other needs. Please allow me to continue in English.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an important Bill to consolidate the different Acts governing the various public sector bodies. In principle, I support this Bill. However, I have a couple of concerns for clarification.

Like many others in this House, I support clause 6 that makes provisions and grants authority for public sector bodies to share information. This is necessary to allow greater expediency and efficiency for data and information to be shared among different public sector bodies to help Singaporeans, be it in healthcare, education, housing, retirement adequacy or social and financial support.

However, this sharing of data and information needs to be made expedient, efficient and transparent not just between public sector agencies but also within each agency, between their different departments and units. There have been instances where the different departments and units within one public sector agency do things in silo and are not cognisant of what the other departments and units within that same public sector agency are doing.

For instance, I have received feedback from residents about their experience when executing the purchase or sale of their flats, in securing housing loans from HDB, or in managing the funds related to housing through CPF Board. There have been occasions where residents lamented while they have been approved their housing loan through the housing finance department, but when executing the sale or purchase of the flat through the sales department, there seems to be a lack of information sharing between the departments. This has made the transaction experience faced by residents nothing short of frustrating and confusing.

For some residents I have met, their home loan eligibility approval or extension by the housing finance department has not been conveyed to the sales department, which then requires them to make additional CPF cash payment instead during the sale or purchase transaction for their flat. We can imagine their frustration and confusion.

Another example is the sharing of information by MOE with Institutes of Higher Learning or self-help organisations, such as the Council for the Development of the Singapore Malay/Muslim Community (MENDAKI), the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC), the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA) or the Eurasian Association (EA). Having been involved in a self-help organisation and a couple of public sector institutions, it is a common refrain heard amongst strategic planners or managers that a more open sharing of student and cohort education-related information would be useful in designing and implementing programmes or interventions by the self-help groups that can better help our students.

The sharing and use of information and data within each and across public sector agencies will make it more efficient and effective in helping Singaporeans address their healthcare, housing, education or social and financial assistance needs. However, to what extent will the sharing of information or data make this possible? Will Singaporeans find it easier to purchase a flat and secure a housing loan at the same time? Or visit their choices of doctors across different restructured hospitals and have their medical information shared? Or have access to the necessary social or financial assistance without having to repeatedly provide their personal or family information to different Public Service officers?

Nonetheless, it is understandable that there is a concern with the confidentiality and privacy of such information sharing with self-help organisations or public sector institutions. Hence, I support clause 7 that sets out the conditions and extent of the proposed law that would protect the confidentiality, privacy and use of such information.

The other concern I have is in clauses 15 and 16. I support that the appointment of the CE of a public sector agency is to be approved by the Minister, with the concurrence of PSC. However, from what I understand, the removal of the CE can be solely decided by the Minister. There seems to be a lot of power vested in the Minister to decide on the removal of the CE from a public sector agency. I would like to propose for consideration that this decision for the removal of the CE be made in consultation with the board of directors, advisors or governors of the Public Service agency as well. Sufficient consideration to be made regarding the CE's prior experience, background or contributions to the agency should be considered collectively and consultatively, rather than largely by the Minister alone.

Similar practices are carried out in the private sector where the decisions to employ or dismiss senior executives of a company are made in consultation with the board of directors or advisors of the company. Notwithstanding the concerns I have raised, I support this Bill.

Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. Establishing a system of governance with greater accountability and transparency in our public sector is welcomed.

I support the Bill’s objective, which aspires to remove independent vertical units, commonly known as silos, and create a whole-of-Government connected approach to delivering public services.

I have comments and queries on one fundamental aspect of the Bill. The bulk of the clauses in the Bill apply to the "Singapore Public Sector Agency", the term excludes the "Public Service", defined to include SAF, SCDF, Singapore Civil Service, Singapore Legal Service and Singapore Police Force (SPF), effectively limiting much of the scope of the Bill to cover only "Public Bodies" and "Singapore Public Sector Agencies".

As illustration, clause 4(1) confers powers on the Minister to give directions to all Singapore Public Sector Agencies. This principle behind clause 4 is to enable a whole-of-Government approach in the implementation of policy. Hence, clause 4(2)(g) specifically qualifies that such directions can only be made for purposes of supporting a whole-of-Government approach. In this case, then it seems logical and consistent to ensure clause 4(1) applies to the Public Service as well.

