Allegations Surrounding Suicide of Sgt Uvaraja s/o Gopal

12.31 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to speak on this. On 21 July 2023, last year, a police officer, the late Sgt Uvaraja, committed suicide. Just before his passing, he put up a Facebook post. He made several statements.

He said that: one, he had been bullied and ill-treated by his superiors and colleagues; two, that some officers’ misconduct had been covered up; three, that his performance appraisals were unfair; and four, that he was ostracised by others at work.

I asked the Police to investigate the allegations. Safety and security in Singapore are based on, among other things, very high levels of public trust and confidence in the Police. In this matter, allegations were made against the Police by a Police officer. A full investigation is important. If there is wrongdoing, it must be dealt with, and it will be dealt with and errant officers must be taken to task. If we do not do so over time, the public will lose trust in the Police.

However, if the allegations are unfounded, the facts have to be set out and we will defend the Police publicly and robustly. If that is not done and untruths are allowed to fester, morale in the Singapore Police Force (SPF) will go down, and public trust will be eroded.

We have seen this, and many other things, happen – in the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK) and many other countries over the years. Public trust in these police forces has been affected and the morale of their officers has suffered. And we do not want to go down that path.

So, I directed the SPF to investigate the claims and for the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) to review the findings of the Police. And I am setting them out publicly here.

I will deal with four aspects in this Statement. First, I will deal with the allegations and the findings in respect of these allegations. Second, I will set out how the Police had supported Uvaraja. Third, I will touch on the framework in SPF to deal with workplace harassment and grievances. And fourth, I will address the mental health support that is provided to Home Team officers.

I have asked my colleagues, Ministers of State Sun Xueling and Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim, to also deliver further Ministerial Statements on my behalf in Mandarin and Malay.

First, on the allegations and findings. All the allegations concerning Uvaraja, including those shared by officers who had already left the Force, were looked into. Out of respect for Uvaraja’s memory and in consideration for his family, I would have preferred not to go into the details of these findings. But for the reasons I mentioned earlier, we have no choice but to set out at least some of the facts.

So, I go into the facts with some regret. We have explained this to Uvaraja’s family. They have been told in detail what I am going to say. They know and understand why we have to set out the facts, because Uvaraja has made serious allegations, and it is in the public interests that these allegations are dealt with.

In the course of the investigations, witnesses, from current to ex-officers, were interviewed. Past documentation and records were looked at, and the investigations were thorough.

The investigations found that: one, some of the allegations were true and, in respect of these, there had been investigations at the time the complaints were made, actions had been taken at that time and some officers had been disciplined and punished; and second, some of the allegations made by Uvaraja were untrue. After the Police had completed their internal investigations, their findings were reviewed by AGC and AGC was satisfied and determined that no further actions were needed.

Let me now deal with the allegations in detail.

First, Uvaraja said that he had been ill-treated and bullied by his superiors and colleagues. Specifically, he said: one, there was name-calling; two, shredding of his leave form; and three, abusive language used against him.

First, on the name-calling, Uvaraja said that racially inappropriate language had been used against him. Police records show that Uvaraja had made this complaint in 2015. Internal investigations were conducted at that time. They found that the officers involved were talking among themselves. The remarks were not specifically directed to, or aimed at, Uvaraja.

But – and this is an important point – their remarks were not acceptable at all. It does not matter whether they were directed at Uvaraja, or they were not directed at Uvaraja. They were and are not acceptable. Period. Uvaraja’s superiors made that clear to the team, that such language cannot be used, even as a joke. The officer who made the remark apologised to Uvaraja immediately in front of the whole team. If he had not apologised, he would have been made to do so, and disciplinary action would have also been taken against him.

Uvaraja’s superiors continued to monitor the situation to make sure there were no further recurrences. Uvaraja was updated of the outcome of the follow-up and his Deputy Commander had offered the option of lodging an official complaint, but Uvaraja decided that there was no need to file a further complaint.

Since the incident, the Police have conducted a review of their policies and there is a framework of approach for these cases. Cases involving racial slurs or casual racism will be investigated as possible misconduct and as a disciplinary breach. This is to ensure that there is a record of such an incident, that disciplinary action would be taken, and the officer's subsequent behaviour would be closely monitored.

The Police will also continue to engage officers, shape culture and engage in frank discussion on such issues around racial slurs or casual racism. This has been done and will be done through platforms, such as the annual Ethics Seminar, as well as the Police’s Manpower Department’s engagement sessions with officers. We cannot tolerate racism, nor can we tolerate casual racism, snide remarks and jokes which are racist.

Uvaraja also alleged that, in 2019, his superior had shredded his leave form and uploaded a video of this action within a chat group.

The context is this: Uvaraja had applied for discretionary time-off; this does not require the submission of a leave form. Uvaraja sent this application at the last minute, when other officers’ leave had already been approved. Nevertheless, Uvaraja’s superior approved his application. And it was not the first time that Uvaraja had done this; applying for time-off at the last minute. On previous occasions, his teammates who were on leave had to be recalled to cover the manpower shortfall.

In this case, when Uvaraja applied at the last minute again, the superior spoke to Uvaraja about him inconveniencing the entire team. But Uvaraja maintained his request for time off and asked the superior to end that conversation in the personal chat. The superior then shredded the leave form and uploaded a recording of him doing so, on the team chatgroup. He said he did this because the form was not required for Uvaraja’s time-off application, which he had already granted in any case, and the form contained personal information and had to be disposed of.

