Section 165 rules would not deter good people from joining public service: Chan Chun Sing
He adds that it is not uncommon for charges to be amended on their way to courts, and that there is no need yet to review Singapore’s anti-corruption laws
SINGAPORE’S rules governing public servants’ acceptance of gifts would not deter “good people” from joining the public service, said Minister-in-charge of the Public Service Chan Chun Sing in Parliament.
Several MPs on Monday (Oct 14) raised questions on the application of Section 165 of the Penal Code – which prohibits public officers from obtaining gifts from parties with whom they have official business dealings – and its impact on the wider public service.
This is after former transport minister S Iswaran was sentenced to 12 months’ jail earlier in October, after pleading guilty to five charges, four of which were under Section 165.
Chan was responding to a question from People’s Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament (MP) Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim on whether individuals and top talent from the private sector may be deterred from joining or contributing to the public service.
Public servants under Section 165 generally include “public officers under the employment of the public service and various individuals executing public duties on behalf of the government”.
Speaking on behalf of Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, Chan said that Singapore would not be able to attract the right people to join the public sector without a system that ensures a clean, honest government, adding that chairpersons and board directors “have nothing to fear” if they act professionally and with integrity.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
High standards of conduct are expected from all public servants, to maintain public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the government, he said, adding: “This is also the ethos Singaporeans would expect of leaders in all organisations, whether private or public.”
Being deemed as public servants under the Penal Code also offers protections, as there are provisions that make offences more serious when committed against a public servant, he said.
PAP MP Yip Hon Weng also asked about how the government will ensure this pool of talent is not limited because of incidents such as Iswaran’s, noting that some candidates may have different perspectives due to their private-sector backgrounds.
SEE ALSO
Chan said that he would be careful not to overplay the differences in the culture between the business world and public service, when it comes to corruption.
He reiterated that clear rules and the execution of these rules will help to prevent “good people” from turning away from public service.
Workers’ Party MP Sylvia Lim, noting the reduction of two corruption charges to Section 165 ones in Iswaran’s recent trial, asked whether it would be justified to conclude that this was done because the corruption case against the ex-minister was weak.
But Chan said that such amendments occur as cases develop, and are “not odd, because such things do happen regularly in the courts”.
Lim then asked if Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, in saying that Singapore needs to stay clean of corruption after Iswaran was sentenced, believed that the former minister had acted corruptly, regardless of the charges against him.
Chan replied that although quid pro quo on both sides does not need to be proven under Section 165, “it doesn’t mean that it’s not a corruption charge”.
On whether recent developments merit a review of the anti-corruption laws, Chan warned against a “knee-jerk reaction” to tighten or add more rules. Instead, it should be assessed whether the issue lies with an individual or the system.
Then, it can be decided whether action should be taken against an offender, or if further adjustments must be made to simplify, clarify, or update rules.
While Lim agreed, she also asked if there is still reason to look into the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), given that the reduction of charges in Iswaran’s case occurred, according to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, because “both the giver and the receiver of the gratification have a common interest to deny the corrupt element, and hence it’s risky to proceed”.
Chan responded that an alignment between Section 165 and PCA can be considered, but, as of now, “the CPIB (Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau) and our enforcement agencies find the current framing (is) able to allow us to do the job that we need to do”.
Copyright SPH Media. All rights reserved.