The exclusion of the Public Service can be seen in clauses complementary to clause 4, namely, clauses 9, 10 and 11. This exclusion is also present in clause 6 on data-sharing, and clauses in Part 4 and Part 5 of the Bill on governance and financial administration of public bodies.

Can the Minister clarify why the Public Service is excluded from the bulk of these clauses, especially since I understand that the aforementioned entities defined as Public Service in the Bill also delivers services to the public?

In fact, these entities serve very important functions and impact everyday citizens. Given the objective of the Bill is to better establish a consistent system of governance and accountability, can the Minister clarify how these objectives will be fulfilled when important agencies, such as SAF, SCDF, the Singapore Civil Service, the Singapore Legal Service and SPF are excluded?

I understand that all organisations, public or private, have a hierarchical structure and contain layers of structures. At times, one layer may be more deeply embedded, resulting in a silo structure. At times, such a silo structure is necessary for administrative purposes or for the very functioning of an organisation, such as the military's chain of command.

Applying this line of logic, I foresee a possible rationale for the exclusion of the Public Service – on justification that these five agencies exercise very specialised powers and fulfil very specific, critical functions within our society such that their constituting Act already contains provisions allowing the Minister to directly make directions, or an informal tight governance framework may currently be in place, or that these five agencies need the flexibility and autonomy to have room to exercise discretionary powers.

However, this justification would similarly apply to other Public Bodies, which similarly have constituting Acts containing internal controls. In fact, Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned recently at the Public Service Leadership Dinner on 8 November last year, I quote, "the challenges that confront Singapore and Singaporeans often cannot be compartmentalised."

Keeping in mind the objective of the Bill, which is to break down intra- and interagency silos to enable a consistent system of governance, can the Minister clarify specifically how different these five agencies are defined as Public Service as compared to Public Bodies such that standard governance rules as envisioned in the Bill should not apply equally across the board? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendments to this Bill as these are significant steps towards better coordination and greater efficiency across our Government Ministries and agencies.

Even though most of our data have gone digital, our vision for whole-of-Government coordination to provide a unified platform of services has only been partially realised. There are still quite a number of "walls" among our Government departments. I think some of these exist for good reasons, such as to ensure that only necessary information is shared on a "need to know" basis, for confidentiality and to protect personal privacy.

Notwithstanding, since we view Government-related services and transactions as a whole, it is better to consolidate data and information to avoid duplication, reduce red tape, boost efficiency and enhance coordination of planning and services. For example, for a family in financial difficulties, they can expect appropriate and timely allocation of assistance due to better coordination of the sources of assistance.

I note that agencies, such as HDB, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), LTA and the Traffic Police, could have maintained different records of traffic offences under their respective areas of responsibility, although there are similarities in some of the areas of responsibility. I would like to ask if the record of offences in each of the enforcement agencies and across all agencies and Ministries, such as URA and HDB parking offences, are actually consolidated and, if not, will it be consolidated with LTA and the Traffic Police's records of each individual? Similarly, will his or her records with other enforcement agencies or Ministries, such as the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Ministry of Manpower, be consolidated?

Overcoming the challenges posed by the current walls among Government departments is one thing. How about between Government and non-Government entities? More often than not, there are many exchanges and overlaps between information and data held by Government agencies and non-Government-related bodies. These include information which have to be requested from or extracted from private entities. An example of such situations are medical records. I would like to know how the Government intends to ensure the cooperation of private entities in providing access to such information?

For example, what is the progress in getting private medical practitioners to share their consolidated patient records with the Ministry of Health (MOH), which is necessary for better health care management of patients? In addition, in situations where Government bodies have to provide information to private entities in order to enable certain transactions and the provision of certain goods and services, how would the Government ensure the safety and privacy of such information?

A recent study found that nearly half of IT professionals have sought information they were not permitted to access. The personnel guilty of this are the very ones charged with keeping the information safe – the IT staff. This can happen in both Government and non-Government entities. I would like to ask what strategies do we have in place to plug this gap in our cybersecurity measures. With that, I conclude with my support for the Bill.