The superior's conduct was not professional. He should not have done that, even though one can understand his unhappiness.

Uvaraja had raised this matter up the chain of command. The superior was then reprimanded and Uvaraja was temporarily re-assigned to a different unit so that both officers could have some time to cool off.

Allegations were also made that different superiors had used abusive language against Uvaraja. This was not supported by the investigations. On the contrary, Uvaraja would often directly message or call his various superiors, and they had responded to him professionally.

So, looking at Uvaraja’s three complaints, in this first part, namely, one, the making of racist remarks; two, the shredding of leave forms; and three, the use of abusive language by his superiors – they were all investigated when he made the complaints. And in respect of the two complaints which were made out, action was taken and Uvaraja was told about the actions that had been taken, and he did not further pursue the complaints. The third complaint was not made out and he was also notified about that.

I now move to the next topic. Uvaraja claimed that his complaints against fellow officers vaping within Police compounds had been covered up. Investigations found that Uvaraja had made a complaint in 2021 to his superiors about officers vaping. Acting on the information he provided, Uvaraja’s Commander had directed an independent superior from a different unit to conduct a surprise check. All the lockers and personal belongings within the Police compound were checked, even though Uvaraja’s complaint was directed only at a few specific officers. The officers concerned were interviewed as well. The complaint was not made out. Throughout this process, the identity of the whistle-blower, in this case Uvaraja, was not disclosed to the independent superior nor the officers concerned.

For context, in a separate incident in January 2023, Uvaraja reported fellow officers smoking within a different Police compound. Investigations did find evidence of this. The officers involved were referred to the Police’s Internal Affairs Office for investigations and disciplinary action was taken against them.

So, when the complaint is made out, disciplinary action is taken. When the complaint is not made out, he is told that the complaint is not made out – no cover up.

Third, Uvaraja claimed that he had been unfairly held back in his career and was given unfair performance appraisals. These are untrue. Uvaraja was given opportunities to apply for postings, like his colleagues in the Police Land Divisions.

When Uvaraja asked to be transferred, his superiors had facilitated and acceded to his requests, wherever possible. At Uvaraja’s request, he was transferred to six different work units in nine years. Those who know about the Police Force will know that that is a significant number of postings. This is significantly more than what is normally given. Two of his transfers were related to his whistleblowing on the alleged smoking offences because Uvaraja felt uncomfortable working with the colleagues against whom he had reported.

On performance appraisals, investigations found that his performance grades were a fair assessment of his work contributions. He was also awarded the COVID-19 Resilience Medal.

Fourth, Uvaraja alleged that he had been treated like an outcast by his team. He said that he had invited his team to his wedding, but nobody had showed up. This was untrue. He had only invited his Officer-in-Charge (OC). His OC had accepted the invitation but was unable to attend, as he had fallen sick on that day, and the OC had apologised to Uvaraja. Uvaraja had also informed his Commanding Officer (CO) about the wedding, but did not follow up with an invitation. Nevertheless, the CO had congratulated Uvaraja in front of his teammates.

So, in summary, Police have done a review of the allegations. The findings for this case were also reviewed by AGC. And I have reviewed the Police and AGC’s findings and assessment myself. Some of his allegations are untrue. As for the allegations which were true, actions had been taken when he made the complaints and Uvaraja had been told of the steps that had been taken.

More broadly, moving to the second aspect of my Ministerial Statement, I will set out how the Police had supported Uvaraja. Investigations showed that Uvaraja was dealing with a number of personal issues. Some at the time of his passing and some for periods throughout his Police career. These included health problems as well as family problems.

First, his health issues. Throughout his career as a Police Officer, he had frequently applied for medical leave for periods that sometimes ran into several months in a year. In some of the years, Uvaraja had also applied for no-pay leave to manage his health issues after he had fully used up his paid leave entitlement. Police then granted him the unpaid leave. I will come back to this later.

In addition, Uvaraja also seems to have faced psychological stresses and chronic insomnia. Since 2017, he had attended multiple psychological consultations for his chronic insomnia. He also displayed anxiety and depressive symptoms. I am setting these out in summary, without details, because it would be preferable not to go into too much detail about an Officer who has passed away.

Second, Uvaraja seems to have had a tense relationship with both his wife and his family of origin, meaning his mother, his parents, his brother and so on.

In April 2023, Uvaraja’s wife called for Police help during an argument in their matrimonial home. She had been stopped by Uvaraja from leaving their home. On 13 July 2023, the Police received multiple calls for assistance from Uvaraja’s parents’ residence. His brother alleged that Uvaraja had assaulted him over financial matters. On 14 July 2023, the next day, Uvaraja’s mother lodged a Police report against Uvaraja, saying she feared for her safety. On the same day, Uvaraja’s sister-in-law called for the Police, because Uvaraja had come to her house to look for Uvaraja’s parents.

There is more background and there are more facts, relating to these events. We need to say something of the facts, because Members need an understanding of the situation he faced at that time, when he committed suicide, and the stresses he was under. And I am trying to convey the position to Members without going too much into the disputes he had with his wife, his mother, his brother and his sister-in-law, which led to the Police reports, and some background to the psychological issues he had and was receiving help for.

