Government Lapses - Have you read the IM?

The word “lapse” – made almost fashionable since the escape of Mas Selamat Kastari (MSK) – has become heavy weighted with the tinge of bureaucratic incompetence. In the wake of the Committee of Inquiry findings on the lapses that led to MSK’s escape, I forwarded the notion that the ISD, like all its government agency buddies, suffered from a crippling bureaucratic culture that in their case led to inaction as a result of disempowerment and job scope compartmentalization.

In the Third Report of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) which was presented to Parliament on 23 June 2009, further lapses were found in several stat boards; ranging from tender-issuing irregularities to what is basically wasteful management of public resources.

Oversights and errors in judgment are part and parcel of any entity, be it public or private. Therefore I hope the affected Ministries and Stat Boards would accept these public airing of their shortcomings as a useful exercise in humility and accountability. Reasonable people would find no joy in reveling in their failures as ultimately as citizens, their failures more often then not have real consequences for the public at large.

I wont go into details of the latest lapses as they are readily available here. However I would like to highlight certain portions of the report that I feel encapsulate the cultural issues that plague our public servants.

In explaining the case of MINDEF in which a sub-contractor that was used had been barred from public-sector projects because of corruption, the Permanent Secretary of MINDEF “explained that its procurement agent, the Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA), did not check the debarment status of subcontractors as this was not required under the Government Instruction Manuals (IMs). Nevertheless, DSTA would amend its vetting procedures accordingly should the IMs be amended.”

For a sensitive institution that falls under the purview of MINDEF, a reasonable expectation would be proper screenings of the external parties the Stat Board deals with. Even in the absence of this due diligence, explaining it away with the lack of requirements listed in an Instruction Manual is indicative of functional impotence and more importantly, the frictions between those that set rules and those that have to follow them. Accountability should not be understood as enacting a series of rules that trap individuals into a mindset of “just follow law” as ignorance of an IM’s existence is seen as an unjustifiable excuse. Accountability is a process and not an IM. The existence of an IM doesn’t ensure good practice; it only ensures there is clarity when meting out punishment.

This is illustrated in the other ‘lapse’ covered in the report. I use air quotes as I personally do not think it is a lapse due to negligence or corruption. The report states that the National Heritage Board (NHB) had given an additional contract of $26 million for the construction of exhibition galleries at the National Museum to a designing company without calling for an additional tender; the company had previously won the tender two years ago at a lower quote. The board explained that it had given this designing company the additional contract work to avoid an 8 months delay to the reopening of the Museum. It also explained that the designer's price for the additional works was within the board's initial budget and very few contractors could do such specialized and complex construction.

Tendering processes have a good purpose. They are implemented to ensure competitive government procurement of services with the prime objectives of ensuring competitive prices and access parity to government projects. However, to fault the NHB for not re-initiating a tender process for additional work when the incumbent contract firm is already in place – and is still in the process of fulfilling its contract that it attained in a prior tender process mind you – is downright wasteful and inefficient. Alas, it is to fulfill some government IM crafted by individuals who probably never have to comply with such processes themselves.

So before you decide on the next blog to visit - have you read the IM?

THE MSK PLAY - Act IV will be a doozy

When news broke of Mas Selamat Kastari’s (MSK) escape back in February 2008, I, and I thrust many others, was left in utter disbelief. This dramatic Richard Kimble-nesque event set the scene for Act I of a play which threatened to have no conceivable end.

With the main character established, Act II brought the first turning point in this saga as an outraged populace grabbed pitch forks and sought answers, and hopefully some closure. The appointed Committee of Inquiry (COI), produced stunning evidences of operational breakdowns at the Whitely Road Detention Centre, and the term “complacency” began circulating in our minds and in public discourse.

In any good play, Act III would provide a second turning point where the pace quickens and the drama intensifies. Act Three is now upon us as it was announced this morning that MSK was captured in Malaysia following a joint-operation involving the internal agencies of the two countries. While many more questions can now be answered, the first natural response by the Government and the ISD, and all of us as well, would be to release a collective sigh of relief.

From a play that threatened to suspend itself at Act II, this Act III is indeed welcomed. However, the pitch forks are always at an arms length away and I suspect the Final Act (IV) will be perhaps the most captivating.

The Audacity of Change: Thoughts on Reclaiming Hougang (oops...the Singapore Dream)

The title of this entry is clumsy play on Barack Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream”.

A wave of new found optimism is gathering strength in the United States as Barack Obama’s campaign steamrolls along. Emblematic of this movement are energized youths, engaged and interested in reclaiming a piece of the American dream - not their forefather’s dream, but rather a dream of their own.

With a faltering domestic economy, a political system governed by big business and special interest groups, and a draining foreign policy driven by a military culture, it would be by no stretch of the imagination to say that Americans have been frustrated and cynical of the status quo. Yes, they want change.

