Channels for Reporting Improper Conduct of Senior Officers in Uniformed Services

Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what channels are available for uniformed officers to furnish information about improper conduct of superior officers; (b) how many times have these channels been used in the last five years against superiors, what was the nature of the information given and what was the outcome of such reporting; (c) what repercussions will an officer face for giving information about a superior which is not substantiated or proven; and (d) whether reporting of superiors is hampered by the strict hierarchy of ranks within the uniformed services.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, Ms Lim asked about the channels available for uniformed officers to report improper conduct of superior officers. The Home Team has a reporting framework in place, which provides a confidential channel for officers to report any wrongful behaviour of officers. Under this reporting framework, the usual channel for a uniformed MHA officer to raise concerns and feedback is to do so in person, or in writing, to designated persons within the officer's Home Team Department. The designated persons in the Home Team Departments are typically the Head of Department or the Deputy Head of Department. If, however, officers prefer to raise their concerns to a channel outside their Department, they can furnish the information to the Deputy Secretary or the Senior Director, Human Resource in the Ministry Headquarters. The identity of the reporting officer will be kept confidential.

Page: 1091

Sir, this approach ensures that the reporting of any instance of improper conduct of a superior officer is not hampered by the hierarchy of ranks within the uniformed services. The above confidential reporting framework is communicated to our officers, and is contained in the Code of Conduct guide book issued to every officer [ indicating ]. This is the Home Team Code of Conduct guide book and the channel for confidential ethical disclosure is there for all of them to see, on page 5 of this guide book.

The key principle of our reporting policy is that reports should be made in good faith. If a report is made in good faith, but a case of wrongdoing cannot be established after investigation, no action will be taken against the reporting officer. If, however, an allegation is made frivolously, maliciously or proven to be falsified, disciplinary action may be taken against the officer. This is also explained in the Code of Conduct guide book.

In the last five years, there were 59 cases reported; 44 of these cases were anonymous, so we are unable to ascertain if they were from subordinates or from peers. Of the 15 which were not anonymous, eight were against a superior officer. Wrongful practices reported include allegations of failure to comply with procedures, and improper conduct or unethical behaviour. After investigation, errant officers will be dealt with in accordance with established disciplinary procedures.

We expect our officers to report a wrongdoing if they have sufficient grounds to believe that it has been committed, even if the report is against a superior officer, even if it is his direct superior officer, and the channels in the reporting framework for this are in place. This framework ensures that the highest standards of conduct will be upheld in the organisation.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, two supplementary questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. First, I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify in this particular case concerning the two MHA bosses, whether there was any prior internal information about them before the CPIB investigation commenced based on external report. The second question is, the Minister mentioned just now in his answer that there were 59 complaints through this channel and 44 were anonymous. So my question is, does this indicate that knowledge of that Code of Conduct has not been fully felt through MHA, in terms of the requirements for valid report, or does he assess that perhaps there is a sub-culture of not wanting to be named in making such complaints?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: I do not have the findings of the CPIB report of the investigations. So I am not able to say whether or not there were officers who knew of these cases and had not previously reported them. But I would say that the number of cases reported indicates that the officers do feel that they have a channel of reporting. Officers do report. There is no indication that the officers who have something to report fear reporting.

Page: 1092

Anonymity, of course, is something which we do not encourage, because we encourage officers to identify themselves so that it is possible to seek their assistance when we look into the cases that are brought up. But where there are anonymous reports, we will still look into them if the reports have substance and if they are serious. But if it is a frivolous, anonymous report with no basis, no substance, very few details, then of course it is not possible to investigate the report. We will continue to advise our officers to educate them on the reporting framework that is available in the Ministry of Home Affairs, particularly for those officers who feel that they do not understand it well enough.