|
|
|
| Beyond
rules to ethos |
| |
 |
| Ms Yeoh
Chee Yan, DS (Development), PSD, PMO |
|
The recent Defence Science and Technology
Agency (DSTA) In-House Seminar on Ethics and Propriety
held on 16 May 2005 brought together 1,000 senior
management and staff for a meaningful time of learning.
The seminar aimed to heighten staff awareness of
ethical issues and remind them of the importance
of upholding their personal integrity and conduct
when dealing with contractors
and suppliers.
Ms Yeoh Chee Yan, Deputy Secretary (Development)
of the Public Service Division and Dean of Civil
Service College, gave an address entitled “Code
of Conduct for Public Servants — Beyond Rules
to Ethos”. Featured here is the text of her
speech.
The first time I met my son’s Primary 1 teacher,
she said to me, ”Nathan is doing fine, but
please tell him not to say ‘damn good’.”
I was shocked, but perhaps I shouldn’t have
been. When I later reprimanded my little boy, he
was perplexed. “What’s wrong with saying
‘damn good’?” he asked innocently,
then with a touch of cunning he added: “Daddy
says it all the time!”
All parents would know that children learn more
from what we do than from what we tell them to do.
This is no doubt true of standards of behaviour,
whatever the age of the audience. Leadership by
example is still the key. But in an organisational
context, the active communication and discussion
of values are also important. People need to understand
why they are asked to uphold certain standards of
behaviour and they need to be convinced that it
makes sense for them to do so.
I have been asked to speak about the “code
of conduct” in the Public Service. As all
good civil servants know, the Instruction Manual
(IM) is our “Book of Rules”.
Our code of conduct enshrined in IM2L directs: “Every
officer must conduct himself in a manner which upholds
the integrity of the Public Service and public confidence
in it. He must not act in such a way that gives
rise to public perception that he has obtained special
advantage through his official position or connections,
regardless of whether the special advantage was
solicited by him or otherwise. He has a duty to
exercise care to preserve his ability to be fair
and impartial. He should avoid becoming beholden
to any party, because of past favours or special
concessionary treatment.”
Subsequent paragraphs spell out the specifics and
details. But rather than spell out the specific
dos and don’ts contained in the IM, I would
like to share my perspective about why we need certain
rules, procedures and standards of behaviour, how
we should view rules, and the underlying principles
or ethos which should guide the conduct of all public
officers. I will then close with some thoughts on
why we need ethics in government.
You are no doubt aware of IM3B, which spells out
the rules for procurement. I sometimes hear complaints
from my officers that our IM rules and procedures
on procurement are bureaucratic and slow them down.
This is a pet peeve, particularly from mid-career
officers who join us from the private sector. And
indeed, there is a tension between the PS21 call
to “Cut Red Tape” — so we can
be more responsive to citizen and customer needs
— and at the same time have adequate procedures
and controls to ensure the fair, transparent and
accountable use of public funds. This tension can
be particularly real for statutory boards, which
are given greater flexibility so that they can be
innovative and enterprising, especially those which
interface directly with citizens or the private
sector.
The balance between freedom and accountability is
something all statutory boards have to juggle. Statutory
boards have certain flexibilities with regards the
IM. But they too need clear rules, structures and
procedures to ensure fairness and accountability
as well as to protect their officers and the integrity
of the Public Service of which they are part.
So some rules and procedures are necessary, but
there should not be a mindless application of rules.
For example, many organisations have controls which
include the need for several signatories at a very
senior level to approve a tender or contract. But
when all these senior people sign off blindly because
they have no time to scrutinise the document and
assume the person before them has done the checks
— whereas in reality no one has — then
it is questionable whether this control is really
effective. So we should always question whether
procedures and rules are serving their intended
purpose and whether there is a more efficient and
effective way of doing things.
Rules are necessary but they need regular review.
We have in place a process called POWER —
for civil servants to review the IM and cut redtape.
