When to change the guard?
by Bertha Henson
When have you ever heard of a senior civil servant’s head rolling when one of his subordinates mis-behave or when things go wrong under his watch?
The replacement of the head of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau after a senior officer was charged for dipping his hands into the till is probably the first of its kind, or at least pretty rare. In the past, the officer would more likely have been quietly replaced after a decent amount of time had lapsed.
So Mr Eric Tan, CPIB’s current director, will leave his post when his term ends on September 30. He will be replaced by Mr Wong Hong Kuan, currently the Chief Executive of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency, said a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office.
Edwin Yeo’s alleged actions really took the cake. Imagine misappropriating more than $1.7m of public funds meant for the CPIB. Apparently, he wasn’t caught out by an audit or by other processes in the CPIB. Nor was it during annual declarations of financial liabilities to confirm that civil servants were free from financial embarrassment. In Yeo’s case, a CPIB spokesman told TODAY at that time: “Yeo may not have disclosed the full extent and nature of his liabilities”. Hrrmph.
Instead, reports indicated that his cover was blown only when someone blew the whistle on him last September, after he had his way with public funds from 2008.
Which was why the public scolding also applied to Mr Tan’s predecessor, Mr Soh Kee Hean, who held the job till September 2010. Both were issued formal letters of warning and accepted responsibility.
The G has worked pretty fast in the wake of the case. Just yesterday, Home Affairs Minister Teo Chee Hean told the Home team that from time to time, there might be individual officers who “fall short of the high standards that we have set for ourselves, and which Singaporeans expect of Home Team officers’’.
“Those who have done wrong will be taken to task, regardless of their position or seniority.’’
Then the civil service as an institution has moved as well with days of news of Yeo being charged. The Public Service Division said the CPIB had tightened its procedures, such as by introducing compulsory credit bureau checks for staff. What was odd, if anyone remembers the story, was that it said CPIB would follow the example of the police and the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), which require officers involved in general law enforcement work to declare their casino visits within seven days of each visit. Imagine! The CPIB did not think that its officers would be so vulnerable to temptation at the gaming tables, compared to the other law enforcement agencies. Hubris? Well, Yeo was definitely vulnerable, spending thousands at Marina Bay Sands.
The PSD released some figures about investigations into public officers, which has variously been described as “consistent’, “stable’’ and “low’’, at an average of 39 cases a year. Pundits have noted that absolute numbers might be small but what about in proportion to total number of cases? Last year, for example, there were 35 cases opened against civil servants out of a total of 179. That’s close to 20 per cent. Not quite so low after all.
The PSD also gave a lot of other detail, like the type of crime and even educational qualifications of the errant civil servants. It also said 65 per cent were found to receive solely money while the rest were rewarded with gifts (12 per cent), sexual favours (6 per cent) and a combination of both (5 per cent). About 40 per cent of those who took money involved sums of less that S$1,000 and those involving sums of between S$1,001 and S$30,000 registered 16 per cent. What it did not say though was, what the money was used for – gaming? It would have been a logical question to ask, especially with the PSD pondering more rules on entering casinos.
Back to the CPIB changes.
The G must have thought long and hard before making this move. In 2008, the previous Home Affairs Minister, Mr Wong Kan Seng was asked in the aftermath of the Mas Selamat escape from the Internal Security Department detention centre if the ISD director should be held accountable.
This was what he told Parliament: “I considered the matter and found no basis to justify this. Indeed, as head of the department, the director of the ISD has broad responsibility over the actions and performance of the whole organisation. But to ascribe to him culpability over the lapse with such broad responsibility is, in my view, an unreasonable and overly onerous burden.’’
Mr Wong said the escape was not due to department-wide systemic mistakes or policy failures, but because specific individuals had failed to stick to protocols as well as “a degree of a lack of supervisory vigilance’’.
‘It was not shown that the director of ISD was aware of any of these lapses but took no action to rectify them. Neither was it shown that he ought to reasonably have known of these lapses.’
He said this, despite the ISD director telling him that he took responsibility for the escape. “I told him I had full confidence in him and he must carry on’’.
By the way, the name of the ISD director was not even made public then.
Is the G’s latest move to change CPIB heads a shift in the way it views accountability? After all, in the private sector, it is common of CEOs to bow out or get kicked out if something goes wrong in the company they lead. Or, as some will no doubt speculate, was there something different about how the top dog handled the job in the current CPIB case compared to the ISD incident in 2008?
A guess at how the public will react to the news: Some will be surprised and will welcome the move as a concrete manifestation of “taking responsibility’’. Some will wonder where Mr Tan will be posted to next – a nice, cushy job or something more Siberian in nature? Some will want more done to Mr Soh, who is with the Council of Estate Agencies. (In other words, formal warning not enough leh.)
Some will pretty much ask for a pound of flesh no less… while others will point to it gleefully as yet another chink in the G’s armour of effective and clean governance.
Maybe we should see it this way: the G making it clear it will not tolerate wrong-doing, especially among people whom we entrust our safety to.