In summary, at that time when he passed away, he was the subject of three ongoing criminal and disciplinary investigations. First, he was under criminal investigation for offences under the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act. Second, Uvaraja was under internal disciplinary investigation for disobedience of orders, arising from the incidents in July 2023. He had been granted medical leave from duty at that time to rest and recover. Instead, he left his house on multiple occasions – and that is a disciplinary offence in the Police force. In fact, he had not only left his house, but he got into an argument with his family of origin at their flat, which led to calls to the Police and Police reports. Uvaraja had previously been investigated for similar behaviours in 2016 – going out while on medical leave. At that time, he had left his place of residence while on medical leave to attend a relative’s graduation and he was given a verbal warning.

Third, in April 2023, he was under another internal disciplinary investigation for disobedience of orders. He had left his uncompleted work unattended and refused to comply when told to return to finish the tasks. He only did so after being told a third time.

Sir, now I will turn to the professional support that the Police gave to Uvaraja.

First, leave arrangements. The Police had allowed Uvaraja to take substantial amounts of time-off over the years. In some of the years, Uvaraja had used up all his paid leave entitlements. So, he applied for no-pay leave and his requests were approved. From 2014 to 2023, Uvaraja took an average of about 120 days’ of leave every year and this, as Members can appreciate, is well beyond normal leave entitlement and much more than what a typical Police officer would get.

Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an Annex, with a table setting out some information on the number of days of medical and no-pay leave that Uvaraja had taken, since 2015?

Mr Speaker: Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. Members may also access this Annex through the MP@SG PARL mobile app.

Members will see that in 2016, 2017, 2021, 2022 and 2023, he took respectively 70 days, 56 days, 59 days, 80 days and 60 days of medical leave. And in addition, in 2015, 2016 and 2022, he took more than 100 days of no-pay leave. That is the way the Police have supported him. It is a very significant level of support in terms of giving him time off.

Beyond this, since 2016, Uvaraja’s superiors had also arranged for counselling and psychological assistance for him. In January 2023, Uvaraja reported that he was experiencing work stress. A para-counsellor was assigned to him. On 16 February 2023, Uvaraja reported to a new unit, following his request to be transferred. On that day, Uvaraja showed signs of being unstable. He was counselled by a para-counsellor on the same day and was later attended to by a psychologist from the Police Psychological Services Department.

Third, on coaching. While Uvaraja was at work, his superiors assessed that his performance was generally below average and had provided guidance to him. This took the form of face-to-face engagements, reviews on the plans for him and setting of achievable targets. For example, when he was at the Community Policing Unit from 2018 to 2021, various work templates and resources were given to him to help him carry out his job functions.

Uvaraja’s passing and his allegations has affected his Police colleagues. His fellow officers who had worked with him across various postings and who were aware of his situation felt sad that he had taken his life. But they were also disappointed with the untrue claims and allegations that he had made against the Police force. One officer who had partnered Uvaraja shared that she had encouraged him to start afresh when he was given a new posting, despite his past unhappiness. However, she was disappointed that he frequently did not show up for work. Another officer recalled how he had put in effort to arrange one-on-one chats and meals with Uvaraja and sent well-wishes to him on his birthday to motivate him.

I have only mentioned two officers, but there were several others, who have helped him during his period in the SPF. These teammates had worked alongside Uvaraja. They tried their best to help him and their best to care for him. They covered his shifts when he was absent from duties, sometimes even when they had made prior leave plans. So, it is fair to say that many officers pulled together to help him, and they were sad to see a colleague pass away in these circumstances.

But there is also a considerable feeling among the many officers who helped him that, despite so much being done for him by them in their individual capacities, and by SPF as an organisation – because SPF went to considerable lengths to accommodate his needs, including his leave and medical needs – he seems to have externalised many of his issues onto his colleagues in the SPF. And there is considerable sadness at that.

For the third aspect of my Ministerial Statement, I will now describe the Home Team’s framework to deal with workplace harassment and grievances. We had answered Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on this issue last September as well.

There can be no tolerance for any form of harassment or discrimination in the SPF. The responsibility starts at the top; from me down through the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) management, to the respective agencies’ leadership and then the ranks below.

A core pillar of the framework is training. During induction and training of new staff, from the junior ranks to senior officer levels, officers are trained on SPF’s code of ethics, workplace harassment and the actions to be taken if they are victims or witnesses. Supervisors are also specifically trained on ways to create a harassment-free workplace and support victims of workplace harassment.

In terms of investigating allegations, every functional unit in SPF has a discipline committee headed by the Commander or Director. In terms of how they function, these discipline committees can convene formal inquiries on their own, or they can refer issues to the Internal Affairs Office (IAO) for further review. The IAO reports to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and is directly accountable to the Commissioner of Police. All cases of sexual harassment and serious workplace harassment are referred to the IAO for investigations.

If wrongdoing is uncovered, the Police, or in appropriate cases, the Public Service Commission, will take disciplinary action. If criminal offences are disclosed, the Police will recommend prosecution. The Courts take into account the officer’s duty to uphold the law, so the punishment that a Police officer faces is usually more severe than what any other defendant in the Courts or any member of the public can expect to face.

In the past five years, the Home Team Departments have investigated 310 cases of allegations of workplace grievances including harassment, discrimination and misconduct. Nine of these were reported to the Public Service Division and Ministry headquarters. Of the 310 cases, 131 were found to be substantiated and the offending officers were subjected to various disciplinary actions.