I thank the Members for their support and questions. There were quite a few questions citing specific clauses and sub-clauses, and fairly technical. I will try my best to answer them all. Let me start by addressing questions from Ms Thanaletchimi and Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, who asked broader and philosophical questions about governance in the Government.

Ms Thanaletchimi is right to say that there is a balance between central control as well as getting our Statutory Boards to have flexibility and autonomy, and creativity and innovation. And this is a balance that we have to strike between effective governance, policy consistency on one hand and operational autonomy on the other hand. It does encourage innovation and creativity.

It is the same when a manager runs a department of a few people. You want to give the staff the space to take initiative, run with it, work with different people, but they are still your staff. And you meet them once in a while to give them support and direction. Every year, it is good HR practice also to do appraisal and coach them on their development. And, when something goes wrong, you still have to answer for the staff as department head. So, the same principles apply to Statutory Boards. The responsible Minister is answerable to Parliament for the performance of the Statutory Board. The powers to give directions to the Statutory Board and to approve the appointment of the CE are in line with this accountability to Parliament.

But for operational matters, it is better for Statutory Boards to have autonomy, tapping on board members. And I agree with Mr Ganesh Rajaram that Board members can do more and be more active in helping the governance and running of the Statutory Board and ensuring that the Board members are from different backgrounds, experience and skills that they can bring to the table. These are the layers that we have to put in place to make sure a Statutory Board is run well.

In answer to Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, this Bill is really not in response to any Government lapses, incidents or confusion on the part of public servants, or that there are instances where Statutory Boards refuse to comply with a Government direction. The purpose is two-fold. I have mentioned some of it in my Second Reading speech.

One, for the lack of a better word, it is really neatness, really just neatness. Today, we have over 60 Statutory Boards operating in an increasingly complex and disrupted environment, facing challenges that no single agency can tackle alone. The continued need for Statutory Boards to be governed well and work together to provide better public service is all the more pressing.

The central agencies, therefore, did a stocktake of all the Statutory Board Acts. And they found that, of the governance provisions that are important to uphold to sustain good governance, not all were uniformly present across all Acts. Specifically, on the clause for Ministers to give direction, they are present in all Acts but they are written slightly differently with different conventions. There are no good reasons why they are different, other than they were written and passed at different times in history. So, we centralise them into one central Act. It is now clear, transparent, neat and, should we find the need and justification to amend them in future, the amendment will also be transparent and more effective.

Where there are substantive changes from today, I have highlighted them in my Second Reading speech. One, is that we are making it explicit that part of the work of the CE of a Statutory Board is to collaborate with other public agencies. This is new. Not that they are not doing so now. They are already doing so. But we are now hardcoding this and, in so doing, make our direction clear. Two, is the setting up of a data-sharing regime that I spoke about.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan specifically asked if the term "CE" is a new one mentioned in the Bill. It is not new. It does refer to the CEO at the apex job within the Statutory Board.

Mr Ganesh Rajaram asked about the tenure of the CEO and whether postings are too frequent. It is a point that we constantly have to wrestle within the Public Service. It is really not part of this Bill but we do have to balance between someone staying long, having the experience and stability but, at the same time, they can get entrenched, versus bringing in somebody with new perspectives and innovative ideas. We constantly have to juggle both. And what the Member raised is a pertinent point and we will continue to consider this very carefully.

I agree with Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan that the broader point is that our system of governance must be one that allows us to constantly work together, recognise problems and improve. What we do not want is a culture of witch hunt and blame. It does not improve things. Our approach has always been to look honestly at our flaws and focus our attention on improvements. And I think this is the culture we want.

Ms Chia Yong Yong said the Public Service goes much beyond just running day to day. It is much beyond efficiency but also about service to people with kindness and humanity. So, likewise, if we want to bring about such a culture, it goes beyond legislation, but also ensuring that the ethos, the spirit, is in every single Public Service agency and that the culture and ethos are upheld. Most important of all, to uphold these are the leaders, leaders across the various levels of the Public Service, the type of people we bring in, how we make them work together, learn from one another and uphold the values. We will continue to place great emphasis on this.