But the basis of review must always be a clear understanding
of the objectives of the rules, the risks we are
trying to manage, as well as the underlying values
and principles. In the case of procurement, I explain
to my officers that IM rules essentially seek to
ensure fairness, open competition and value for
money and that unlike the private sector, we have
a special responsibility to ensure accountability
in the use of public funds.
We also have to bear in mind that rules or codes
of conduct have limits. Particularly in a fastmoving
world when complex, new situations constantly challenge
us. This is where rules and IMs may no longer be
adequate and we have to go back to the values and
principles underlying the rules to guide our judgement.
Over the years, the devolution of powers and structural
re-organisation has led to an increase in the number
of statutory boards in the Public Service, each
with its own mandate and considerable autonomy.
When I joined the service in 1985, there were 14
ministries and 27 statutory boards. Today there
are 15 ministries but 68 stat boards! Given the
increasing decentralisation of government, sharing
a common ethos is becoming even more important to
help us balance freedom with accountability and
to ensure that the many disparate government bodies
act in concert to serve national interests.
I would suggest that it is even more important for
agencies like the DSTA, which operate somewhat away
from public scrutiny, to have effective internal
controls and a clear code of conduct to ensure accountability
and preserve public trust. But we should note that
even the mafia and Chinese secret societies have
their own code of conduct! So beyond an internal
code of conduct — it is important that all
statutory boards recognise that they exist to serve
the national interest and embrace the broader ethos
of the Public Service.
Last year, the Singapore Public Service launched
an identity statement, “integrity, service,
excellence”, which seeks to capture in three
words, the spirit, values and attitudes that bind
the Public Service.
Integrity is the cornerstone of the Singapore Public
Service.
When we talk of integrity, the first thing that
comes to mind is our total intolerance for corruption.
But perhaps even more fundamental is honesty in
our personal conduct, for instance, being honest
about our financial or mileage claims.
Meritocracy is another principle that underpins
the integrity of our system. Our human resource
systems require open advertisement to give all equal
opportunities to apply. Interview panels help ensure
that we can, with greater objectivity, select the
best qualified person for the job. Advancement is
based on individual merit, not nepotism or cronyism
— and this is why we have ranking panels and
promotions decided by a board — to ensure
that performance appraisals and recommendations
for promotion can be backed up by objective grounds
and are not the decision of one supervisor alone.
Meritocracy helps ensure that the best use is made
of our human resources and that generally, the best
persons rise up to positions of leadership.
Fairness and impartiality are another facet of integrity
in the Public Service. We are expected to deal fairly
with all customers and citizens in the delivery
of public service, regardless of who they might
be. Clear Public Service. We are expected to deal
fairly with all customers and citizens in the delivery
of public service, regardless of who they might
be. Clear guidelines and policies help us make decisions
which are consistent and fair. We have rules about
conflict of interest which require us to declare
our interests to the chairman of a meeting or to
our permanent secretary, when we are involved in
issues where we have, or may be deemed to have,
a personal interest.
We also serve the Government of the day, regardless
of our own political affiliation. To preserve confidence
in the impartiality of the Civil Service, public
officers are not allowed to hold political office
or take part in political activities, although they
may, as private citizens, join a political party.
I think most officers accept these rules about political
affiliation. Perhaps more difficult for some of
our younger officers is that they are expected to
remain neutral on matters of public controversy
and not disparage government policy in public —
or even offer any public comments on government
policy or on matters affecting defence or military
resources — except with the approval of their
permanent secretary.
Keeping our convictions to ourselves in public is
one thing, but perhaps even more challenging and
important is having the moral courage to stand by
our professional convictions at work. Professional
integrity requires us to be honest, provide the
full facts, sign off and be accountable for our
work. It also requires us to have the moral courage
to make recommendations based on our convictions
and professional judgement, rather than just second
guessing the boss, telling customers what they want
to hear, or fudging the results to look good.
“Service” is the second attribute of
the Public Service Ethos. It defines what is special
about the mission of public officers and public
agencies.
Unlike private sector companies which exist for
the bottom-line, what distinguishes the Singapore
Public Service is that it exists to serve the nation
and the people of Singapore.
