Trust in Public Institutions and Agencies

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Prime Minister how does the Government plan to address public concerns on the integrity and trust placed with our enforcement departments and what measures are taken to ensure adequate oversight over enforcement units.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Prime Minister (a) since the implementation of the internal disclosure policy in the Civil Service in February 2011, how many reports have been received, including those from Organs of State and Statutory Boards; and (b) what percentage of these reports are serious enough to warrant formal investigations.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Prime Minister whether the Government keeps track or has plans to keep track of the number of public servants who possess annual entry passes to the two integrated resorts.

Thank you. The Government emphasises very strongly the integrity of the Public Service and the public's trust in public officers. We expect public officers to uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. The Government is thus concerned about the recent spate of cases involving public officers. Although the statistics do not show an uptrend, we are concerned that these cases should not undermine public confidence or convey the impression that standards have slackened over time.

Page: 9

This is why we are prosecuting the cases vigorously.

We have systems and processes to maintain the integrity of the Public Service. These include robust financial procedures, personnel-related measures, strong enforcement and inculcating sound values. These measures are regularly reviewed and strengthened where needed to address weaknesses or adapt to new circumstances. For example, we are reviewing our financial and audit processes, not just for the officers directly handling money and procurement, but also supervisors and managers who must give command emphasis to proper financial management in their units.

As I informed this House in February 2012, all Government agencies are required to have in place sound accounting practices and internal controls to ensure the integrity of their financial systems. Members have filed a number of questions on audit which the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Tharman Shanmugaratnam will address later in this session.

We also have checks and safeguards on the suitability of officers. All public officers are required to declare their financial standing when they are first appointed to the Service, and every year thereafter. The purpose is for the Public Service to know whether an officer may become vulnerable due to financial embarrassment. The Service can then assist the officer to overcome his financial difficulties, and thereby protect both the Service and the officer.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked about oversight of enforcement units. We have instituted additional measures for enforcement officers and units because they do have a special responsibility to uphold the integrity of the system. For example, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) conduct psychometric testing when they recruit officers. All potential SPF, CNB and Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) officers also undergo security vetting before their appointments. As a further check, the Police conducts credit bureau screening on all Police officers, and CNB screens officers involved in enforcement and regulatory work. Arising from the recent CPIB case, CPIB has also recently implemented credit bureau screening for its uniformed officers and for civilian officers who handle financial and procurement matters.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked if the Government has plans to track the number of public officers who possess annual entry passes to the two casinos. The Government currently does not do so. While there is no blanket rule prohibiting public officers from visiting the casinos, agencies have imposed restrictions on officers where there is potential for conflict of interest. For instance, officers

Page: 10

from the Casino Regulatory Authority are prohibited from visiting the two casinos here, or overseas casinos belonging to the parent companies of these two casinos, except for official duties. Police officers working on law enforcement matters involving the casinos are also prohibited from visiting the casinos, except for official reasons. In addition, Police and CNB officers who are involved with general law enforcement work, as well as CPIB officers, are required to declare their casino visits within seven days of each visit. Other agencies, such as MTI, also require officers working on casino-related issues to declare visits to the casinos.

The Public Service Division (PSD) is studying the application of similar safeguards for officers occupying positions that expose them either to the risk of being suborned and exploited, or to the temptation of misusing their positions to feed, say, a gambling habit.

PSD has also been reviewing the rules and requirements relating to public officers in general visiting casinos, to tighten them. For public officers in general, PSD intends to require those who visit the casinos frequently, or who purchase the annual casino entry levy, to declare these actions. PSD is currently working out the implementation details for these new rules, to strike a balance between strengthening safeguards and imposing too many checks and rules on the system and public officers.