Let me now move on to a topic which is better coordination across Government agencies and sometimes, even within a Government agency. This is raised by Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Dr Intan Mokhtar and Miss Cheryl Chan. Various examples were given.

I agree it is important to coordinate well amongst public sector agencies as challenges become more complex. This Bill actually sends a strong signal on the importance of cross-agency coordination. For example, the Bill clarifies how the Minister charged with the responsibility for the public sector can work with the relevant Ministers to give directions to Statutory Boards relating to central policies. And that, second, the CEs of Statutory Boards now, by law, have to cooperate and collaborate with other public sector agencies to deliver public value.

As to how to ensure strong coordination among agencies and reduce wastage, I think all agencies simply need to work harder, eyes open, ears up and be more creative, more innovative, more citizen-centric. That is a point that Miss Cheryl Chan and Dr Intan Mokhtar have both raised. And we have seen many such improvement projects. For example, Master Planning Committee coordinates infrastructure projects. There is a OneMap platform. I downloaded it. It is very useful. It allows 80 agencies to come together on a single platform to provide authoritative location information and services.

We will welcome more suggestions from Members. Some of the examples that Members mentioned are coordination within the departments and they simply need to sort them out. But they are really outside of this Bill and you do not need this Bill to have them sorted out. But in my capacity as the Minister helping out with driving public sector innovation, if you observe any of these, please let me know and I will be most happy to take them up.

Let me now move on to various technical clarifications. These are raised by Mr Louis Ng, Ms Sylvia Lim, Ms Chia Yong Yong and Dr Intan Mokhtar.

First, the Bill does not prescribe the form of directions. It should not, as Acts that are overly prescriptive rapidly get out of date. Given the purposes for which directions may be given and the subject matter they are to cover, the form of directions will likely be in formal instruments. Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned two types of directions. First, as she correctly said, are really central Ministry issues − governance issues concerning HR and finance. These typically come in the form of circulars and they are signed by the Permanent Secretaries.

Second are policy directions. I would say the Bill does not prescribe this, but the typical way the Ministries work − for many years and decades, that is how they work − is that there is brainstorming between political officeholders and staff, including Statutory Board staff, because we have to take into account implementation issues. When it is all discussed and we have certain consensus, staff papers are put up with all the views, considerations, options and recommendations incorporated and the many angles covered. Then, it goes to the right forum. It could be a Minister's staff meeting. For bigger issues, they might go to the Cabinet. Decisions are made, and then conveyed through notes of meeting, through to the Statutory Boards, and then it is followed up that way. It has been done this way for years. For those coming from the private sector, this is quite a big adjustment. In the private sector, documentation is not done so diligently. But trust me, nothing in the Civil Service is decided through WhatsApp and, worse, through emoticons.

Let me talk about clause 4. It is merely an extension of the principle in clause 5. I think a Member asked about it. Statutory Boards are already complying with the Government's central policies today, and clause 4 gives this legislative backing.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the scope of the Bill. Simply put, the Bill is written such that the provisions apply by and large to the Singapore public sector agencies, and the Singapore public sector agencies is broadly defined to include Ministries and departments, Statutory Boards and Organs of State. The Civil Service, SAF, SPF, SCDF, Legal Service are all part of Ministries and departments. So, the governance requirements of this Bill apply to them. There are many references and definitions in this Bill, so it is a bit confusing to read. I put on record the governance requirements of this Bill apply to them. Likewise, the protection under clause 11, which Ms Sylvia Lim asked about, extends to every Singapore public sector agency, too. So, the Member's reading is right.

However, for certain clauses, the Civil Service, SAF, SPF, SCDF and the Legal Service are excluded, because they are already formally subject to central policy governance requirements that are before this Bill. For example, these agencies have to comply with Government Instruction Manuals. For the appointment of the heads of Ministries, that is, Permanent Secretaries, the Constitution already provides a framework where appointments are made by the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, from a list of names submitted by PSC.

