Upholding the Integrity of Singapore's System of Governance

05 FEB 2024

Oral Reply by Mr Chan Chun Sing, Minister for Education and Minister-in-charge of the Public Service to Parliamentary Questions on upholding the integrity of Singapore's system of governance

Parliament Sitting: 5 February 2024

Mr Speaker, Sir. In view of Mr S Iswaran’s case, some members of the public and various members in this House (Mr Edward Chia, Mr Derrick Goh, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Darryl David and Mr Mohd Fahmi) have asked about our rules - whether they are adequate and should they be reviewed. May I have your permission to answer Parliamentary Questions 28 to 31 on today’s Order Paper? Mr Speaker, my response will also cover the matter raised in the questions by Mr Darryl David and Mr Mohd Fahmi which are scheduled for a subsequent sitting. I would invite Members to seek clarifications, if need be. If the questions have been addressed, it may not be necessary for members to proceed with the Parliamentary Questions for future sittings.
Let me first lay out our approach to uphold the integrity of our system of governance so as to maintain public confidence and trust.
Our rules are meant to facilitate our work and keep our officers safe from being compromised. They should not be so onerous that our officers cannot operate. Neither should they be so lax as to erode discipline and trust in our system. When an incident happens, we should not have a knee jerk reaction and immediately tighten or add more rules. Instead, we should ask ourselves three questions:

a)    First, was it a case where the rules were clear, but were flouted or ignored? If so, then what we need to do is not to adjust the rules, but to take action against the offender.

b)    Second, was it a case where the rules were unclear? If so, then we should clarify or simplify the rules. But we should be mindful that not every grey area can be clarified, and for some matters, judgement will still be required. Our officers should not just understand the letter of the rule, but also the spirit.

c)    Third, was it a case where the rules were too lax, or was it a new situation not envisaged or covered by the rules? If so, we should update the rules.
To know which of these apply to the case of former Minister Iswaran, we need to know the facts of the case, and we should not prejudge these facts before the court trial.
Maintaining the integrity of our system is a multi-pronged and continuous effort.

a)    At the individual level, we must have the right ethos and values; understand both the spirit and letter of the rules; and uphold them.

b)    At the team or organisation-level, we must look out for one another to minimise the chances of us being compromised, subverted, or succumbing to human frailties.

c)    At the system level, we must have regular internal audits, external audits, and have institutions like AGO and CPIB to respond to issues not picked up by other layers of checks.
Mr Speaker, Sir, while we endeavour to do our best and keep improving at the system level, no system is ever perfect, and will be able to pick up every wrongdoing at the first instance, as much as we may desire.
Hence, when incidents happen, we respond decisively and transparently to restore trust and confidence in our system. This is what we have done and this is what we will continue to do.
Mr Speaker, Sir, with these as background, let me address some specific questions raised by members of this House.
First, Mr Edward Chia and Mr Derrick Goh asked about gifts. Our rules on gifts are clear.

a)    Officers must never ask for gifts or favours, especially when they are in a position to influence or affect any decision involving the other party.

b)    An officer must not accept any gift offered to him, on account of his official position or his official work. Our first instinct must be to decline any unsolicited gifts and return them, if possible.

c)    If it is not possible or impractical to do so, we declare and account for it according to established processes. This is to ensure transparency and to maintain our probity.

d)    If the officer wants to keep the gift, he may be allowed to do so if he pays for it after having its value assessed.

e)    For operational simplicity, the officer may be allowed to retain a gift worth less than $50 without paying for it, if doing so does not affect the integrity of the Civil Service.

f)     But should an officer accept multiple gifts of $49 repeatedly? I think we know the answer from the spirit of the rule. If such a pattern of behaviour is observed, it must stop.
What about meals? Similar principles apply. We appreciate that it may not be practical to assess the value of a meal in the moment. Officers must have good sense to know when they are being cultivated and reject such attempts. When in doubt, officers should inform their supervisors.

a) This does not mean that our officers should not go out and interact with non-Government stakeholders to understand the business and social communities. It is part of our work to understand the world in order to govern responsively and responsibly.

b) As a practical measure to protect ourselves, I always advise our officers to avoid attending such events alone where the risk of being compromised is harder to manage.
On the Code of Conduct for public officers, we review the rules annually to ensure that it remains relevant to the contexts we are facing and are going to face. For each review, we will gather feedback and will consult stakeholders, including the unions. If there are changes, they will be communicated to our officers.
Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Darryl David asked about the Code of Conduct for Ministers and Political Office Holders. The Code has been in place since 1954 and it is regularly reviewed to ensure that the Code remains sound and relevant. The last major changes were made in 2005 and included clarifications on the rules on acceptance of gifts, declarations of investments and directorships, amongst others.
Political Office Holders are also expected to abide by the Rules of Prudence, issued by the Prime Minister after every General Election to all PAP Members of Parliament.
Mr Edward Chia, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Mohd Fahmi asked about the whistleblowing process. The Public Service has an established Internal Disclosure Policy where officers can directly report to their Heads of Agencies any wrongful or doubtful practices they observe. There are confidentiality and “non-retaliation” provisions in place to protect those who have reported in good faith.
If anyone suspects that any of their superiors have been compromised, they can report the suspicious activity to their Heads of Agencies, or beyond their organisation, including to agencies like the CPIB.
Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must remind ourselves that Mr Iswaran’s case is before the Courts. We should let the law take its course and not jump into conclusions, nor make statements that may prejudice the case or prematurely adjudge the processes that may have gone right or wrong. This case is one that was picked up by CPIB and investigations were initiated without external pressure or interference.
In updating our rules, sharpening our implementation, and inculcating the right ethos and values in our officers, the Public Service and the Government will continue to draw lessons from this and other cases, whether local or overseas.