MAS SELAMAT INCIDENT

MAS SELAMAT INCIDENT:

(Update on disciplinary actions against officers): 7.

Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he will provide an update on the disciplinary actions against those officers assessed to be culpable in the Mas Selamat incident.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Lam Pin Min asked for an update on the disciplinary measures taken against the officers responsible for Mas Selamat bin Kastari's escape from the Whitley Road Detention Centre. As I informed Members on 21st April 2008, I had ordered the Commissioner of Police and the Director of the Internal Security Department (ISD) to investigate the operational lapses related to the escape and to ascertain individual accountabilities. I also stated that even while this process took its course, I had instructed the Director of ISD to replace several officers at the WRDC whom the Committee of Inquiry (COI) and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had identified as being responsible for the escape of Mas Selamat. In addition,

Column: 2740

subsequent to my Statement on 21st April, I also replaced the supervising officer in ISD whom the Superintendent and the WRDC Administration reported to. I will explain his role later and why I replaced him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is an established framework for the disciplinary action inquiry process. This includes allowing the officer to defend himself against the charges, and giving the officer the right to appeal, if he is found guilty by a disciplinary body.

The Commissioner of Police and the Director of ISD have reported to me that they have completed their respective disciplinary inquiry processes against a total of eight officers.

The Police has charged the two Gurkha Contingent (GC) guards who escorted Mas Selamat. They have pleaded guilty and have been demoted in rank.

ISD has charged six officers. The six officers have acknowledged their culpability and accepted the sanctions meted out. Let me now elaborate on them.

The Superintendent of WRDC has been dismissed from service. The Deputy Superintendent of WRDC has been demoted in rank with a corresponding pay cut. They are the two most senior officers in charge of the ground management of WRDC. They hold Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) equivalent ranks of Lieutenant-Colonel and Major respectively. The daily administration and operations of WRDC come under the direct charge of the Superintendent, the most senior officer on the ground. The Deputy Superintendent is the next most senior officer assisting the Superintendent to manage the work of WRDC staff and ensure their compliance with established procedures. These two officers have been held accountable for the lack of supervision over their subordinates

Column: 2741

implicated which resulted in lapses that enabled Mas Selamat to escape.

The Superintendent has also been charged and held accountable for failing to take appropriate action on discovering that the ventilation window in the Family Visitation Block toilet was unsecured. He should have instructed the renovation contractor to install grilles on the ventilation window. It was a serious error on his part instead to order that the handle of the window be sawn off, in the mistaken belief that this was a sufficient security measure.

The Special Duty Operative who handled the family visit when Mas Selamat escaped has been dismissed from service. She failed to take immediate and decisive action when alerted by the guards, which could have prevented the escape of Mas Selamat. She also did not observe proper procedures, for example, in the accurate registration of clothes that were personal to the detainee and WRDC-issued ones. That was why Mas Selamat was able to wear more than one layer of clothes on the day of his escape.

The Special Duty Operative's supervisor failed to obtain a proper security assessment of the detainee's use of the Family Visitation Block toilet. He was issued a letter of reprimand and relieved of all supervisory duties. This supervisor is a senior officer holding the equivalent rank of Inspector of Police or Lieutenant in the SAF. The letter of reprimand will be entered into his service records and will have a negative bearing on his future career, such as his performance appraisal, promotion and awards.

Two other WRDC officers have been served with departmental letters of warning. These will be lodged as adverse entries in their service files and will have a bearing on their future careers. One of the

Column: 2742

two is the Technical Officer who was responsible for the CCTV upgrading at WRDC. Although the new CCTV system had not yet been commissioned at the time of the incident, he should have exercised due care to ensure that the vendor had correctly carried out the instructions so that the system was recording.

The Chief Warder is the eighth officer who has been disciplined. She was served a letter of warning. It was the Chief Warder who approached the Superintendent to allow the detainees to use the Family Visitation Block toilet. Although this officer was not directly involved in the incident, as an experienced officer, she should have considered the security implications of allowing detainees to use the Family Visitation Block toilet.