At core, the attitude of “service” calls
on public officers to put the interests of the nation
before self, before scientific advancement or even
agency interests. It is only by so doing that you
can preserve the people’s trust.
“Excellence” is the third attribute
of the Public Service Ethos. It describes what we
aspire to achieve as a Service, both in terms of
national outcomes and organisational excellence.
We seek to be a first-class Public Service. This
requires us to take the journey of organisational
excellence, constantly putting better systems, standards
and practices in place. This is why we encourage
organisations to attain certification such as the
Singapore Quality Class, People Developer and other
national standards.
We also seek to deliver nothing less than excellent
national outcomes.… To do so, each of us must
do the best we can do, be the best we can be. The
pursuit of excellence requires perseverance, an
enquiring and innovative mindset, teamwork, and
the best professional knowledge
and skills.
Integrity, service, excellence. These three characteristics
are not new. They describe what the Singapore Public
Service stands for and provide a reliable compass
when we are confronted with new, ambiguous or morally
challenging situations.
Let me now turn to the question: Why should the
Government and public officers be ethical? Why do
we emphasise the importance of a common ethos? Why
not just give agencies full freedom as long as they
deliver the goods? Let me suggest a few reasons.
First, as Minister Mentor Lee recently said, ethical
government is a key differentiator, a competitive
advantage for Singapore1 . Singapore is known for
her clean image worldwide: Transparency International
and PERC consistently rank Singapore among the least
corrupt countries in the world2. This allows us
to command a premium and has made us a preferred
place to do business for many multinational corporations.
A few Sundays ago, there was a newspaper article
on a United Arab Emirates businesswoman Dr Shaikha
al Maskari. The combined value of her ongoing projects
is in excess of US$3 billion (S$5 billion). You
can imagine the attractiveness of working with her
to gain a foothold in the Gulf. Dr Shaikal said
that she chose to work with Singapore companies
like CapitaLand and National Healthcare Group over
all other more technologically sophisticated companies
because, and I quote: “There is no technology
you cannot buy. There is no skill you cannot buy.
You advertise today, tomorrow you’ll have
1,000 engineers, the best engineers. But the one
asset you cannot buy is trustworthiness.”
So indeed it pays to be clean and trustworthy.
A second important reason for the Government to
be ethical is to preserve public confidence and
trust. A democratic government can only make tough
or controversial decisions — whether it is
a cut in the Central Provident Fund or allowing
casinos in Integrated Resorts — and be reasonably
confident that it can be re-elected, because whether
or not people like the decision or agree with it,
there is public confidence that the Government makes
all decisions in the national interest — not
for political reasons or personal gain.
Public trust and confidence is also important at
the agency level.
Last but not least, I would say that having a strong
ethos inspires pride.
In closing, let me share a French proverb which
says: “There is no pillow as soft as a clear
conscience.” A clear conscience, a good name,
pride in yourself and your work — this is
ultimately why each of us should choose to serve
with propriety, integrity and excellence.
1 The Straits Times, 29 April 2005.
2 In 2005, Political and Economic Risk
Consultancy Ltd (PERC) ranked Singapore first among
12 Asian countries; Transparency International ranked
us fifth among 146 countries in 2005. |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
 |
| "People
need to understand why they are asked
to uphold certain standards of behaviour
and they need to be convinced that it
makes sense for them to do so." |
|
|
| |
| "Integrity,
service, excellence. These three characteristics
are not new. They describe what the
Singapore Public Service stands for
and provide a reliable compass when
we are confronted with new, ambiguous
or morally challenging situations." |
|
|
| |
| "Professional
integrity requires us to be honest,
provide the full facts, sign off and
be accountable for our work. It also
requires us to have the moral courage
to make recommendations based on our
convictions and professional judgement,
rather than just second guessing the
boss, telling customers what they want
to hear, or fudging the results to look
good." |
|
|
| |
NEW
COLUMN
"In the Spotlight" is a new
column that features the speeches by
leaders in the Public Service. |
|
|
| |
|
|