As I informed Members in February 2012, there are several different avenues for public officers to report suspected wrongdoing. An officer can report such cases to his supervisors, or directly to his Permanent Secretary. He may also file a report to the Head of the Civil Service or the Public Service Commission (PSC). Officers may also report to enforcement agencies, such as the Police or CPIB.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked about the number of reports made under the Internal Disclosure Framework. Since February 2011, 81 reports of suspected misconduct have been made by public officers. Eighty-six percent, or 70, of these reports led to further investigations. Of these, half, or 35 cases, resulted in some form of disciplinary action. The Government will do more to make all officers, especially new ones, aware of the reporting channels already available to them.

The Public Service does not tolerate wrongdoing and misconduct, and will take firm action in all cases, decisively and transparently. Every case is thoroughly investigated. If need be, a separate agency will conduct the

Page: 11

investigations to ensure independence and impartiality. For example, in the recent CPIB case, the investigation was carried out by the Commercial Affairs Department of SPF, which then submitted the investigation papers to the Attorney-General's Chambers. In all cases, if investigations reveal wrong-doing, the officer will be charged, regardless of his rank or seniority.

Errant officers who have not broken the law but whose actions are serious enough to constitute misconduct are subject to disciplinary action, either by the Permanent Secretary or PSC. They may be warned, reprimanded, fined or have their increment forfeited, reduced in rank, retired in the public interest or dismissed, depending on the severity of the case.

Madam, strong processes and enforcement must be underpinned by sound values. We expect officers and leaders of the Public Service to uphold the core values of integrity, service and excellence, and to imbue these values in their officers. The core values are also embedded in many processes, such as hiring new officers, training and developing officers, and assessing their performance. For example, an officer's performance and progression are assessed not just based on his intellectual and inter-personal qualities, but also his motivation, commitment and integrity.

All public officers are governed by a Code of Conduct, which sets out key principles expected of public officers. PSD has recently updated the Code of Conduct with guidelines for situations that public officers are likely to encounter in their work. For example, how officers should behave when they deal with suppliers and vendors, and what to do when conflicts of interest could arise. The updated Code will be issued by PSD soon.

Even with the principles, policies and processes in place, we must appoint the right people as Public Service Leaders to ensure that the Public Service is well-led and maintains its integrity. PSC interviews the candidates and exercises its independent judgement in assessing the character and values of these potential public sector leaders, before appointing them to key leadership positions.

The Chairman and members of the PSC are appointed by the President, acting in his discretion, if he concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister. The President also has veto power over the appointment of key officers in the Ministries and Organs of State who may be involved in investigations, prosecutions and the administration of justice, such as the Attorney-General, Auditor-General, Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court,

Page: 12

Commissioner of Police and the Director of CPIB.

The Director of CPIB, in particular, reports to the Prime Minister. However, if the Prime Minister refuses to give consent to the Director of CPIB to make any inquiries or to carry out investigations into allegations or complaints against any person, the CPIB can still proceed to carry out such inquiries or investigations if the President, acting in his discretion, concurs.

These powers of the President are enshrined in the Constitution. They are important safeguards that this Government, on its own volition, has put in place to maintain the integrity and incorruptibility of the Government and the Public Service.

Our Public Service is internationally recognised as effective and efficient, with zero tolerance for corruption and wrongdoing. This Government is committed to upholding high standards of integrity in our Public Service. This is an endless task that requires continuing effort and commitment of the leadership.

We may have tight processes and systems in place, but there will still be people who try to circumvent them. They may succeed for some time, but sooner or later they will be caught. This is because Singaporeans, including our own public officers, reject corruption. We have prevented corruption from becoming a way of life in Singapore and succeeded in keeping Singapore clean. This differentiates us from many other countries and is a distinctive part of what makes us Singapore.

There are reporting channels for public officers as well as members of the public to report possible wrongdoing. Citizens and public officers will be outraged if they are asked for, or offered, a bribe. The recent court cases demonstrate that the Government will not hesitate to act against any officer who does wrong – no matter how senior he is or what position he holds – even if it causes embarrassment to the Government. We will also continually review our systems and processes and improve them to plug loopholes, address weaknesses or manage new circumstances.