Dr Intan Mokhtar asked about removal of the CE. That, indeed, is not a small matter. Although the Bill does not spell out the exact processes but, for a CE, the apex post of a Statutory Board, to be removed, that is a serious matter and, certainly, a lot of consultation, even before that, if it is for performance-related reasons, coaching, counselling, that all has to take place. That is only good HR practice. So, rest assured. Even removing a Public Service officer is a serious matter, what more a CE.

Ms Chia Yong Yong asked a specific question whether PA is to be exempted from clause 40. The answer is that the effect of the Notice of Amendment will be that PA is not exempted from it. It will apply to PA.

Mr Faisal Manap asked about finance-related provisions that pertain to MUIS in clauses 34 to 41. While MUIS is, indeed, exempted from these provisions of the Bill, it is not exempted from similar financial administrative requirements because all these requirements are currently already spelt out and covered by MUIS' constituting Act, namely, AMLA. We decided there is no need to duplicate them in this Bill.

Now let me move to the topic of clause 11. Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Chen Show Mao and Mr Leon Perera asked about this. Let me explain how clause 11 came about first. Clause 5 standardises the power of the responsible Ministers to give directions to their Statutory Boards, and clause 4 formalises the requirements for Statutory Boards to comply with central policies. And clause 11 of the Bill presents safeguards to limit the effect of these Ministerial directions. So, why is clause 11 needed now?

The legal requirement to abide by Ministerial direction is not new at all. It is found in the constituting Acts of most of our Statutory Boards. But with this Bill, we have a separate and centralised legislation to provide for this. So, it becomes necessary to have clause 11 to make it clear that Ministerial directions do not trump other provisions in the Statutory Board legislation. It is a very logical thing to do for legal officers drafting this Bill. There are a few key points to this clause.

First, the Minister's direction cannot be inconsistent with written law. For example, the Minister charged with the responsibility for Government records and archives − a point that Mr Chen Show Mao asked about − can direct Statutory Boards to comply with central policies on the treatment of public records. But these policies must be consistent with the provisions in the National Library Board (NLB) Act on the role of the National Archives in the treatment of public records. For example, the Minister’s direction to the Singapore public sector agencies cannot authorise the destruction of public documents without the authorisation of NLB, much less destroy a particular archival document. To do so would be inconsistent with the NLB Act.

Second, the Minister's direction cannot impede or affect the performance of statutorily independent or quasi-judicial functions. Ms Sylvia Lim asked for further elaboration on this. A statutorily independent function is a function which is required by law to be performed independently. The obvious example is the exercise of judicial functions by the Judiciary. But we also have Statutory Boards like the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, the Maritime and Port Authority or IMDA. They are vested with the discretion to issue or revoke a licence based on criteria set out in their own legislation.

As for a quasi-judicial function, that is a function expected by the law to be discharged, taking into account the facts of the case. Some of our Statutory Boards have those powers. For example, a disciplinary committee constituted under the Estate Agents Act has the power to decide if there is sufficient cause for disciplinary action against an estate agent "according to the circumstances of the case".

The third area of safeguard is that the Minister’s direction should not be specific to a case. So, clause 11(3)(b) prohibits any Ministerial direction to secure an employment, a promotion or a termination of any particular employee of a Singapore public sector agency. For example, a Minister cannot direct the award of a procurement contract to any particular tenderer, because that is specific to a case or a person; or to license a particular applicant; or to employ a particular person. And for that matter, he cannot ask the Police to arrest a certain person, and I hope Ms Sylvia Lim is not suggesting that this is happening. In fact, the Police Force Act makes that quite clear. It is SPF that has the powers to apprehend offenders. So, if you look at the Skills Development Fund (SDF) fraud case that happened which I answered earlier, I am flabbergasted. I want the culprits to face the full consequences of the law, but I cannot ask the Police or anybody to arrest them. We report through SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) to the Police, the Police investigate and, if they deem fit, the Police arrest them. That is the way things have been done and will be done.

Having said that, in my years of public service, I have not come across an impasse between Ministers and public servants on this point. If there is, a public servant who feels any pressure from Ministers can report to their Permanent Secretary, or to the Head of the Civil Service, even the PSC, or even the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, if the case warrants it, and I am sure they know how to follow up.

