Overpayment of Allowances to Volunteer Special Constabulary Officers

The Volunteer Special Constabulary (VSC) is an integral part of the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and has been so for the last 70 years.

In 2008, the VSC strength was slightly over 1,000 officers. As of June this year, there were 734 VSC officers. Our VSC officers come from all walks of life: university students, taxi drivers, accountants and lawyers. They have the same powers, they put on the same uniform and perform the same duties, similar to those of regular Police Officers. They are deployed for frontline duties at Police Land Divisions, Neighbourhood Police Centres, Traffic Police and also deployed for major events like the National Day Parade.

VSC officers face personal danger and risks in their line of work similar to regular Police Officers and they undergo rigorous basic training, twice a week in the evenings, over 24 weeks. After passing out from training, these officers have to contribute a minimum of 16 hours a month. Many volunteer for more hours than that. On average, each VSC officer contributes about 32 hours a month and they are not paid salaries. Instead, they are given a small allowance and that is to offset out-of-pocket expenses, such as transport and food.

In 2007, the Police Force conducted a review of this allowance. At that time, the allowance was $2.80 per hour. SPF recommended to increase the VSC allowance rate from $2.80 per hour to $3.60 per hour. The reasons for the increase were considered and evaluated at the Ministry headquarters (HQ) and it were approved by the Permanent Secretary (PS). However, the officers did not take the next step of seeking approval from the Minister, as was required under the Police Force Act.

Within a Ministry, the PS is the Chief Executive Officer. He is the Accounting Officer for the Ministry's budget, which runs into several billions of dollars. For example, the budget for this year for the Ministry of Home Affairs is $5.34 billion. The PS also has the authority to approve expenditures up to $10 million.

The decision to increase the VSC allowance in 2008 was taken at the highest senior civil servant level in the Ministry and, in money terms, well within the PS' authority. But the Police Force Act requires the Minister to approve the increase.

The additional 80 cents per hour, per officer, amounts to about $2.62 million over the seven years from 2008 to 2015. In addition, SPF had also paid allowances for VSC duty beyond the four-hour cap stipulated in the Regulations; and pro-rated allowance for duty for less than an hour.

Since the payments had been made without the Minister's personal approval, AGO classified them as overpayments. That is how AGO has put it, since the Minister's approval should have been obtained. But it will be fair to describe what happened as a procedural error.

When assessing the nature of the error, the following points need to be considered: (a) the policy intent was to increase the allowance; (b) Ministry HQ agreed that the allowance should be raised and approved this; (c) no one in his right mind could complain or suggest that the VSC officers should not get $3.60 per hour as allowance for their out-of-pocket expenses. Indeed, most people will consider it as underpayment; (d) nor can anyone reasonably say that it is wrong for the officers to get the allowance, if they volunteered for more than four hours; or that it is wrong if pro-rated payments were made when they volunteered for less than an hour.

After the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) findings were brought to my attention, I agreed with the rationale for the payments. It was right that the payments should have been made.

We sought advice from the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). AGC advised that under the Police Force Act, I can authorise the payment retrospectively, and I authorised the payments. The Regulations were amended, with some provisions deleted, also in accordance with AGC's advice.

I should add that I have asked my staff to review the VSC allowance rate further. The current quantum of $3.60 an hour is, in my view, still too low.

This is not a case of officers making decisions to increase allowances and deliberately bypassing the Minister. The officers responsible for handling the earlier approval have been spoken to about their mistake.

Mdm Speaker, VSC celebrates its 70th anniversary this year. Our VSC officers have been doing good work for many years. They work alongside our regular Police Officers, hand in hand. They have shown tremendous dedication and commitment.

Let me share two examples. SSGT(V) Mohamad Ariff Bin Said Abdul Kader, aged 36, is a Project Manager in the construction industry. He joined VSC in 2010. Despite his busy schedule juggling a full-time job and looking after his family, he performs frontline policing duties on Fridays and Saturdays in the evenings. He does so with regular counterparts from the Jurong Police Division.

Another VSC officer is 55-year-old SSI(V) Johnny Boon, who had just extended his service for another three years, after having served VSC for 26 years. He joined VSC in 1990. As a full-time swimming and martial arts instructor, his skills were recognised and he was selected to serve as a training instructor. Besides spending two evenings a week as a training instructor, he also took up additional policing duties, serving on Friday or Saturday nights at Tanglin Police Division.

These officers, 734 of them, do not serve because of the $3.60 per hour. They come forward to serve Singapore. If any Member of this House seriously thinks $3.60 is too much, then please let me know.

Our VSC officers make considerable sacrifices to step forward to partner the Police Force. They help keep Singapore crime-free. They do not do this for the money. So, let us keep this whole issue in perspective. If there is no complaint about the actual amount paid, then the only question is the process.

On the process, I have set out what happened. The officers involved made a mistake. The matter has been handled with advice from AGC. And the officers have been advised to be more careful.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Indeed, I have served and have had the distinction and honour to serve with many VSCs who served honourably through their many years in the Police Force. I would like to ask the Minister how these findings from AGO would not cause a knee-jerk reaction within the Civil Service, so that contributing volunteers, such as VSCs, do not continue to suffer from lower allowances and that they continue to be supported in the best fashion possible.

There should be no knee-jerk reaction. I have set out what we are doing. We talked to AGC to look at the law. If it can be corrected, it will be corrected, which we have done and taken care of the processes. Not only have we done that, I have asked for a review of the actual rate of allowance. If and when the review is completed, we will act according to the review.

Madam, I thank the Minister for his long reply. But the issue here is not payment: how much we should pay the volunteer corps. We all appreciate their work. The issue is on AGO's report. I would like to ask the Minister: first, it was unlawful that officers who were not authorised to do so, approved the increase in payment. Then, subsequently, the Minister decided to make it lawful by amending the regulations and approving retrospectively the seven years of overpayment. My question is: is this the correct way for the Government to make an unlawful payment lawful? Overpayment to become correct payment? And is this the way to respond to AGO's report on lapses?

Mr K Shanmugam : I thank Mr Low for his considerable interest in the matter and I am glad that he takes such a serious view of process errors.

First of all, what is correct and not correct has got to go on the basis of the law. And I think Mr Low heard me say quite clearly that what we have done is according to advice from AGC.

Let me give the Member some scenarios. There are different types of wrongs. First, there is process error. Then, there can be an error in substance. Then there can be an error both in process and substance. One must keep these distinct. What happened here is a pure process error. If you look at that, and contrast with an error in substance, which may or may not have legal consequences, for example, let us say you have an association and there is going to be a challenge for the chairman at the annual general meeting. The Chairman quickly brings in new voting members to defeat the challenge. That process is legal. But from the view of substance, is it correct? It depends on the circumstances.

Take another situation. Let us say a group takes over an organisation. The organisation has a lot of money. The new group appoints its friends. It sets up a structure which helps to vacuum money out of the organisation and its own accountants say in writing, "Despite repeated requests, the organisation did not provide us with all the critical documents relating to the transactions with the friends"; and assume they repeat it every year and yet the organisation does not do anything. That is an error, both in process and in substance, and that is unlawful and that must have consequences. So, let us keep things in perspective.

Since Mr Low is so interested in this process error, I am sure he will be interested in errors of substance as well.