Investigations of Former Top Officers at Singapore Civil Defence Force and Central Narcotics Bureau

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) why information about the arrests of senior Government servants were not made public until weeks later; and (b) whether the Government should have suspended senior civil servants from their official duties once they have been arrested.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether he can provide an update on the status of investigations into the cases involving the former Commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force and former Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau; (b) why the arrests/investigations are not disclosed earlier; and (c) whether the investigations have revealed lapses in the agencies' procurement systems and processes and, if so, what will be done to address these lapses.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take Question Nos 3 and 4 together, please?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Edwin Tong have asked why the arrests of the former Commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and the former Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) were not made known earlier. As was made known in a Ministry of Home Affairs' statement on 24 January 2012, the CPIB commenced interviewing Mr Ng Boon Gay on 19 December 2011 and Mr Peter Lim on 4 January 2012. In CPIB investigations, it is normal procedure for the person to be placed under arrest if CPIB assesses that there is some basis for suspecting that the person may have committed an offence. Both persons were placed under arrest. They were then released on bail to secure their attendance for further investigations as required.

At that point in time, it was premature to make any announcement as CPIB was in the midst of their investigations and the outcome was not known. It was necessary to give CPIB time to gather evidence, seize documents, conduct interviews with various persons who were connected to the case and establish whether further action was warranted. A public announcement at that point in time would have compromised the investigations. On the day that CPIB interviewed the two officers and decided to place them under arrest, the Ministry of Home Affairs placed each of the two officers on leave on the respective dates. They were told not to return to their offices, nor to carry out any official duties. Their deputies acted during their period of absence on leave. As investigations were still underway, it was also premature and not fair to remove the officers from their office or to interdict them from their duties then, until the situation became clearer.

An arrest by CPIB does not necessarily mean that the person would be prosecuted in court or referred for some disciplinary action, for example, civil service disciplinary action. It is possible that after referral to the Attorney General's Chambers, no further action is taken. So an arrest, therefore, has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of a person.

Page: 1089

On Friday, 20 January 2012, CPIB informed the Ministry of Home Affairs that although their criminal investigations have not been completed, there was sufficient basis for the Ministry to consider civil service disciplinary action for misconduct. The Ministry of Home Affairs immediately commenced civil service disciplinary proceedings, including interdicting the officers from their duties. On 24 January 2012, after obtaining the Public Service Commission's approval, the Ministry of Home Affairs called up the two officers and served them notices of interdiction, which took effect from 25 January 2012. The Ministry of Home Affairs had intended to carry out these procedures on 25 January 2012, which was the first working day after the four-day weekend and Chinese New Year holiday, and make a media statement on that same day. We received the notification from the CPIB on the Friday before that weekend. However, as one newspaper had reported the matter on the morning of 24 January, the Ministry of Home Affairs decided to advance the process and media release by one day to 24 January 2012, which was the second day of Chinese New Year.

There was thus no delay in the release of information. Due process in both the investigations and disciplinary proceedings had to be followed to avoid prejudicing any subsequent legal or civil service disciplinary proceedings, as well as to be fair to the officers accused. A premature release of information in such cases would jeopardise the investigations, and also unfairly prejudice the officers and any other parties who are involved in the case.

CPIB investigations are still on-going. Once the outcome of the investigations is known, the MHA will correct any lapses uncovered in the procurement systems and processes in the Singapore Civil Defence Force and the Central Narcotics Bureau. The civil service and MHA will apply those same lessons civil service-wide where applicable. In the meantime, MHA has reviewed various outstanding IT tenders, including the composition of the tender evaluation committees. This has been done to safeguard the integrity and fairness of the tender system.

Sir, it is disappointing that these cases have occurred. However, as both cases have shown, any allegation of misconduct against public officers is investigated fully, regardless of the position or seniority of the officers involved. This Government will continue to require the highest standards of integrity and conduct in the public service. The public depends on the Home Team officers to do their job right, and to do it properly. The key to this is that they act with the utmost integrity in whatever they do. MHA will do its utmost to uphold the trust which has been placed in our officers.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the answers to the questions. May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he thinks that the two CPIB investigations and the recent probes into allegations of vice activities involving public servants reflect the lowering of the moral and ethical standards to which members of our public service are held?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is committed to upholding high moral and ethical standards in the public service. And I have confidence that the vast majority of civil servants do live up to these standards. However, when we come across an officer who has transgressed, we will not hesitate to act against him, even if he is in a senior position and even if it may embarrass the Government. I have told our public officers to continue to hold true to the public service values of integrity, excellence and service, and to continue to carry out their duties diligently, honestly and to the best of their abilities. And this is the way that they would be able to maintain the public's high trust in the public service and our officers.

Page: 1090

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, apart from the two officers, has any initial investigation shown that there is potential corruption by other officers in the service as a result of this. The second question is this: I do agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the premature release of news would have jeopardised investigations. But the fact is that the media actually received news even before the official statement. Will MHA also investigate this leak to the media?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: We will investigate leaks to the media, particularly if official information which should not have been revealed was revealed. And I am not able to comment now on the further investigations of the CPIB and whether others are involved because investigations are still in progress.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the reply. The public understand that arrests once made are not taken lightly. Bearing in mind the responsibility of the two persons concerned, the fact that they are Heads of respective departments, what is the possibility that had they remained unsuspended in their positions that they would be able to influence the outcome of the investigations? Perhaps, the Deputy Prime Minister could clarify that so that there would not be any kind of doubt that they can remain in their positions so that they can influence the outcome of the investigations.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: There should be no doubt that the officers were removed from positions of responsibility and any ability to influence the outcome of investigations the moment the investigations began by CPIB. When the CPIB decided that they should be placed under arrest, they were placed on leave from their duties. Therefore, they were not able to continue with their duties and they were told not to come back to office, not to exercise their official duties. And when CPIB informed the Ministry of Home Affairs that there was sufficient basis to consider commencing civil service disciplinary proceedings, we then took steps to interdict them. So there is clearly no ability for them to have influenced the proceedings of the investigations due to their positions in office.