Public officers know that they are held to the highest standards of professionalism and integrity. The vast majority adhere strongly to the Public Service values of integrity, service and excellence as they carry out their duties to serve Singaporeans, every day. I am confident that they will continue to do their best, and in doing so, help to maintain public trust and confidence in the

Page: 13

Public Service.

Mdm Speaker, supplementary questions, please. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answers. In an organisation as large as the Civil Service, it is inevitable that some officers will, from time to time, be found to have acted inappropriately. The real question, therefore, is one of accountability.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister please clarify under what circumstances the different disciplinary measures he mentioned apply? In particular, there has been mention of public servants being issued letters of warning. What are the consequences of a public servant receiving such a letter of warning? Will this, for example, affect his increment, his bonuses, or his prospects of promotion? And when investigating a public servant's wrong-doing, how far up the command chain does accountability then go?

As I have mentioned, there is a range of punishment and disciplinary actions that are possible. If a public servant is suspected of committing a crime, then that is fully investigated, the papers are referred to the Attorney-General's Chambers and charges will be put out against him, if the Attorney-General so decides. There is a trial in Court and he is subject to the full weight of the law. So, that is in those circumstances.

If, however, there has been no criminal offence but the public officer has still fallen short of what the Service expects of him, either in his supervisory capacity or in adherence to specific rules or the Codes of Conduct in the Public Service, but which does not amount to a criminal offence, then the Public Service will deal with him either departmentally through his Permanent Secretary or, in more serious cases of this type, with PSC. And the whole range is available, including warnings, reprimands and so on. In deciding on what to do, his Permanent Secretary and PSC will take into account all factors, including the severity and culpability of the officer in specific cases and also whether there are any mitigating circumstances, for example, the overall service record of the officer and also what other contributions he may have made, in this particular case. So, those are fully taken into account. And that separates criminal charges versus shortcomings in the officer's performance.

In the case of a person who has been issued with a warning, this enters formally into his record and can have implications on his performance-based pay components, for example, his performance bonuses, his increments, and

Page: 14

can have an effect on his progression.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the comprehensive reply. It was reported that the recent CPIB Assistant Director who was charged for misappropriation of money and forgery had been involved in heavy gambling. The gambling habit could be the main driving force for him to commit a crime. Would the Deputy Prime Minister reveal how many times had the officer been visiting the Integrated Resorts (IRs) for the past couple of years? When public officers, especially if they are law enforcers, buy annual passes to the IRs, they tend to have a higher tendency to gamble and it is also bad for the image for the law enforcement agencies. So, would the Civil Service consider banning those public officers in the law enforcement agencies from buying the annual entry passes to the IRs?

Mdm Speaker, I am unable to comment on the specifics of the case because the case that the Member referred to is before the courts. But, as I have said earlier in my reply to the main question, what PSD intends to do is this. We already have certain rules in place for enforcement officers, for example, police officers who go to the casinos. Those who are directly involved or who potentially may be directly involved in investigating crimes there are not allowed to. Police officers, in general, have to declare within seven days if they go to the casinos. But PSD is studying the application of further safeguards and, as I said, for public officers in general, PSD intends to require those who visit the casinos frequently or who purchase the annual casino entry levy to declare these actions.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the answers. The Deputy Prime Minister said that there have been 81 reports since February 2011, of which 86% were investigated. I would like to get a sense of how this compares to the total number of cases that were investigated in the same period. What sort of awareness programmes have been put in place to let civil servants know that they can whistle-blow on wrong practices that they see in the Civil Service?

Mdm Speaker, I have outlined in my reply the entire range of reporting processes that civil servants have available to them if they see something that is not right in their department. And that includes reporting to his supervisor, his Permanent Secretary, PSC, the Head of Civil Service, or to the enforcement agencies. By and large, this has worked well. We will make sure that in our introductory courses and in further courses that a civil servant attends, that these reporting channels available are made known to him. And

Page: 15

this is what we will continue to do.