I will now give two examples from the Police.

In 2019, two female officers reported that a male officer had touched them inappropriately on multiple occasions. That was investigated by the IAO. The male officer was charged in Court. He was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and was dismissed from service.

The second example: in 2020, a Station Inspector (SI) attending a course made sexually insulting and offensive remarks against, or in respect of, his fellow trainees. The SI was told by the course coordinator to refrain from making such remarks, but he continued. He was investigated by the IAO and then charged at the Police Disciplinary Board, where he was found guilty and sentenced to a reduction in rank.

These are the small number of exceptions. The vast majority of our officers hold themselves to a very high standard of conduct, and we cannot allow a small minority who do wrong to colour the public perception of the rest of the force. And coming to racial insults, of the 310 cases, six complaints were on racial discrimination. Three were substantiated and action was taken. Of the 29,000 officers in the Home Team, six complaints, and three were found to be substantiated in the last five years.

On the ground, the Ministry conducts six-monthly Pulse surveys, biennial Public Service Employee Engagement Surveys and triennial 360° surveys of supervisors. These are all avenues where officers can also provide anonymous comments and feedback, including on workplace issues, so that the Ministry has a good idea of how officers are perceiving issues and what the feelings are on the ground.

Finally, for the fourth aspect of my Ministerial Statement, I will touch on my Ministry's efforts to support the mental well-being of our officers.

Our officers have access to a range of support, such as (a) MHA's in-house psychological services; (b) peer support programmes where fellow officers are trained as para-counsellors; (c) a 24/7 helpline managed in-house by our psychologists and para-counsellors; as well as (d) external agency-administered services. Officers can go and get these measures without needing to report that they have done so, so that it preserves confidentiality. Officers also attend workshops and courses on how to cope and adapt when dealing with operational and work stresses, and they are sensitised to common mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, suicide and the helplines that are available.

In October of every year, the Home Team Psychological Services community organises a month-long campaign. The aim of the campaign is to build awareness of the importance of mental health, the importance of self-care and where to seek help when needed. This approach and culture have been in place for some years now. And we regularly review and update them to try to ensure that our programmes continue to be relevant.

Sir, let me conclude by briefly setting out our perspective on how we handle these matters. Policing is not easy, and it is not getting easier, either in Singapore or around the world.

In the UK, a survey by the Police Federation of England released last year showed that 87% of police officers said that morale was either low or very low, seven in 10 said that they would not recommend others to join the police force, while 95% said that their morale was harmed by the treatment by their own Government. In the US, Gallup found, in 2022, that public confidence in the police was just 45%. The US Department of Justice said in October last year that law enforcement agencies across the US are facing an “historic crisis in recruiting and retaining qualified candidates”.

Police forces around the world are facing increasing challenges for many reasons. Some of them are: first, there is a trend of laws in other countries being progressively weakened against law enforcement, making it more difficult for the police to arrest, more difficult to investigate and more difficult for the state to prosecute and get convictions. It is easier for people to commit crimes due to laxer laws and it is easier for those who have committed crimes to walk away.

The mentality is often one of the “individual versus the system”, where the system – the law enforcement institutions – are usually painted out to be the villains. Officers feel like the situation is stacked against them. It is difficult to do their job. And this is compounded by a second reason. Around the world, many police forces are struggling to pay their officers adequately. I have spoken about this before. If conditions of service are not good, it will be difficult to attract and retain good people for this tough job.

Third, some police forces are also struggling with corruption in their system. This arises due to many factors – poor discipline, low morale and poor leadership, among others. We have to guard against all of these developing in Singapore and to make sure that SPF continues to retain the trust of Singaporeans.

Finally, a fourth reason, which is unfair attacks against the Police. Let me speak about this in Singapore's context. The Home Team has about 29,000 regular and civilian officers, with another 7,700 National Service Full-time officers (NSFs). The Police force alone has about 10,000 regular officers and 4,000 NSFs. There will be officers who do wrong.

For example, a few months ago, in October last year, Police Commanding Officer, Superintendent Lim, was convicted after being charged in Court. He was caught drink-driving at a Police roadblock. Second example, in March 2020, Ground Response Force officer, Sergeant Lim, was convicted in Court for criminal breach of trust and sent to jail. He had misappropriated for himself more than $200 in cash from wallets that had been handed over to him while he was on duty for safekeeping.

In many countries, I dare say, these offences by police officers which were picked up by other police officers would have never seen the light of day. A police officer who drinks and drives and is caught at a police roadblock, he will not be charged. But in Singapore, he will be, because the Police force takes a very serious view of errant Police officers.

Members might also be aware of the case involving Staff Sergeant Kevin Chelvam, who allegedly stood by while his domestic helper was abused by his family members. He was charged for abetting his wife in starving the domestic helper, causing hurt to the helper, removing evidence and lying to the Police. And he is currently on trial.

When we come across these situations, action is taken, and it is dealt with publicly. No cover-ups. But as I said, these are the exceptions, a very small number of exceptions. The vast majority of our officers are honest. They have strong ethos, strong esprit de corps and integrity. They go on duty, day in and day out, and put their personal safety on the line, to keep Singapore safe.