Let me just elaborate this a bit. Ministers handle MPS cases. And I would say, in a typical month, Ministers would have handled hundreds, maybe even thousands, of individual cases coming to us. Each is appealing for a licence to be given, for an Employment Pass to be given, or whatever the case may be. And the discipline all these years has been we write them down as appeal cases, lay out the facts of the cases, send them back to the Ministries, the staff still process them based on the grounds and the circumstances of the case. But ultimately, they have to run the individual appeal cases through the system to be processed.

So, clause 11 merely puts a long-standing and existing practice into law. However, let me highlight this. If a Minister comes across a case that highlights the deficiencies in a system, or an act that should be illegal turns out to be legal, then there is a flaw in the system or in the law. Then, it is incumbent upon Ministers to review and improve the system, together with the agencies under his charge.

Let me touch on a point that Mr Faisal Manap specifically raised about what is the definition of being politicised. I think for civil servants to be politicised in the context of this Bill means to be specifically put under pressure to decide on a specific case. That is being "politicised" under this Bill.

Mr Faisal Manap then went on to talk about a certain Advisor. I assume it is a constituency that the Member knows, that a certain candidate lost and then continued to operate on the ground. But, really, based on the definition I gave, this has nothing to do with this Bill. If there is any specific complaint that the Member would like to raise, he could raise it with our Deputy Chairman of PA, Minister Chan Chun Sing. He has mentioned in this House before that the role of an Advisor has to be very clear. It is to serve the community, it is to foster cohesion in the community. If they overstep into politics and the Member has reasons to believe so, then please raise it with him. I am sure he will look into it.

Mr Leon Perera gave a narrative about civil servants who have aspirations to be Ministers, therefore, they second-guessed the Ministers to be in their good books and, in the process, become partisan and, therefore, should we not impose garden leave for civil servants that decide to enter politics? I think there are many problems with what he said.

First, second-guessing is now a bit of a dirty word. But if you think about it, in all our work, we do have to anticipate what are the needs of our customers, what are the needs of the people we work with. It is very reasonable for civil servants not to be sycophantic but to understand what is the Ministerial direction, what is the agenda of this Government, how is it shaping up, what are the key priorities, and able to work with the Ministers to develop policies in those directions. Do you call that second-guessing? I mean, if the Member wants to put it in a negative sense, it is up to him. But I think there is value for public servants to do that. And for that matter, for anyone working, to do that. And I think consultants, too, have to anticipate and maybe second-guess their customers. This is what real life is. And whether they then become partisan, I hope the Member is not suggesting that civil servants are partisan, because the conduct and ethos of civil servants are articulated clearly in the IM, that they cannot be politically pressurised.

They have to act neutral and in the interest of the public. Therefore, do we then have garden leave for civil servants who then go on and maybe join politics? And the Member draws the analogy with the financial sector.

The circumstances are totally different. In the case of MAS and the financial sector, MAS is a regulator, whereas the regulatee is a commercial profit-seeking entity. So, to prevent a conflict of interest, we do not want an MAS officer to be offered a job by a regulatee while he is still at the job at the regulator. Therefore, you have a garden leave so that you minimise the chances of that happening. Garden leave is widely practised across financial regimes in the world. When we come to the Civil Service and political officeholders, neither one regulates the other, and neither is a commercial profit-seeking entity.

The Member felt that garden leave will help the civil servant think more carefully before joining politics. I think anyone, not just civil servants, joining politics today thinks very, very deeply about it, and spends a long time deliberating that with their families and friends before they are prepared to come in. It is really a calling, as the Member would know.

Let me now move on to data-sharing. Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Chia Yong Yong asked about data-sharing, the scope and benefits. The data-sharing directive seeks to strengthen the rules that enable and govern cross-agency data-sharing within the public sector. There are two main areas of improvement. I have mentioned this in my Second Reading speech.

First, the Bill provides the bases for data to be shared and there are seven specific public purposes, as stated in the Bill. These will translate broadly into two kinds of initiatives.

One, better delivery of services to the individual. This will inevitably have to involve sharing of identifiable and personal data, and Mr Patrick Tay asked for some examples. Improving social assistance programmes or removing repeated filling of forms when applying for Government programmes. I spoke about this during the Second Reading speech.