Sir, I had said in this House on 21st April that, in ascertaining accountability, we would examine the roles not just of the junior officers but also the supervisory and management levels of WRDC. Therefore, apart from looking at those who were directly or indirectly responsible for the escape, the Director of ISD and the Commissioner of Police have looked at all relevant officers who may be liable further up the chain of command, regardless of their rank or grade.

The WRDC Superintendent and the WRDC Administration staff report to a Command Director in ISD. This Command Director is the supervising officer, or the ISD Officer-in-Charge (OIC), whom I said earlier was replaced along with the officers identified in the COI report and CID investigations as being responsible for the escape of Mas Selamat. The ISD OIC is a statutory appointment specified in the Detention Centre regulations. The Superintendent of WRDC reports to him on the smooth running of WRDC.

The current ISD OIC for WRDC holds a superscale rank equivalent to a Senior

Column: 2743

Assistant Commissioner of Police or a Brigadier General in the SAF. He is a Command Director who reports directly to the Director of ISD. He oversees a directorate of several distinct functional divisional units. WRDC is one of these functional units.

The COI found that the ISD OIC had properly discharged his duties and was not at fault. The COI's view is that it is necessary for the ISD OIC to delegate his statutory responsibility, given his full-time job as a Command Director. The COI observed that the ISD OIC had in fact made several improvements to the WRDC. He instituted proper systems and procedures and also recruited a full-time Superintendent with the requisite experience and qualifications to take charge of the administration of WRDC.

I accepted the COI's assessment that the ISD OIC is not at fault. Nevertheless, I decided to relieve this Command Director of the ISD OIC appointment. This was done on 24th April 2008. Even though he was not responsible for the lapses of the specific officers down the line, he bears responsibility on account of his statutory appointment as the Officer-in-Charge of the WRDC. Although this Command Director has not been subjected to disciplinary action, the incident and his removal from the OIC appointment will have a bearing on his performance appraisal.

Dr Lam Pin Min (Ang Mo Kio): I would like to thank the DPM for the comprehensive answer. Personally, I am very satisfied with the honest and candid answers provided by the DPM in his Ministerial Statement during the last sitting and I have received many feedback affirming this. Notwithstanding this and the fact that the COI has ascertained that there are no criminal activities or negligence in any individual, the escape of Mas Selamat is indeed an unfortunate incident that can be attributed to several

Column: 2744

grave lapses. I would, therefore, like to seek the following two clarifications from DPM.

We know that there are basically two main groups of culpable parties, those who did not conform to the existing SOPs and those that did not exercise due diligence in fulfilling their duties of ensuring the operational functionality as well as the physical security of the facility. I would like to ask the DPM:

(1) Are the blame and disciplinary actions apportioned commensurate with the level of responsibilities and culpabilities of each individual officer?

(2) Are there avenues and processes in place to allow these officers involved to seek redress or clarification on the disciplinary actions meted out and, if so, are the officers satisfied that the outcome is fair and just, and whether there are any appeals lodged by any of these officers?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the disciplinary process is such that when an incident like this happens, an investigation has to be carried out. At the department level, an investigation has first to be carried out, and this was done. Then, the officers concerned who are found to be culpable would be served with a letter telling them that they are liable for certain negligence or whatever activities which they should have done but not done. The officers would then be given an opportunity to appear before the disciplinary committee or the person in charge of the disciplinary proceedings. They would also be given the chance to explain themselves. The disciplinary body would then come to a decision. A decision will be made whether to sanction or not to sanction those persons found liable. If they are sanctioned, then they also have a right of appeal within 30 days of the sanction.

All these steps were taken by the disciplinary body, and the officers concerned

Column: 2745

have been sanctioned, as I have just explained. They, too, of course, will also have the 30 days to appeal. This is within the appeal period. So far, no appeals have been made by any of the eight officers.