So, when we find that statements made against officers or the force are unfair, then we will defend the Police officers and SPF robustly. I think Members will agree that the facts I have set out today paint quite a different picture, compared to the accusations that were made in the posting and the conclusion that some people had come to last year.

I said in May last year at the Police Workplan Seminar: “Our officers know that when there are false or unfair allegations, we will act quickly and decisively to tell the truth and stand by the officers. And that starts with me and the Permanent Secretary and the entire Police leadership. We will stand by our officers and defend them". That remains our position.

This is a larger issue. We cannot allow what has happened to the police forces in some other countries to happen in Singapore. We will set out the facts, defend our officers – clearly and strongly – if they have done no wrong. And they must know that that is our position, in contrast to the position in many countries where the police and the public service are often made the scapegoats in public debates.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Assoc Prof Dr Faishal Ibrahim.

1.10 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, I will speak in Malay, on behalf of the Minister.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Home Team does not tolerate workplace harassment and racial discrimination. We take seriously all allegations of such nature and will investigate them. We have put in place various safeguards to deter and detect such behaviours. This was covered in Minister Shanmugam’s written reply to Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on avenues for Home Team officers to raise complaints in September last year.

I will highlight some of the key points from that reply and make further elaborations.

But first, let me summarise the outcome of the investigations into the late Sgt Uvaraja’s allegations. The investigations found that most of the allegations, including that he was ill-treated, bullied, ostracised and unfairly held back in his career, and that other officers’ misconduct had been covered up, were demonstrably false. Where the complaints were substantiated, appropriate actions had already been taken, and errant officers had already been taken to task. The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) had reviewed the findings and decided that no further action needs to be taken against any of the involved officers. Minister Shanmugam has also reviewed the findings.

As for the reporting channels available for Home Team officers to raise grievances or report wrongdoing or workplace discrimination, they can do so to any level of management through the Channel for Formal Grievance Handling and the Channel for Confidential Ethical Disclosure. Officers are informed of these reporting channels when they first join MHA and at various engagement sessions.

There are clear escalation guidelines and processes to ensure that all reports of workplace discrimination, unfair treatment, or misconduct are investigated objectively, professionally and expeditiously. Officers who are not satisfied with the outcome of an investigation can further escalate the matter up within the Ministry, the Public Service Division (PSD), or even to the Head of Civil Service.

Officers can also provide anonymous feedback, including on workplace discrimination issues, through MHA’s Pulse Surveys, Public Service Employee Engagement Surveys, and 360° Surveys of supervisors. Feedback received through these surveys are taken seriously and investigated where necessary.

In the past five years, 310 cases of wrongdoings were reported across all Home Team Departments, of which 92, or about 30%, were reports of workplace harassment. Our investigations showed that 50 of the 92 cases were substantiated. And of the 50, three were for racial discrimination, two of which were from the Police force. The officers in all 50 cases were dealt with in accordance with the Civil Service Disciplinary Framework.

These formal organisational reporting channels are necessary but insufficient on their own. Every officer has a role to play in ensuring that the workplace remains safe for everyone. Officers can attend programmes and trainings to learn about cultural, religious and racial sensitivities and about behaviours that constitute bullying and sexual harassment. Through such trainings, we empower officers with the skills to detect and deter workplace harassment. At the same time, we assure them that they can come forward when they witness or become victims of workplace harassment.

In addition, Minister Shanmugam, Second Minister Josephine Teo, Minister of State Sun Xueling and I, as well as the Home Team senior management, regularly engage our officers in dialogues. We do this to get a better sense of the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis.

During these sessions, officers do surface issues and their concerns, and they can also do so anonymously via the online platform which may be set up for the dialogues. In some instances, we arrange for a smaller group session if the officers prefer to speak to us in a more private setting. We take seriously all the issues and concerns that are raised by our officers.

Mr Speaker, MHA takes a strong stance against workplace harassment and racial discrimination. We treat all such allegations seriously and investigate thoroughly.

There have indeed been a few black sheep; no organisation or society can completely eliminate all harassment and discrimination. But such cases remain far and few within the Home Team. And if we do find any wrongdoing, rest assured that we will not hesitate to take the culpable officers to task, regardless of seniority. This is the only way to maintain and keep the confidence and trust of our officers, and the public whom we serve. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.

1.18 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will deliver my speech in Mandarin on behalf of Minister Shanmugam.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Minister Shanmugam has spoken at length on the case and the broader issues of workplace discrimination and mental health support for Home Team officers. My statement will be in two parts. First, MHA's efforts in supporting the mental well-being of our officers; and second, fostering a culture that values and respects diversity at the workplace.

Let me summarise the outcome of the investigations into the late Sgt Uvaraja’s allegations. The investigations found that most of the allegations, including that he was ill-treated, bullied, ostracised and unfairly held back in his career and that other officers' misconduct had been covered up, were demonstrably false. Where the complaints were substantiated, appropriate actions had already been taken at that time, and errant officers had already been taken to task. The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) had reviewed the findings and decided that no further action needs to be taken against any of the involved officers.

Let me now speak on MHA's efforts in supporting our officers' mental well-being.

Mental health struggles can affect us all, regardless of age, gender or profession. The pandemic had exacerbated some of the stressors. Based on Ministry of Health's (MOH) National Population Health Survey 2022, the prevalence of poor mental health had increased from 13.4% in 2020 to 17% in 2022.