I do not have a comparison between the 81 cases reported versus all cases because I am not sure what Mr Yee means by all cases, because there can be any number of cases, including cases that are picked up, reported by the public and so on. And I do not have that data fully with me here, because the Public Service receives feedback of all kinds, hundreds of thousands, every year. As for the 81 cases that were reported under the internal disclosure policy since it was announced in February 2011, I can give some sense of what these were. The types of cases reported included things like officers who were engaged in employment outside of their duties without seeking supervisory approval; misuse of staff pass; sexual harassment and assault; falsifying transport claims; inappropriate relationship with subordinates – so a whole range of things.

Mdm Speaker, I want to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comprehensive answer. Just to add on to the issue of transparency, because I think most members of the public I speak with always ask this question: who watches the watchman? I also understand, based on the Deputy Prime Minister's reply, most of the reporting chains or whistle-blowing are all within the Civil Service chain. Has the Government considered putting an independent committee or an ombudsman function to oversee the enforcement agencies' officers in their conduct and also the processes and procedures which can improve the way the agencies are run?

I also noted in the Deputy Prime Minister's reply that psychometric testing and credit bureau vetting were done upon recruitment. As many of these officers who have been prosecuted recently have also served for a number of years, are these tests also done on a continuous basis or just upon recruitment?

As I have pointed out in my reply just now, there are a number of oversight channels which are not restricted or limited to within the Civil Service. PSC, for example, is not a Civil Service organisation. It is an independent organisation whose Chairman and Members are appointed with the concurrence of the President. So, it acts independently in terms of appointment, investigations and disciplining of officers. It is quite a separate and independent organisation – an Organ of State – which is provided for under the Constitution for precisely the reasons that Mr Zaqy Mohamad identified.

Apart from that, we also have reporting to organisations which are not within the chain of command of the officer involved, for example, CPIB or the Police, which are not directly involved in the organisation that the person is in.

Page: 16

The positions of certain specific persons are also protected under the Constitution, and the appointments are also protected, and these include the Judges, the Auditor-General and the Attorney-General. So, these are all independent positions which provide for the kind of independent checks and balances that we are looking for.

Madam, the Deputy Prime Minister has not replied to my questions about declarations and vetting.

Declarations and vetting are done on a regular basis. PSD, as I said just now, is looking at them again to see whether we need to tighten up some of these vetting procedures and also whether there are new types of things which we should be looking at, given new circumstances.

Thank you, Madam. A supplementary question. I noted that in this case, the Director of CPIB was replaced. I would like to know why the Director of CPIB was made responsible for this case. Under what circumstances when such corruption cases or whatever cases happen in the Civil Service, and to what extent does the supervisory authority of the officer take responsibility? Under what circumstances would the head of department or head of agency be dealt with?

Mdm Speaker, as explained earlier, each case is unique, and each case has to be considered in the light of the facts and the actions of the individuals, including the supervisors and the heads of the different agencies. In the case of CPIB, the Independent Review Panel found that processes in CPIB had been circumvented, resulting in a loss of funds from 2008. And in 2011, the Director, Mr Tan, introduced new tightened processes which would have uncovered and stopped the losses. However, the tightening was not implemented well, allowing the processes to be circumvented and the continued loss of funds. So, the previous and current Directors of CPIB have been formally warned for weaknesses in CPIB's internal processes. This is the substance of what has happened. Both Directors had supervisory and command responsibilities over the particular unit in CPIB. Both Directors have been issued formal letters of warning for their lapses and have accepted responsibility for them.

The Ministry will consider all relevant factors and, in the case of the two Directors, the Prime Minister's Office considered the supervisory lapses of the

Page: 17

two Directors and also took into account their past contributions as well as their performance in other aspects of their duties in CPIB, in deciding to issue the warning letters.