Our best wishes to Mr Tan and Mr Soh – taking responsibility was an honourable thing.
by Bertha Henson
When have you ever heard of a senior civil servant’s head rolling when one of his subordinates mis-behave or when things go wrong under his watch?
The replacement of the head of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau after a senior officer was charged for dipping his hands into the till is probably the first of its kind, or at least pretty rare. In the past, the officer would more likely have been quietly replaced after a decent amount of time had lapsed.
So Mr Eric Tan, CPIB’s current director, will leave his post when his term ends on September 30. He will be replaced by Mr Wong Hong Kuan, currently the Chief Executive of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency, said a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office.
Edwin Yeo’s alleged actions really took the cake. Imagine misappropriating more than $1.7m of public funds meant for the CPIB. Apparently, he wasn’t caught out by an audit or by other processes in the CPIB. Nor was it during annual declarations of financial liabilities to confirm that civil servants were free from financial embarrassment. In Yeo’s case, a CPIB spokesman told TODAY at that time: “Yeo may not have disclosed the full extent and nature of his liabilities”. Hrrmph.
Instead, reports indicated that his cover was blown only when someone blew the whistle on him last September, after he had his way with public funds from 2008.
Which was why the public scolding also applied to Mr Tan’s predecessor, Mr Soh Kee Hean, who held the job till September 2010. Both were issued formal letters of warning and accepted responsibility.
The G has worked pretty fast in the wake of the case. Just yesterday, Home Affairs Minister Teo Chee Hean told the Home team that from time to time, there might be individual officers who “fall short of the high standards that we have set for ourselves, and which Singaporeans expect of Home Team officers’’.
“Those who have done wrong will be taken to task, regardless of their position or seniority.’’
Then the civil service as an institution has moved as well with days of news of Yeo being charged. The Public Service Division said the CPIB had tightened its procedures, such as by introducing compulsory credit bureau checks for staff. What was odd, if anyone remembers the story, was that it said CPIB would follow the example of the police and the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), which require officers involved in general law enforcement work to declare their casino visits within seven days of each visit. Imagine! The CPIB did not think that its officers would be so vulnerable to temptation at the gaming tables, compared to the other law enforcement agencies. Hubris? Well, Yeo was definitely vulnerable, spending thousands at Marina Bay Sands.
The PSD released some figures about investigations into public officers, which has variously been described as “consistent’, “stable’’ and “low’’, at an average of 39 cases a year. Pundits have noted that absolute numbers might be small but what about in proportion to total number of cases? Last year, for example, there were 35 cases opened against civil servants out of a total of 179. That’s close to 20 per cent. Not quite so low after all.
The PSD also gave a lot of other detail, like the type of crime and even educational qualifications of the errant civil servants. It also said 65 per cent were found to receive solely money while the rest were rewarded with gifts (12 per cent), sexual favours (6 per cent) and a combination of both (5 per cent). About 40 per cent of those who took money involved sums of less that S$1,000 and those involving sums of between S$1,001 and S$30,000 registered 16 per cent. What it did not say though was, what the money was used for – gaming? It would have been a logical question to ask, especially with the PSD pondering more rules on entering casinos.
Back to the CPIB changes.
The G must have thought long and hard before making this move. In 2008, the previous Home Affairs Minister, Mr Wong Kan Seng was asked in the aftermath of the Mas Selamat escape from the Internal Security Department detention centre if the ISD director should be held accountable.
This was what he told Parliament: “I considered the matter and found no basis to justify this. Indeed, as head of the department, the director of the ISD has broad responsibility over the actions and performance of the whole organisation. But to ascribe to him culpability over the lapse with such broad responsibility is, in my view, an unreasonable and overly onerous burden.’’
Mr Wong said the escape was not due to department-wide systemic mistakes or policy failures, but because specific individuals had failed to stick to protocols as well as “a degree of a lack of supervisory vigilance’’.
‘It was not shown that the director of ISD was aware of any of these lapses but took no action to rectify them. Neither was it shown that he ought to reasonably have known of these lapses.’
He said this, despite the ISD director telling him that he took responsibility for the escape. “I told him I had full confidence in him and he must carry on’’.
By the way, the name of the ISD director was not even made public then.
Is the G’s latest move to change CPIB heads a shift in the way it views accountability? After all, in the private sector, it is common of CEOs to bow out or get kicked out if something goes wrong in the company they lead. Or, as some will no doubt speculate, was there something different about how the top dog handled the job in the current CPIB case compared to the ISD incident in 2008?
A guess at how the public will react to the news: Some will be surprised and will welcome the move as a concrete manifestation of “taking responsibility’’. Some will wonder where Mr Tan will be posted to next – a nice, cushy job or something more Siberian in nature? Some will want more done to Mr Soh, who is with the Council of Estate Agencies. (In other words, formal warning not enough leh.)
Some will pretty much ask for a pound of flesh no less… while others will point to it gleefully as yet another chink in the G’s armour of effective and clean governance.
Maybe we should see it this way: the G making it clear it will not tolerate wrong-doing, especially among people whom we entrust our safety to.
Our best wishes to Mr Tan and Mr Soh – taking responsibility was an honourable thing.
