CIVIL SERVICE (Evaluation of staff performance)

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi asked the Prime Minister whether a better system for evaluating staff performance will be used to facilitate the career development of officers in Division I grades in the civil service and what comparative studies have been made on the merits of different systems used locally and overseas to ensure that the best possible system is used

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi asked the Minister for Finance whether a better system for evaluating staff performance will be used to facilitate the career development of officers in the various grades in the civil service and what comparative studies have been made on the merits of different systems used locally and overseas to ensure that the best possible system is used.

The Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen) (for the Prime Minister): Sir, the Member for Kampong Kembangan has raised two questions (Nos. 1 and 14) pertaining to evaluation of staff performance, which are identical except that they are addressed correctly to different Ministers in accordance with their portfolio responsibilities. Since the answers required are mainly technical, it would perhaps be convenient for me to take and answer both questions together.

The present system for evaluating staff performance is essentially based on confidential reporting by supervisory officers. In the case of confirmed officers, the reports are put up annually while for probationers, they are done six-monthly. The performance of an officer reported on is graded according to a number of attributes relevant to his work. Such an assessment is usually made by the officer's immediate supervisor and subject to a second opinion of a Countersigning Officer who is usually the superior of the Reporting Officer. Through this, a fairly reasonable assessment of the performance of an officer is made.

However, the present Staff Confidential Report Form for Divisions I and II officers in the Civil Service is designed for the assessment of officers performing administrative and managerial duties. It does not provide a very accurate assessment of those in professional grades where the emphasis is on professional capabilities rather than on administrative skills.

The Management Services Department of the Ministry of Finance has invited Permanent Secretaries and Heads of major Departments who have professional officers to make proposals on how the reporting system can be improved. These proposals will be considered by a Committee comprising representatives from the Prime Minister's Office, the Public Service Commission and the Ministry of Finance.

The Prime Minister's Office has also designed a staff report form for officers in the Administrative Service in which more attention is focussed on the officer's capability and suitability and which at the same time allows for their weaknesses to be specified so that remedial action can be taken. The revised format is presently being studied by the Public Service Commission.

I should like to add that the efficacy of any system of performance evaluation will largely depend on the ability of officers entrusted with the task of making assessments to maintain objectivity in their assessments.