What strikes me as particularly interesting in this political movement is that there is an ongoing sideline struggle between what essentially are two factions in the ‘change camp’.

The frequent contentious public statements and retractions on Obama by cantankerous characters such as Obama’s spiritual mentor Rev. Wright, and more recently by civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson, represent a section of African-Americans voters who hanker for Obama to openly embrace his black heritage and not try to be something for everybody. In fact, critics doubt the eloquent statesman can win over the African-American community as successfully as he has done with the white community.

On the other side of the ‘change camp’ are the new guard of civil activists who buy into Obama’s post-racial ethos that transcends race and class differences.

These frictions between the old and new guards of the black civil rights movement got me thinking about the political scene here in Singapore. And with our nation’s 43rd birthday approaching in a matter of days, what better time to reflect on where we are as a nation and where we want to be.

A few days back, an old guard of the ruling party used a National Day event as a pretext to deliver a clear message that the fight for opposition-held wards was not over and that members of the grassroots should act as opposition for the opposition. In reaction, Choo Zheng Xi, editor-in-chief of The Online Citizen, astutely highlighted in a recent article that “Singapore is larger than the People’s Action Party (PAP) and its supporters”.

Surviving old guards of the PAP struggle with the baggage of early nation building and a siege mentality that was necessary at the time. They also struggle with the inevitable prospect of handing over custodial responsibilities to a new generation of leaders ‘polluted’ with liberal ideas from the west.

We see this struggle of ideals in opposition parties as well. Take for example the mini exodus from the Workers’ Party after the 2006 general elections. Young members seeking, more aggressive approaches to oppositional politics, grew disillusioned with the WP’s ‘safe’ politics.

I would like to think that until we find leaders, PAP or otherwise, that are ready to rise above partisan lines and embrace post-political politics, we will not see a sweeping movement for change in Singapore any time soon. When the right leader emerges, the ground will be ready to reclaim their Singapore Dream.

Maximum Security Nation: Overeaction is Complacency's Ugly Cousin

I had previously written on the responsibilities of government’s and security agencies’ responsibility in maintaining a balance between being protective and intrusive. In lieu of Mas Selamat’s escape from the Whitley Road Detention Centre, I had argued that perhaps the personnel, those whom were empowered with custodial responsibilities, were found lacking on the latter front. I had also posited that a deeply-rooted culture of disempowerment and compartmental thinking has crippled to an extent the effectiveness of line-staff in dealing with contingencies effectively.

More recently, two men on robbery with hurt charges attempted an unsuccessful but audacious flight from custody whilst in remand at a lock-up in the Subordinate Court. Comparisons to the great “toilet break” by Mas Selamat are too tempting to resist but I shall nonetheless try. I would however like to remark on the reaction by authorities.

As the two assailants were brought back to answer to additional charges of assault and escape from legal custody, they were flanked by a proportionately excessive number (10) of policemen. In addition, police said that immediately after the incident, several measures were taken to enhance the security at the Subordinate Courts’ lock-ups (no details).

As a concerned citizen, I expect and even demand that adequate measures are taken to ensure our safety, be it from hardline terrorists all the way down to petty crime felons. However, I hope the need to appease such concerns in a perceptible manner are not clouding the responses of the authorities.

I do not wish to see the day when, out of fear of embarrassment from another potential flight from custody, all persons held under police remand are treated like inmates at a maximum security facility. The World Consumer Rights’ Day protesters would surely agree. The temptation is however there, as understandably the Government is jittery over public perception following the immensely damaging and embarrassing incident of Mas Selamat’s escape.

Security and law enforcement personnel serve two primary purposes; prevention and reaction. No government or agency in the world can lay claim to being able to prevent acts of terrorism, crime, corruption, and so on, 100 percent of the time. Mistakes can happen and often do. The litmus test of governmental and societal resilience is in the response, the reaction. Over-reaction sometimes can be more damaging than doing nothing at all.

COI Report: A Litany of Blunders, A Culture in Need of Change

The ISD has over the years accumulated a reputation for no-nonsense conduct with regards to ensuring the security and sovereignty of Singapore. In our imaginations, their work is steeped with intrigue, skullduggery and secrecy. As such, the ISD unavoidably becomes associated with conspiracy theories ranging from privacy infringements to political manipulations.

Regardless of the outlook one may hold, we have to remember that ultimately, the ISD is a government agency; one that is in need of a culture change.

Reading through the litany of blunders presented by Minister Wong this afternoon, I was hit in the proverbial nose above all by the strong scent of bureaucracy. Two case facts will ellaborate on this.