On 5 October 2023, MOH launched the National Mental Health and Well-Being Strategy. The key initiatives include training employees to support and care for their colleagues' mental well-being, training supervisors to recognise common mental health conditions and offering mental wellness programmes to equip employers and employees with the skills and knowledge to better take charge of their mental well-being.

In the Home Team, the mental health and well-being of our officers are of utmost importance. As shared in Parliament in October 2022, our Home Team officers are provided with various forms of support. These include MHA's in-house psychological services and peer support programmes comprising officers trained as para-counsellors. There is a 24/7 helpline managed in-house by our psychologists and para-counsellors, as well as external agency-administered services. To provide officers with the assurance of confidentiality and for them to feel safe to come forward, they are not required to report their engagement of such assistance.

There are also organisational level initiatives to raise awareness and educate officers on the importance of mental health and how to deal with stressors. For example, we will organise resilience building workshops for newly joined officers and awareness programmes to learn the ways to cope and adapt when dealing with operational and work stresses. There are also courses to train supervisors on how to support their officers. There are communication initiatives to raise officers' literacy on common mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety and suicide, and inform them of the various helplines available.

In October every year, the Home Team Psychological Services community organises a month-long campaign to remind officers on the importance of self-care and where to seek help when needed. Our programmes are regularly reviewed to ensure relevancy and are updated with new developments and interventions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, MHA is a large organisation with about 29,000 employees from different backgrounds. We value and respect the richness such diversity brings and recognise that maintaining a harmonious workplace in the face of such diversity cannot be taken for granted. We put in effort to build trust and acceptance, embrace differences and proactively deal with any bias or racism.

In supervisory workshops, sensitivity to and respect of various cultures and races are discussed and reinforced. MHA officers at all levels are reminded of the importance of cultivating a harassment-free workplace and how they should support victims of workplace harassment. There are also team cohesion programmes for officers to bond and get to know each other better. The Home Team Departments also organise celebrations of the various festivals of every race. These celebrations reinforce our appreciation of the differences among us, promote inclusiveness and enhance our understanding of each other's culture.

In a multiracial society, everyone plays a part in building a culture of respect. We must keep working at it. The majority must be sensitive to the concerns of the minority and be mindful of our actions and words. The minority must not allow suspicion to colour how we perceive every action and word of the majority.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in MHA, our officers operate in teams to fulfil their mission. They must necessarily rely on and count on each other to be successful. We therefore put strong emphasis on team leaders building strong bonds within their teams and ensuring that the officers value and respect the diversity in the Home Team.

1.25 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I call Members to ask for clarifications if they have any, I wish to remind Members that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarification on the Ministerial Statement, but there is no debate that should be allowed thereon. Members can seek clarifications by way of asking questions.

So, I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise. Likewise, I would like to ask the Ministers to also keep your answers clear and concise.

Are there any clarifications? Yes, Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for his explanation on this very tragic episode. My questions pertain to what the public came to know about the suicide involving Sgt Uvaraja and, naturally, you have different perspectives out there, and, to the extent that the Minister could, I think the clarifications he provided in the House were helpful.

However, there is also a post by an individual who was the senior counsellor of the late Sgt Uvaraja. I think there were some allegations that he made as well.

The Minister responded in his statement to Sgt Uvaraja's allegations, but I would just like to confirm whether the allegations by the senior counsellor have also been looked into. I think there were comments regarding the sheer abuse of authority and the fact that the late Sgt Uvaraja endured prolonged surveillance. So, for completeness, can the Minister also confirm the veracity of these allegations, as I think this post still remains online?

The second clarification is with regard to, again, the post of the senior counsellor who said that he referred Sgt Uvaraja to the Police Psychological Services Division. Can the Minister share what is the usual procedure for such referrals? Does the Police or the relevant psychological teams follow up with the officer on a regular basis?

Finally, the final question, with your leave, Mr Speaker, on the fourth or final point that the Minister made about allegations being made against the Police and so forth internationally and how we do not want these to seep into Singapore and destroy the trust amongst the public and the Police, can the Minister just share what is the current situation with regard to the morale of the Police force vis-à-vis this particular episode?

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for the four questions.

I said in my Statement that the investigations covered not just Mr Uvaraja's allegations but those that have been made by others, and that includes the allegations made in that post.

On the second question as to what happens when a matter is referred to a psychological team, I covered that in my Statement. In this case, he was referred to a para-counsellor, for example, last year, and then to a Police counsellor. I forgot the exact specification; it is in my Statement. How much further it needs to go and how long it needs to go is fact specific. It depends on the facts. But the Police have a team. There are internal resources. There are also external agencies that the Police can tap on too. The kind of support that will be given and the very extensive structure of support available will be fact specific and will depend on what the officer needs.

I did not take down the third point. So, I will go to the fourth point. On morale in the Police force, what I can say is, let me give a few statistics off the top of my head and give a broader perspective.

People's trust in the Police Force is in excess of 90%. I have said that in public before. In Singapore, more than 90% of Singaporeans trust the Singapore Police Force (SPF). You do not get those figures in other countries and there is a reason. The reason is, among other things, with yesterday's passing of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), the Police know that we will give the appropriate powers. The Police know I will stand up here and make a Ministerial Statement defending the Police when they have done no wrong.

