- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
by Dr. V Subramaniam on 06 Aug 2015
I am intrigued by the fact that year in and year out the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) does not fail to report increasing lapses in procurement and tender procedures, and in governance norms across various government ministries and agencies.
While such disclosures assure AGO’s independence and therefore deserve applause, there is no let-up in procurement, financial, conflict of interest and governance issues on the part of these organisations. In fact, they seem to be on the rise with each report by the Auditor-General — even as the organisations provide assurance that they have tightened their procedures and controls.
For instance, this year the Auditor-General flagged four areas for public sector entities that fall short of required standards:
1. Administration of grants
2. Tendering and management of revenue contracts and purchases
3. Management of contract variations
4. Related party or conflict of interest transactions
The public sector entities singled out in the report include the People’s Association, the Singapore Workforce Development Agency, the National Parks Board, the National Library Board and the Institute of Technical Education and Singapore Polytechnic.
The People’s Association (PA) and its grassroots organisations were particularly cited for multiple lapses that included procurement lapses, issues with the management of tenancy contracts, and conflict of interest issues.
Run by a massive and extensive network of 1,800 grassroot organisations and 37,000 grassroot leaders and volunteers, PA is the main public face of the government in interacting with the citizens. As such, the necessity for public monies to be subject to good governance and sound financial practices assumes greater importance — even though they are managed by such volunteers who expectedly are not likely to be familiar with government financial and procurement procedures.
AGO also reported a few months ago that the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) was found wanting in compliance, governance and conflict of interest issues in its handling of town council finances.
Earlier this year, there was some discomfort when it was reported that a big infrastructure project awarded by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) for a Braddell Road project stalled because of the contractor’s financial problems.
As if all these failings were not enough, it was reported just a couple of days ago that irregularities were found in withdrawals by the operators of Sweetlands childcare centres from Child Development Accounts of children under their care.
Similarly, previous years’ AGO reports also dealt with significant or systemic weaknesses in internal controls, as revealed by the laxity in procurement and tender exercises by government agencies such as waiving competition on weak grounds; not evaluating tenders properly; not obtaining approvals; and other irregularities. Their reports are traditionally based on test-checks that alarmingly do not reveal the extent of such irregularities and weaknesses.
What is disconcerting is that such lapses recur with amazing regularity year after year, with the AGO lamenting that tender exercises continue to be prone to lapses. I ask myself whether such lapses are due to plain incompetence, complacency, lack of supervision, lax management of public funds or a combination of all these!
The Ministry of Finance has reiterated that while robust procurement rules are in place, it is the failure of individual officers that contributes to lapses. Whatever the reasons, it is imperative that our public institutions should meet the highest standards of probity, transparency and accountability.
It is acknowledged that implementing an effective public procurement system based on transparency, fair competition and integrity is not simple. Any system falling short of these standards would create the ideal breeding ground that eats into the vitals of government machinery. This can be seen in the high-profile graft cases in the last few years involving senor public officers, prompting DPM Teo Chee Hean to say that “clear, accountable and transparent” policies and procedures were necessary in tender procurement processes for government contracts. Once corruption invades the procurement process, the contract is no longer based on best value to the community. The need to uphold ethical behaviour in contracting, both from public officials and contractors, cannot therefore be over-emphasised.
Public officials are necessarily required to deal with a variety of tenders, funds and grants in their day-to-day routine work. The requirements of various Ministries, departments and government agencies differ in ordering the goods or purchasing/procuring the materials or awarding a contract to an outside agency. However, the basic principles of tender procedure remain the same.
While it is expected that officials dealing with tenders do exercise diligence in observing various aspects of tender procedures, factors like ignorance, shortage of time, urgency, shortage of manpower, unforeseen circumstances and oversight are often cited as reasons when irregularities take place even though proper instructions are in place. I speak from experience, having been Group Internal Auditor for the NTUC Cooperatives and SLF companies during my years in the civil service.
There is therefore a dire need not only for professionalising procurement procedures to make them more accountable, but more importantly what is often neglected is the training of public officers, as well as all agencies not conducting regular management reviews and internal audits to provide an independent check; and ensuring that external auditors too exercise diligence in the performance of their duties.
Perhaps electronic systems that could save money, enhance transparency and minimise human intervention could be considered. In any case it is high time Government ministries and agencies learn to think out of the box and develop a system that provides zero tolerance to weaknesses in the use and management of public funds. Blindly following age-old procedures that are out of sync with changing methodologies and technologies will not get them anywhere.
If Singaporeans lose confidence in key institutions and the way they breach the government procurement principle of open and fair competition, we will face greater problems in nation-building in the future. With an enviable reputation for integrity, clean and honest governance, there is no place for such abuses in our society. As citizens we can rightly expect the proper management of public funds and resources so that the integrity of our systems and procedures can be maintained.
If we can boast of a top quality, high-integrity and high-calibre civil service that pays top dollar to its public officers — equating to salaries pegged to the highest paid persons in Singapore, why are they not able to provide the tax-paying public high standards in the use, management and disbursement of public funds and resources?
Do you agree? Love or hate this point of view? Sign up. Login. Express yourself with IQ.
Like what we do? Follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook or subscribe to our Youtube channel.
Money Finance AGO report Auditor-General People's Association AHPETC Teo Chee Hean grants management tenders withdrawals
Dr. V Subramaniam
Dr V Subramaniam is a retired civil servant and former educator. His passion, apart from loving the language of the soul — literature — has been being a people-watcher, observing their cultures and how they work and play. How policies and procedures have impacted people are a special concern of his, as one can see from his Forum letters to the press.
http://www.inconvenientquestions.sg/Archive/2015/8/agos-reports-no-signs-of-lapses-abetting
I am intrigued by the fact that year in and year out the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) does not fail to report increasing lapses in procurement and tender procedures, and in governance norms across various government ministries and agencies.