Where feasible, as Mr Zaqy Mohamad has suggested, specific details need not be shared if they are not needed for the task. For example, when you apply for financial assistance, data can be shared between other agencies and the processing officer, and they can come in the form of whether do they meet or not meet the criteria and not necessarily tell you how much they earn. That can surely be done and it will be a good practice. It can also involve not personal data, but information that each agency holds, which, when put together, offers much better value, such as One-Map, which I mentioned earlier.

The second benefit for data-sharing is better policy analysis, planning and formulation. This will involve sharing of anonymised, non-identifiable data. For example, when deciding where to build certain facilities, we want to understand the concentration of different segments of Singaporeans. There is no need to know personal details in this instance. So, to decide whether to build a senior activity centre, for example, the relevant agency only needs to know the aggregate number of seniors living in the block or in various precincts.

It can also be about correlating data to derive deeper policy insights. There is an immense amount of work we can do here to better understand the relation, say, between family backgrounds, education experiences, careers, employment, health, social security, so that we can formulate better policies to address our challenges. However, to do so, raw data from various agencies need to come to a centre where they are matched and anonymised before release to relevant agencies for analysis. We intend to set up such centres where central oversight would mitigate the risks of failing to anonymise data.

Let me talk about a point that Mr Zaqy Mohamad raised about privacy and big brother watching. This Bill is also in alignment with PDPA. Public Service agencies belong to one Government. They need to share data and information with one another to best serve the public. This Bill will significantly improve the protection and safeguard of such shared data. Beyond the fact that there are now clear bases for data-sharing, there are four levels of protection.

First level, it allows existing data-sharing practices to be formalised, such as sharing identifiable information for service delivery and enforcement functions and using only anonymised information for policymaking and planning.

Second level, by articulating the responsibility of each party involved in the data-sharing, it ensures that the same high level of responsibility for data protection is borne by all agencies. So, it is now clear that the agency that uses the data is responsible for protecting and safeguarding it. We will be able to redress the current misalignment of incentives, where the owner of data is still responsible.

The third level is that information that is protected by specific legislation today, such as information under the Income Tax Act, the Banking Act and the Statistics Act, will continue to be protected.

Four, criminal offences for three data-related offences are also introduced in the Bill to ensure individual officers are responsible and accountable for safeguarding information. These include the unauthorised disclosure and improper use of information, and, specifically, the unauthorised re-identification of anonymised data.

The Bill did provide for the flexibility for re-identification of data. That is to deal with contingencies, such as when source agencies’ data is corrupted or destroyed. When that happens, re-identification of anonymised data may be performed in order to continue to deliver services to citizens.

The purpose of the Bill is not to pave the way for a future where Government knows everything about everyone, and every misdeed everyone committed is all consolidated. I think there was a question by Mr Gan Thiam Poh. If ever there was such an initiative, it would have to be explained as to why and for what purpose and for what value. And decision-making, be it for policy, licence or grant application, is all reduced to data processing and AI algorithm. That is not the future we want. In fact, it will be quite a sad state. If that happens, civil servants will all lose their jobs because we only need computers and software.

So, in response to what Mr Patrick Tay said, yes, there are algorithms in various software – which will be tested and audited − but when it comes to decision-making, there must be human intervention, supervision and judgement all the time.

Ms Chia Yong Yong asked for greater clarity on data-sharing initiatives. I hope Members will feel assured that, today, there is a high level of transparency and public discourse in policy implementation and public service delivery in Singapore. If there is a new service to be delivered, such as recently we hear that HDB has an initiative to halve the processing time for transaction of resale flats, it will be announced, and how it will be done will be explained. And I read the whole explanation in the papers. For more significant initiatives, such as MOH's current initiative to set up a National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) system, they have to do this properly. So, a separate consultation is being held, new legislation needs to be debated and enacted in this House to protect the users of this system.