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the DPM for describing the approach that MHA had taken. But has any action been taken or contemplated against the Director of ISD? Also, for the DPM to perhaps give the House an assurance that

the morale at ISD is maintained and safeguarded as it is a very important institution safeguarding our security and also that, right now, we need to concentrate our efforts in recapturing Mas Selamat in case of reprisals.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, Mr Arthur Fong's question boils down to the question of accountability and at what level accountability should rest. Indeed, this question of accountability has been raised many times since the escape happened. When things go wrong, Sir, those who are responsible for the incident must be held accountable. Responsibility is determined based on a set of objective tests to establish fault, the underlying reasons and any mitigating circumstances, and we have to consider the following issues. First, did the officer in question fail to discharge his duties and thereby cause Mas Selamat to escape? Second, what were the reasons for the failure? Was there a lapse in the judgement or sheer negligence? Was there a deviation from approved systems and processes or were there systems and processes faulty, to begin with? Third, if another officer of the same level or experience and professional accomplishment is placed in the same circumstances, would he have similarly failed to discharge that duty?

In the disciplinary inquiry conducted by the Commissioner of Police and the

Column: 2746

ISD, all these objective tests of responsibility were rigorously applied, not just on the officers who are directly implicated in Mas Selamat's escape but also on their supervisors, and all the way up the management ladder. Supervisors have a duty to control and ensure that the subordinates discharge their duties after due consideration. Failure on the part of the subordinate to discharge his duty indicates that the supervision of him was not complete. Of course, if the subordinate fails, it does not mean that the supervisor is automatically at fault and so on. The supervisor must show that he has reasonably discharged his supervisory duties.

Mr Fong asked whether the Director, ISD, should not be held accountable and disciplined for Mas Selamat's escape. This is an assessment which I, as the Minister, have to make. I considered the matter and found no basis to justify this. Indeed, as Head of the Department, the Director, ISD, has broad responsibility over the actions and performance of the whole organisation, but to ascribe to him culpability over the lapse which such broad responsibility is, in my view, an unreasonable and overly onerous burden. Let me explain why.

Based on the COI report, the lapses which led to the escape of Mas Selamat were not due to departmental-wide systemic or policy failures. The COI found that the systems and protocols in the WRDC were generally sound but specific individuals had failed to abide by them in this case and it was a degree of lack of supervisory vigilance as well. It was not shown that the Director, ISD, was aware of any of these lapses but took no action to rectify them. Neither was it shown that he ought reasonably to have known of these lapses.

I have informed this House on 21st April this year that the Director, ISD, told me that he accepted responsibility for

Column: 2747

what had happened, and that I told him that I have full confidence in him and that he must carry on. I also told Members that I have informed the Prime Minister who agreed with this view. The Director, ISD's immediate task is to follow through with all the recommendations of the COI and prevent another slackening of vigilance. He will ensure that the recommendations are satisfactorily implemented and report to me the progress.

Allow me to conclude by saying this. As we take to task those who are responsible for the lapse, we must always be mindful to be both fair and just to all concerned. Punishment must be based on dispassionate reflection of what is reasonable and fair to those culpable or liable. Otherwise, it will lead to grave injustice. This would only serve to undermine morale and the commitment of all other officers and, eventually, the strength and the effectiveness of the organisation itself. I believe this is surely not the outcome sought by Members of this House.

Mr Fong also asked about the morale of the officers. Indeed, ISD officers were most upset by the escape of Mas Selamat. The officers, particularly those in the WRDC, feel that they have let down Singaporeans who have high expectations of the ISD and especially because they always held themselves to the highest standards of professionalism. However, as professionals, they are also determined to learn from this setback and redeem themselves to regain the public's trust and confidence. Members of the House can rest assured that while the reputation and morale of the ISD officers had taken a beating, they have continued to hold their heads up and remain focused in the mission of keeping Singapore safe and secure. Members should also rest assured that we will not let this incident affect the recognition and development of deserving ISD officers.