While such disclosures assure AGO’s independence and therefore deserve applause, there is no let-up in procurement, financial, conflict of interest and governance issues on the part of these organisations. In fact, they seem to be on the rise with each report by the Auditor-General — even as the organisations provide assurance that they have tightened their procedures and controls.
For instance, this year the Auditor-General flagged four areas for public sector entities that fall short of required standards:
1. Administration of grants
2. Tendering and management of revenue contracts and purchases
3. Management of contract variations
4. Related party or conflict of interest transactions
The public sector entities singled out in the report include the People’s Association, the Singapore Workforce Development Agency, the National Parks Board, the National Library Board and the Institute of Technical Education and Singapore Polytechnic.
The People’s Association (PA) and its grassroots organisations were particularly cited for multiple lapses that included procurement lapses, issues with the management of tenancy contracts, and conflict of interest issues.
Run by a massive and extensive network of 1,800 grassroot organisations and 37,000 grassroot leaders and volunteers, PA is the main public face of the government in interacting with the citizens. As such, the necessity for public monies to be subject to good governance and sound financial practices assumes greater importance — even though they are managed by such volunteers who expectedly are not likely to be familiar with government financial and procurement procedures.
AGO also reported a few months ago that the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) was found wanting in compliance, governance and conflict of interest issues in its handling of town council finances.
Earlier this year, there was some discomfort when it was reported that a big infrastructure project awarded by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) for a Braddell Road project stalled because of the contractor’s financial problems.
As if all these failings were not enough, it was reported just a couple of days ago that irregularities were found in withdrawals by the operators of Sweetlands childcare centres from Child Development Accounts of children under their care.
Similarly, previous years’ AGO reports also dealt with significant or systemic weaknesses in internal controls, as revealed by the laxity in procurement and tender exercises by government agencies such as waiving competition on weak grounds; not evaluating tenders properly; not obtaining approvals; and other irregularities. Their reports are traditionally based on test-checks that alarmingly do not reveal the extent of such irregularities and weaknesses.
What is disconcerting is that such lapses recur with amazing regularity year after year, with the AGO lamenting that tender exercises continue to be prone to lapses. I ask myself whether such lapses are due to plain incompetence, complacency, lack of supervision, lax management of public funds or a combination of all these!
The Ministry of Finance has reiterated that while robust procurement rules are in place, it is the failure of individual officers that contributes to lapses. Whatever the reasons, it is imperative that our public institutions should meet the highest standards of probity, transparency and accountability.
It is acknowledged that implementing an effective public procurement system based on transparency, fair competition and integrity is not simple. Any system falling short of these standards would create the ideal breeding ground that eats into the vitals of government machinery. This can be seen in the high-profile graft cases in the last few years involving senor public officers, prompting DPM Teo Chee Hean to say that “clear, accountable and transparent” policies and procedures were necessary in tender procurement processes for government contracts. Once corruption invades the procurement process, the contract is no longer based on best value to the community. The need to uphold ethical behaviour in contracting, both from public officials and contractors, cannot therefore be over-emphasised.
Public officials are necessarily required to deal with a variety of tenders, funds and grants in their day-to-day routine work. The requirements of various Ministries, departments and government agencies differ in ordering the goods or purchasing/procuring the materials or awarding a contract to an outside agency. However, the basic principles of tender procedure remain the same.
While it is expected that officials dealing with tenders do exercise diligence in observing various aspects of tender procedures, factors like ignorance, shortage of time, urgency, shortage of manpower, unforeseen circumstances and oversight are often cited as reasons when irregularities take place even though proper instructions are in place. I speak from experience, having been Group Internal Auditor for the NTUC Cooperatives and SLF companies during my years in the civil service.
There is therefore a dire need not only for professionalising procurement procedures to make them more accountable, but more importantly what is often neglected is the training of public officers, as well as all agencies not conducting regular management reviews and internal audits to provide an independent check; and ensuring that external auditors too exercise diligence in the performance of their duties.
Perhaps electronic systems that could save money, enhance transparency and minimise human intervention could be considered. In any case it is high time Government ministries and agencies learn to think out of the box and develop a system that provides zero tolerance to weaknesses in the use and management of public funds. Blindly following age-old procedures that are out of sync with changing methodologies and technologies will not get them anywhere.
If Singaporeans lose confidence in key institutions and the way they breach the government procurement principle of open and fair competition, we will face greater problems in nation-building in the future. With an enviable reputation for integrity, clean and honest governance, there is no place for such abuses in our society. As citizens we can rightly expect the proper management of public funds and resources so that the integrity of our systems and procedures can be maintained.
If we can boast of a top quality, high-integrity and high-calibre civil service that pays top dollar to its public officers — equating to salaries pegged to the highest paid persons in Singapore, why are they not able to provide the tax-paying public high standards in the use, management and disbursement of public funds and resources?
Do you agree? Love or hate this point of view? Sign up. Login. Express yourself with IQ.
Like what we do? Follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook or subscribe to our Youtube channel.
Money Finance AGO report Auditor-General People's Association AHPETC Teo Chee Hean grants management tenders withdrawals
Dr. V Subramaniam
Dr V Subramaniam is a retired civil servant and former educator. His passion, apart from loving the language of the soul — literature — has been being a people-watcher, observing their cultures and how they work and play. How policies and procedures have impacted people are a special concern of his, as one can see from his Forum letters to the press.
http://www.inconvenientquestions.sg/Archive/2015/8/agos-reports-no-signs-of-lapses-abetting
