DISCIPLINARY INQUIRIES OF PUBLIC SERVANTS (Representation by unions)

Mr Tong Kok Yeo asked the Minister for Finance if he will consider allowing public servants to be represented by their unions at disciplinary inquiries.

Mr Tong Kok Yeo (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, in asking the Question, I would like to declare my interest as the Executive Secretary of a public sector union. Question No. 8, Sir.

The Minister of State for Finance (Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean)(for the Minister for Finance): Sir, unlike disciplinary inquiries in a private company which are conducted by its own management, disciplinary inquiries for public officers are conducted by the Public Service Commission, which is an independent body vested with constitutional responsibility to exercise disciplinary control of public officers. A public officer who is under inquiry may be represented by a lawyer or another public officer. The lawyer may be engaged by the union and the public officer could be a union official. Where the charge is serious enough to warrant proceedings with a view to dismissal, the Committee of Inquiry will include, besides two public officers, a person in a senior position from outside the Civil Service.

The present arrangement in the Civil Service already ensures impartiality in an inquiry. Therefore, there is no need to make any changes.

Mr Tong Kok Yeo: Sir, would the Minister not agree that by not allowing the union to represent its members it is tantamount to denying the trade union rights to represent its members?

Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean: Sir, the unions are able to represent their members in matters like wage negotiations and so forth. As I have explained, in the case of disciplinary inquiries, it is unlike a private company where the inquiry is conducted by the company and may not have any independent person sitting on the board of inquiry. In the case of the public service, the Public Service Commission, as an independent agency, conducts the inquiry. So there is already impartiality in terms of the constitution of the board that is conducting the disciplinary inquiry. In any case, the public officer can be represented by a lawyer or by another public officer, and they could either be appointed by the union or the union official.

Mr Tong Kok Yeo: The Ministry of Labour's guidelines on inquiry procedure for the private sector encourages the participation of union representatives in disciplinary inquiry. Will the Minister consider adopting the Ministry of Labour's guidelines because the Government, being the biggest employer in the land, is advocating something which it is not following?

Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean: Sir, as I have explained, the situation in a private company is not quite the same as the situation in the public service. In a private company, the disciplinary proceedings may not be conducted by an independent body, whereas in the public service, the disciplinary proceedings are conducted by an independent body. So while the Government encourages unions to represent their workers in disciplinary proceedings in private companies, the situation is not the same as in the public service where the disciplinary inquiries are independent.

Mr Tong Kok Yeo: Sir, in view of the Minister of State's reply, would he consider reviewing the current disciplinary procedures to expedite the disciplinary inquiry procedures, especially in interdiction cases where the process sometimes takes as long as two years.

Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean: In a case where disciplinary proceedings are taking an excessively large amount of time, I will agree with the Member that this should be expedited.