One, the toilet used by detainees during family visitation had an un-grilled window; a flaw that was blamed on a miscommunication with contractors. The remedy prescribed by the centre's superintendent - to saw off the handle of the window instead of erecting grilles - was indeed a bad judgment call. While miscommunications and bad decision making are part and parcel of human existence, it is far more disturbing that no one (I am assuming) had the courage to speak up and warn the superintendent that it was simply a bad idea.

And two, a sense that something was amiss (Mas Selamat taking too long in the cubicle) was only followed up upon after that peice of information had travelled through four individuals (two gurkha guards, a female junior officer and an assistant case officer). Surely a knock on the cubicle door by the guard standing directly behind it would have sufficed.

In my view, these security control lapses were the result of basic inaction brought about by disempowerment and crippling job scope compartmentalization. Factors I am sure you would agree are synonymous with civil service culture.

We encounter similar situations in mundane everyday dealings with Government bodies. Approval is needed by one department before another can give the green light. Status of applications cannot be checked as assigned officers are on vacation leave. Actions can not be taken without supervisor approval. Everything is strictly by the book and when the book is not available, the world stops rotating.

Was the escape the result of a confluence of personal errors in judgments and infrastructural inadequacies? The simple answer is yes, but life is never simple. A perfect storm of errors may have culminated in Mas Selamat's escape, but the clouds of bureaucracy continue to overcast our skies.

Disciplinary actions on individuals held accountable for these lapses are an expected byproduct. However, there are limits and Minister Wong should be mindful not to merely treat symptoms and not the disease. A willingness to sack people when things go wrong is in itself a culture that will breed further self-preservatory behaviour; popular euphemisms that come to mind are "better cover backside" and "just do your job".

The litany of blunders are laid bare for all to see. While many quiet successes of ISD, past and future, will likely go unnoticed, in the cynical world we inhabit, failures are more readily remembered.

Fitna: A Neocon Dutchman's Self-Indulgence

These days, it seems any amount of verbal putrescence can be passed off as individual expression. The recent distasteful production "Fitna" by Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders is an excellent case in point.While the right to freedom of speech, as a concept, is easily digestible to all, people oftentimes forget that it is not an absolute right. The right to speak freely without censorship naturally comes with caveats; most relevant here would be restrictions on speech or expressions that are tantamount to hate speech which is defamatory or causes incitement to violence.

“You may hold whatever private opinions you like but you do not enjoy an absolute right to express them in public.”

Syed Shahabuddin, Muslim scholar and former opposition MP in India’s Parliament,
in defence of the censoring of Salmon Rashdie’s Satanic Verses

The Self-Indulgent Dutchman

The intended reading of “Fitna” the movie, as it was framed to achieve, would be that Islam and Terrorism are inextricably intertwined as such that you cant have one without the other. While one would find it hard to argue against the fact that much of what we term as acts of terrorism these days are inspired by a political ideology that has been ‘legitimized’ by Islam, it would be very easy to find fault with Wilders’ ideas and intentions.

I found a video of an Interview conducted with Wilders by Fox News Network (not surprising considering the networks political inclinations to the right). In it, Wilders proclaims that cultures are not equal and that “our culture [European? Dutch?] is far better than the retarded Islamic culture”. Furthermore, although Wilders does not believe that a ‘moderate’ Islam exists, he strangely invites Muslims to assimilate into Dutch society by first renouncing the “intolerant and fascist parts of the Koran….. and take Dutch values as their values”. His olive branch offering is in essence poison oak laced with Islamaphobia, making his stance at best contradictory and at worst ‘fascist’ (to borrow a phrase he often uses to describe Islam).

Fascism?

‘Fascism’ simply put is an authoritarian political ideology, movement, or regime that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. In his relentless denunciation and vilification of Islam, Wilders displays symptoms of extreme Christian right-wing nationalism. This is interesting when you consider that a complementary element of fascism, most evident in Nazi fascism, would be ‘extreme nationalism’.

While researching further into the term "Islamic Fascism", I found an interesting article (The Big Lie About 'Islamic Fascism') that referenced a modern definition of fascism from former Columbia University Professor Robert Paxton’s 2004 book, The Anatomy of Fascism.

Paxton defined fascism’s essence as, inter alia, “right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint and a fear of foreign contamination". He further added that:

[…] The Muslim World is replete with brutal dictatorships, feudal monarchies, and corrupt military-run states, but none of these regimes, however deplorable, fits the standard definition of fascism. Most, in fact, are America’s allies.

[…] The real modern fascists are not in the Muslim World, but Washington. The neocons screaming fascist the loudest, are the true fascists themselves.

These descriptions speak volumes don't you think?

Final Thoughts

Dissenters, nonconformists, artists, racists, bigots, proselytizers, politicians, bloggers … etc… all find common sanctuary under the aegis of a perceived universal right to freedom of speech and expression. It is in fact guaranteed under International Law (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) as a human right.