We will also charge our Police officers when they have done wrong in public. For example, even though a Superintendent, a senior Police officer, is caught by another Police officer at a roadblock drunk driving, he will be charged. The public know that. The Police know that. That is why we have transparency; they know we have transparency; that is why we have trust.

We do not make the Police the subject of political football. And we do not make the Police the scapegoats every time there are inconvenient questions. We come out; we tell the truth; we defend them where they ought to be defended. We admit when something has gone wrong. So, that is the approach.

If the Member could tell me what the third question is, I will deal with that, too.

Sorry, I did not answer the Member's question on morale. That is on trust.

On Police morale, Pulse surveys – surveys which I have described. There are different kinds of surveys that are done that suggest Police morale is extremely high. It is strong. There is strong esprit de corps and strong morale, because they know that this Government does the right thing by them and this Government has always done the right thing. My predecessors have done the right thing. We do the right thing. The Police know that. They trust. They know that people cannot just make allegations against the Police force.

The morale is high. If the Member wants precise numbers, I can give them to the Member if he could put in a PQ.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Just to reply to the Minister, I had three questions, not four.

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, yes.

Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his Statement which actually answered the PQ that I had filed earlier. I just have one clarification.

Whenever a complaint or an allegation is brought up and involves an internal matter, I think it is often more painful and more difficult when it comes from an external source because this leads to great stress, anxiety and awkwardness for the person making the complaint. And indeed, for those who then have to be investigated and who then have to be questioned, it can also be an uncomfortable time as well, and that could affect not just the morale but the teamwork and the esprit de corps within the team.

So, I wanted to just ask the Minister if he could share whether there are measures taken to help deal with the mental and emotional stress that perhaps officers who are being investigated or being questioned are facing as a result of the complaint, such that they are able to deal with that difficult period of questioning and even after the matter has been closed as well.

Mr K Shanmugam: I thank the Member for that question. There are two parts to it. One, there has to be a proper and thorough investigation. There can be no caveats to that. And that, in itself, I accept can be stressful and will often be stressful, but we have no choice. We have to investigate. And the officer will know that if he has done nothing wrong, the investigations will clear him. Equally, he will know that if the allegations against him are likely to be made out, then, of course, I can understand that that would add to the stress.

The situation does not mean that the officer is precluded from seeking psychological assistance that I spoke about. He can continue to avail himself of the help, speak with his counsellors and receive such psychological support as necessary because he continues to be a member of the Police force.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali.

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I, too, would like to express my condolences to the family of the late Sgt Uvaraja and I hope that, in due course, they will come to terms with the loss of their late son, brother as well as husband.

Sir, my question is in relation to the SPF human resources policy. Having regard to a situation where there is a Police officer who has not been performing for quite an extended period of time – not attending work and also has psychological problems – and the natural tendency of Police officers to want to help their colleagues, how do we balance that against public interest, having regard to the fact that the Police officer has solemn duties and is also armed when he is on duty as well. How do we make sure that a decision in relation to his employment is made ultimately in the public interest and, hopefully, also to protect him in the long run?

Mr K Shanmugam: May I ask the Member to clarify the question? Is the question about how do we make sure he is in employment, meaning how do we make sure that he remains in employment or how do we make sure that he does not remain in employment? I am not quite sure.

Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, I thank the Minister for his question. The question I have is in relation to how do we make sure a decision is made in public interest for a person who is seen not to be able to function for an extended period of time? And drawing from this case, there are psychological issues, so how do we make a decision in the public interest to even consider termination of the person's employment?

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, there are rules which govern all Police officers set out by and following the Public Service Division's rules. Assessment of the Police officers' performance has to be made over a period of time. His performance grades will have to be looked at over that period of time. Reports will have to be put up. If he falls below a certain standard consistently for a number of years, then he will be out. So, those are objective criteria.

Subjectively, in terms of how people will help, at least speaking for the Police force and from this case, Members will know that if a person is not performing, his colleagues do come around him to try and support, which they have tried to do even at the expense of their own leave arrangements; they have tried to rally around him and support him to try and get him to perform better.

The third aspect to the question is: if allegations are made and investigations are conducted, those have to be professional and independent. You have the Internal Affairs Office. You have the Police. A different department, or CID, will conduct the investigations where, quite often, you can be sure that the Police will do that robustly without consideration of the fact that the person is a Police officer. In fact, the fact that he is a Police officer often counts against the person in Court if, indeed, he is charged.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his internal investigation report which has provided a lot of new insights into the case. There is no reason to doubt the findings.

I also agree with the Minister that we have to look after the morale of the Police force. However, in this case, a Police officer has taken his own life after alleging workplace bullying, racial discrimination and unfair treatment after whistleblowing within the SPF.

A better way to clear the air may be to appoint a Committee of Inquiry to investigate the case rather than through an internal investigation. So, may I ask the Minister why he has chosen an internal investigation by the Police force itself as opposed to appointing a Committee of Inquiry. Just a matter of interest.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, it is precisely because of the sentiments like what Mr Leong has expressed, which have found favour in some countries, that you see the morale of the Police force and public trust in the Police force is going down south. Let me explain.

I think the Member perhaps did not listen to my Ministerial Statement. I am not sure if he was in the Chamber when I talked about the UK. I am not sure. Perhaps the Member can confirm. Were you in the Chamber?