There is one more question by Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan. He asked when unauthorised data-sharing may not be an offence. The common law already permits sharing of information among public sector agencies where there is public interest. The Bill does not allow the data-sharing direction to displace the application of common law, nor does the data-sharing direction seek to do this. It will instead be providing the much-needed practical guidance and certainty on what circumstances would be considered public interest without being exhaustive. So, while the Bill criminalises data-sharing other than in accordance with the data-sharing direction, clause 7(2) allows a defence where sharing is authorised or allowed by "other law". That "other law" is a reference to the common law. For example, it can be shared in order to respond to, say, a life-and-death situation of an individual or in times of a natural disaster or any kind of disaster where contact tracing is required.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Miss Cheryl Chan asked about data-sharing beyond the Public Service, to VWOs, for example. This Bill covers only sharing of data within the Public Service. It does not include the sharing of data with parties outside of the Public Service, such as VWOs, healthcare providers or private and commercial entities.

But that does not mean today we do not share data with parties outside of the Public Service at all. We do so when there are clear justifications to improve the public service or to improve service to the public. For example, to help a student from a dysfunctional family, MOE has to work hand-in-hand with VWOs, self-help groups or Family Service Centres, and, inevitably, personal data has to be shared with all these partners. Or we share aggregate datasets with research institutes to conduct research and analysis for the Government.

Further, data shared with entities outside of the Public Service and designated for service delivery are bound by confidentiality agreements, with contractual terms that prescribe data protection requirements, and these entities are also bound by PDPA and the Official Secrets Act. Volunteers are also bound by strict confidentiality agreements and educated on the appropriate use of the data.

Specifically, on the sharing of medical data within the healthcare sector, again, this is beyond the scope of this Bill because restructured hospitals are not defined as part of the Public Service. MOH is embarking, as I mentioned this earlier, on the NEHR initiative, consulting the public and tabling a Healthcare Services Bill to enable it to do so, to achieve better health outcomes and yet safeguard the interest of patients.

Having said that, it is true that when this Bill is passed, the framework that governs the sharing of data within the Public Service will be improved and better than that for sharing with entities outside of the Public Service, specifically in areas, such as the responsibility to safeguard and protect data. So, the framework will be available and set up for the Public Service, but it will not be extended to sharing outside of the Public Service. This is something that we should look at and we will review and consider if further legislation is required.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked a question about data accuracy and verification. Accuracy of a citizen's personal data is critical for seamless service delivery. We will assign designated agencies to proactively verify and update specified personal data fields and share that across the Government, so that all agencies’ databases are up to date and accurate.

The Government also relies on citizens to verify their own information. MyInfo, the platform mentioned earlier, allows citizens to amend certain personal information and this information will be shared for transactional services that the Government provides. This ensures that all agencies are using accurate information on the individual based on his latest update.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Ms Chia Yong Yong and Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked about storage and security. Government data is stored in Government systems which are protected against breach. More sensitive information, such as identifiable data, will be held in designated databases with even more limited access and additional protection. There are various measures we have undertaken to protect data.

First, controlled access and dissemination. Every civil servant/public officer can only access data he is allowed access to. Access rights will continue to be prescribed based on security clearance and data is only accessed when there is a legitimate purpose or need. The Government continues to calibrate IT security policies accordingly, such as having proper access control and the role-based access of data based on its classification. Deliberate unauthorised access of information is criminalised under other legislation, such as the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act (CMCA). It is also likely to lead to improper use or unauthorised disclosures of data which are new criminal offences under this Bill.

Existing measures to ensure that public servants do not use privileged access to information for their personal gain will continue to apply. For example, all public servants have to declare annually their interests in investments and properties.

For ex-public servants, the Official Secrets Act (OSA), already requires that they do not retain information once they leave service and they are culpable, too, under OSA, if they commit any data-related offence in this Bill. The provisions in the Protection of Secrecy Act remain valid and relevant for Statutory Boards and prescribed Government companies to abide by, and will be a complementary safeguard to this new Bill.

Second, is to institutionalise our cybersecurity capabilities and that is done through the Cyber Security Agency (CSA), established on 1 April 2015, to oversee a new national cybersecurity structure, with the mandate to devise and coordinate national cybersecurity strategy and policy development, carry out both peacetime capability development and crisis management across all sectors and, finally, adopt a holistic approach towards the management of information infrastructure.