Proponents of this right however, often ignore the next article in the Law which recognizes that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This demonstrates an Orwellian paradox where all rights to expression are equal, but some rights are more equal than others; while Islam, and its 1.5 billion devotees, are often found grasping the short end of this stick.

Committee of Inquiry: Institutional Deficiencies vs Personal Liability

Questions?

It has now been four days since Minister Wong announced the setting up of a three-member Committee of Inquiry (COI) to investigate the escape of Mas Selamat from the Whitley Road Detention Centre. Bloggers, such as Mr Brown, Mr Wang, Mr Giam and Mr Sai Kor, have weighed in on the composition of the committee and provided diverging but equally reasonable assessments. Perhaps the reason for these mixed feelings regarding the appropriateness of the committee selection is a lack of clarity over the mission and powers entrusted to it.

In the 2^nd March ST report, Minister Wong affirmed that the mission of the probe was to prepare “an objective, balanced and comprehensive report on what took place and what we must do”. He further added that the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) was separately conducting an “internal inquiry to determine if there is any criminal wrongdoings”.

Without further elaboration, these two statements collectively seem to imply that the COI’s objective is limited to an assessment of the adequateness of operating procedures and physical security (institutional deficiencies), while the CID’s role is to charge, or absolve, individuals directly involved at the detention centre of negligence or criminal abetment (personal liability) – these, and my following arguments, are of course assumptions based on limited information.


What Took Place?

The investigation into “what took place” would thus imply that the COI has been empowered to take testimony of involved personnel and stakeholders, in order to establish if all current standard operating procedures were adhered to (e.g. handling of detainee transfers from cell to visitation areas, placement of sentries when detainees are outside their cells…etc.). Assuming that everything is deemed aboveboard, the line of questioning would then shift to determining how the detainee managed to elude emplaced security personnel, controls and barriers.


What We Must Do?

That is where the “what we must do” aspect comes in. The COI would be expected to furbish a list of improvements to current procedures and security structures to ensure such a security lapse (procedural or structural) cannot be repeated. Therefore I seriously doubt that they will be allowed to name names and assign blame. That aspect, together with the corresponding punitive actions, will likely be handled internally and quietly; assuming of course that there was no criminal wrongdoing. As such, I anticipate that the COI report and its findings will be highly general in nature and would not satisfy those that clamor for blood.


Does the Selection Make Sense?

If the primary role of the COI is limited to unearthing institutional deficiencies, then the appointments make sense on paper as all three have complimentary experiences in the administration of justice (former Supreme Court judge), enforcement (former Commissioner of Police) and policy (seasoned civil servant). All three are however to varying capacities still involved in public service; a presidential advisor, diplomatic ambassador and current MHA deputy Secretary. But to be fair, they were not packaged as an ‘independent’ commission of inquiry in the first place.


Conflict of Interest?

Nonetheless, if institutional knowledge is valued by the authorities over absolute agent autonomy, can we still realistically expect an ‘independent’ investigation?

Perhaps such a seemingly paradoxical premise is plausible. Take for example the internal affairs division in the U.S. Although they come under the Police department, they are tasked to investigate breaches of professional conduct by officers in the force. However, that falls into the realm of personal liability and not institutional deficiencies. Because of this, I share Mr Wang’s discomfort over the appointment of Dr Choong as such deficiencies may have indirectly resulted from poor planning and resource allocation by the upper echelons of the MHA (her current colleagues and bosses?). As such, Dr Choong may operate ‘independently’ (as her day-to-day job probably has more to do with keeping security threats out rather than in) but can she operate ‘objectively’?

Alas, as the days count down to the release of the report, the debate over who should or should not be included becomes more and more academic; leaving us with the resulting report as the only marker of how “objective, balanced and comprehensive” the COI was. Perhaps only then, the independence (or lack thereof) of the investigation will be perceptible to all.

Update: Taken from the Today paper 6 March

"..... The Minister has also established a Committee of Inquiry under the Prisons Act, to discover specifically how the escape occurred and to recommend appropriate actions to prevent such an incident from occurring again...

.... However, the complete facts and circumstances addressing fully the question of how Mas Selamat escaped is now the subject of a criminal investigation and more so, an inquiry by a Committee of Inquiry. We should await their findings.""

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some sections found in the Prisons Act (chapter 247 of the Singapore Constitution)

Committee of inquiry

8. (1) Where it is expedient that the Minister, or such other person as the Minister may appoint to exercise the powers conferred upon the Minister by this Part, should be informed on any matter connected with the discipline, administration or functions of any prison or affecting any prisoner, the Minister or the person appointed by the Minister may convene a committee of inquiry.

Admissibility of evidence
15. No statement made in the course of any inquiry and no report of a committee of inquiry shall be admissible as evidence in any proceedings other than proceedings, whether criminal or disciplinary, for an offence of giving or fabricating false evidence under any written law.