Sir, can I ask, through you, whether the Member was in the Chamber when I talked about the UK?

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Minister, you are talking about your—

Mr K Shanmugam: Ministerial Statement, where I referred to—

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Just now?

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, I was in the Chamber.

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, because I thought I had not seen the Member.

Then the Member would have heard me saying what the morale of the UK police officers was. I think the Member would recall more than half, a significant number, take a very dim view of their prospects; 70% will not recommend somebody else to join the force and a significant number blamed their own government and the endless inquiries. Every time there is an allegation, there is a committee of inquiry. Every time there is an allegation, they are made the subject of being scapegoated.

If you put officers through this each time there is an allegation, that is, public inquiries, what are you really saying? That they will be put out there and hung out to dry regardless of the facts. You ask yourself: do you think more people are going to join the Police force? Is that good for Singapore? Is that the kind of society we want?

The bottom line is, do we trust the Police force? Do we trust the Internal Affairs Office? Why do you think 90% of Singaporeans have trust in the Police force? Why do we take a theoretical approach when, in practice, in Singapore, it is a low-crime society, and it is a high trust society; there is tremendous trust in the Police force? We solve crimes with the methods that we have used. So, what is it about those methods that are wrong? Why do you want to go down a route like the UK has? Have you seen the results of their system?

Yesterday I set out what happens in other countries; and today, I went back to talking about what happens in other countries.

Let me give the figures: "85% of the Police officers in the survey by the Police Federation of England released last year said morale within the force is currently low or very low; 70% would not recommend others to join the police; 95% said their morale was harmed by their treatment by their government", which includes these sorts of committees of inquiry.

If there is something specific that the Member, Mr Leong, has in terms of the facts that have been disclosed, dpes the Member question the form that I set out on the medical leave and the no-pay leave of the officer? These are matters of record.

Does the Member question the point that I made that he made three allegations of bullying? Two of them were found to have been substantiated, but they had been investigated when he had first made the complaint and he did not follow up. He accepted it. The third one was unsubstantiated. The Police had actually taken action against the officers.

So, when the Member talks about a Committee of Inquiry or Commission of Inquiry, I would invite the Member to say which part of this explanation does he disagree with or finds questionable? Perhaps, if the Member would illuminate that and explain that, then we can discuss, rather than, in generalities, that we ought to follow other systems when our system is doing much better than any of these systems that the Member can refer to. Perhaps the Member can tell me which part of the explanation he thinks is questionable.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, I think I would also like to make a point that the Minister has not been attentive to what I said. I said there is no reason to doubt the finding. I think people know why I raised the question, because justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done.

In this case, we are not asking for – or at least I am not asking for – that, in the future, any complaints about our Police force, we will make a big fuss out of it. But in this case, I am saying it is very special, well, unfortunately, it is very special, because a Policeman has given up his life. So, I thought we should investigate this case with a Committee of Inquiry. But, of course, we respect the decisions made by the Minister. I am just asking the Minister what has been, in his mind, when he made the decision? Just that.

Mr K Shanmugam: I thank Mr Leong for that clarification.

It is a matter of considerable regret to me personally, and I am sure to every Member in this House, that someone took his life. In particular, it is a matter of considerable regret and dismay for the Home Team, that he is a Police officer. Of course, it affects us. It affects me, it affects the Police force and his colleagues. None of us wants to see it and we have the deepest of feelings for his family and for himself. And that is why I have taken considerable care not to go into what exactly happened, except to set out in the briefest of outlines. So, it is very, very sad matter. Deepest condolences to the family. Regret is even not adequate to convey the very deep feelings we have about what happened. We wish it had been otherwise.

What the Police force can say is that they did everything they can to help him. They provided psychological assistance; they gave him days off and they gave him leave. If you take 2015, if a person does not turn up for work for 150 days –100 days of no-pay leave and 40 days of medical leave – I think it is an extraordinary organisation that gives that level of flexibility.

And then, the next year, no-pay leave of 216 days and 70 days of medical leave – that makes it 286 days out of 360. So, it is 80 days where he was at work, minus weekends or days off. So, again, that level of flexibility was given. This is a caring organisation that cared for him and gave him a lot of support. I think Members will accept that.

Then, come back to 2022, he was on no-pay leave for about 160 days, and he was on medical leave for 80 days – that is 240 days out of 360, excluding weekends.

I do not think you will see this in many organisations. Certainly, not in the private sector, but the Police force had been very, very supportive of trying to help this officer. And that is the approach they take to every Police officer. Any Police officer taking his life is a tragedy for us. We do not want to see that.

And likewise, any allegation, whether by a Police officer or not, has to be taken seriously, as I explained why. And when it is by a Police officer, it will be taken seriously by the public; and the Police will, of course, also take it seriously, simply because a Police officer making these allegations can be expected to know more about what he is saying in context. And we need to really investigate. Which is why it was investigated thoroughly, and I had the AGC review those findings, and then I reviewed them myself.

There are proper cases for a Committee of Inquiry. There are proper cases for a Commission of Inquiry. I have explained when some matters will go for Committee of Inquiry and Commission for Inquiry. This is a matter where I have set out the facts publicly and people can assess for themselves how the facts look.

1.50 pm

Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for the Minister? No. Order. End of Ministerial Statement. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day and Notices of Motion.