Updating Codes of Conduct and Whistle-blowing Framework for Political Office Holders and Public Officers

28 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Prime Minister in light of CPIB’s findings on former Minister S Iswaran (a) whether the current system of checks and balances, including the governance of senior public officials and whistle-blowing processes, adequately deliver on its intended purposes; and (b) whether there are areas for further improvements or enhancements.

29 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Prime Minister in light of CPIB's findings on former Minister S Iswaran (a) whether the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the rules guiding the interactions of political office holders and officers of the public service with private sector stakeholders in social settings; and (b) whether any insight can be provided into the measures under consideration to enhance the guidelines to ensure utmost integrity in such engagements.

30 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Prime Minister regarding the acceptance or obtainment of a valuable thing by public servants or political office holders (a) whether there is an established system for declarations of such gifts; (b) how is monitoring performed to detect absent or inadequate consideration of such declarations across the Government; and (c) whether governance and controls will be reviewed to further improve their effectiveness.

31 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Prime Minister whether there are any plans to review or revise the Code of Conduct for Ministers and the whistle-blowing framework for public officers and to mandate refresher training on the Code of Conduct for public officers.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister. In view of Mr S Iswaran’s case, some members of the public and various Members in this House, including 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 Question Nos 28 to 31 on today’s Order Paper? And Mr Speaker, Sir, my response will also cover the matter raised in the questions by Mr Darryl David¹ and Mr Mohd Fahmi² which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: 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.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 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.

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.

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 may be required. Our officers should not just understand the letter of the rule, but also the spirit.

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 S Iswaran, we need to know the facts of his 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. At the individual level, we must have the right ethos and values; understand both the spirit and letter of the rules; and uphold them.

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.

At the system level, we must have regular internal audits, external audits and have institutions like Auditor-General's Office (AGO) and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) to respond to issues not picked up by other layers of checks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while we may 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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 the 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.

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.

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 People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament.

Mr Edward Chia, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Mohd Fahmi asked about the whistle-blowing 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 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 to 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 to our officers, the Public Service and the Government will continue to draw lessons from this and other cases, whether local or overseas.

Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask just one supplementary question to the Minister. Given that business and cultural norms actually differ between countries and evolved. So, for example, in some cases, declining invitations to dinners or events may be perceived as disrespectful. What are the standard operating procedures (SOPs) and training provided to public officers who advance trade relations and attract foreign direct investments (FDIs) and how often are these training materials updated?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me answer the question in two parts. First, on the training of our public officers and second part about the difference between the Government and the private sector.

Our Public Service has a system of ensuring the Code of Conduct is known and observed. We focus not just on the rules, as I have explained, but also the principles behind the rules. The key principles are articulated in the Instruction Manuals with illustrative examples to help officers understand the rules. The Code is reinforced through various channels, including on-boarding of new entrants, annual declarations to remind officers of the rules, annual mandatory quizzes, incorporation into milestone programmes – for example, the Foundation Programme for Young Leaders, Management Development Courses for Supervisors, Senior Management Programme for Directors – and there will also be regular discussions and conversations with Senior Leaders on the values and ethos of our Public Service and there will also be regular service-wide reminders. This is the process of how we inculcate the right values and ethos in our officers to help them understand not just the letter of the rule but the spirit behind the rule.

Let me address the second part. The context for public agencies is different from that of private companies. Our Public Service is in the business of governance and providing public services to a nation of people from diverse backgrounds and who have different expectations and aspirations. This is very different from the private sector where they are more concerned with transactions between private parties. For the public sector, we need to earn the respect and trust of the public and to put in place a fair system that it is not just about who you are and whether you can pay to access public services in a fair and transparent manner. This is why the Public Service hold ourselves to high standards of conduct to give confidence to all stakeholders that they will be treated fairly and transparently.