Column: 2748

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I wonder if the DPM could clarify. For the officers who were eventually dismissed and demoted, were they given the opportunity to be represented by somebody during the proceedings, which is usually the case for such civil service proceedings?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, the right to have somebody represent them. It is not just restricted to those who were dismissed. All officers who were charged for particular offences and they have to appear before a disciplinary board have the right to get somebody to represent them.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, ascribing culpability is not an exact science and I agree with the Minister that we have to make sure that we are just. In the interest of transparency and justice, can I ask the Minister, since the COI has found that the ISD OIC is not responsible for the lapses, why are we then relieving him of his duties and making it plain that his career is now at stake or there will be some impact in his career? While I know that there are some members of the public who want to see heads roll at the highest levels, can I ask the Minister whether he can assure the public that these measures taken are, in fact, based on objective facts and we are not doing this as a political exercise because, if it is a political exercise, then sometimes, the danger is that some heads are rolling for the wrong reason? Can I also ask the Minister whether the Gurkhas are also investigated in terms of their accountability in the role of the lapses?

My final question is: with the replacement at the top at WRDC, can I ask the Minister to assure us that they are more than equal to the task, especially in tightening security, as well as taking on the new challenges that the Minister has spelt out in the last Parliament sitting?

Column: 2749

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Even though the OIC of ISD was found to be not culpable by the COI, I decided to replace him because he has a statutory function to ensure the smooth functioning of the WRDC. So, in terms of institutional responsibility, as far as that role is concerned, I decided that I should find another person to do the job. For the officers who replaced those who have been moved out or who have been dismissed, I believe that the Director, ISD, will choose people very carefully to ensure that they are equal to the task. On the GC officers, the same procedure took place and the Commissioner of Police also looked at the GC officers beyond the two guards and the conclusion of the disciplinary body is that there was no need to go any further.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Sir, I would like to ask DPM, going forward, for the benefit of the remaining staff, how does the management intend to distinguish the following in staff policy: (a) Clear expectations versus job responsibilities; and (b) conformance to SOP versus empowerment. Hence, Sir, what mitigating measures will be considered to review the punishment that has been meted out to the culprits?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I did not quite get the last question that Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked. Can she repeat it please?

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: In view of the two earlier questions with regard to specific expectations versus job responsibilities, and conformance to SOP versus empowerment to job incumbents, how would we take these two questions in the context of reviewing the circumstances that have led to the punishment that is meted out to the culprits, whether there would be some mitigating measures to be taken from the two questions asked?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: For the disciplinary body that looked into this issue, officers

Column: 2750

who have mitigating reasons would have submitted them to the disciplinary body. I am not here to second guess what they did because I was not present at the inquiry process, so I would not be able to answer the last question. But as regards the other two questions about expectations and job responsibility, I think a job is not just what is written down in the job description. To do that is a very simple thing. He just follows the job description, but a job means that he has to put himself into it and, he has to dedicate himself to the role that he is expected to perform, and that is the expectation that people may have on him. Therefore, even if it is not written down in the job description, I think when a job needs to be done because it is an important job to do, then the officer ought to do it. It is the same thing about conformance and empowerment. Conformance is not for conformance to rules or conformance to job descriptions. I think what a good officer needs to do is when he does the job, the job descriptions simply give him a guide as to what is expected of him but when he is on the job, he does what is necessary to do the job right the first time.

Dr Lily Neo: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a related issue, may I ask DPM whether he is still of the opinion that Mas Selamat is still at large in Singapore?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I said on 21st April that we have no information that Mas Selamat has left. It is the same position that we still hold today. We have received no information from our foreign intelligence partners in the region that Mas Selamat has appeared on their shores. We have no information specifically on where he could be, but we cannot work on the assumption that he is no longer in Singapore. Therefore, we have to work on the assumption that he is still in Singapore, and all the necessary border security measures ought to be in place.