SINGAPORE - The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) did not initially announce that Transport Minister S. Iswaran had been arrested as it wanted first to establish more facts of the case, including hearing his side of the story, said Education Minister Chan Chun Sing.

CPIB had said on July 12 that Mr Iswaran was assisting with investigations into a case it had uncovered.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong took reference from CPIB’s press release on July 12 in their statements to the media that same day, Mr Chan told the House on Wednesday.

“This was the proper thing to do because ministers, including the prime minister, should not reveal more than what the law enforcement agencies are prepared to disclose,” he said, adding that while ministers do have the final decision-making power, they usually take the law enforcement agency’s advice.

Mr Chan, who is Minister-in-charge of the Public Service, noted that Hotel Properties Limited issued a statement two days later on July 14, saying its founder and managing director Ong Beng Seng had been “given a notice of arrest” by CPIB. This prompted the media to ask CPIB about it.

“By then, investigations had been ongoing for three days and CPIB had obtained more facts,” said Mr Chan. “CPIB made the operational judgment call that it would be appropriate at that point to confirm that both Mr Ong and minister Iswaran had been arrested.”

What law enforcement agencies, including CPIB, reveal at any point in time takes into account operational considerations for cases, including preserving the integrity of evidence, protecting the confidentiality of ongoing investigations, and avoiding impact on other related parties, he added.

Mr Chan also addressed other matters raised by various members of Parliament, including Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong GRC), Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang GRC), Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai, Mr Gerald Giam (Aljunied GRC) and Mr Dennis Tan (Hougang).

Q. Do all CPIB investigations require the PM’s concurrence, and is CPIB obliged to seek the PM’s concurrence to open formal investigations into potential offences that it has uncovered?

A: Mr Chan said that while CPIB reports directly to PM Lee, it is functionally independent and does not require his concurrence to conduct its investigations.

“In this case, (CPIB) kept the Prime Minister informed and sought his concurrence to initiate formal investigations of minister Iswaran because the investigations concerned a Cabinet minister,” he said.

In the event that the prime minister refuses to give his consent to a CPIB investigation, the director of CPIB can go directly to the elected president for agreement to proceed with the investigation, he added.

“In reality, we have never had a prime minister who has impeded CPIB’s work,” Mr Chan noted.

Q. Why did ministers K. Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan continue with their duties while being investigated by CPIB over the Ridout Road issue, while Mr Iswaran was placed on leave of absence?

A: There is a crucial difference between both cases, said Mr Chan, noting that Mr Shanmugam and Dr Balakrishnan had asked for an independent investigation into their rental of state-owned colonial bungalows.

When PM Lee tasked CPIB to investigate, he had no reason to believe that the ministers had committed any wrongdoing, and therefore saw no need to put them on leave of absence during the investigation, Mr Chan added.

The CPIB investigation subsequently cleared both ministers.

“The Prime Minister could have asked the ministers to take leave of absence should evidence have surfaced during the investigations that warranted it,” Mr Chan said.

In Mr Iswaran’s case, PM Lee’s assessment was that it was necessary to suspend Mr Iswaran from his official duties while the investigation took place, Mr Chan said.

Q: Was Mr Iswaran’s gazetted “leave of absence” from July 7 to 9 related to the CPIB investigation?

A: Mr Chan said Mr Iswaran took leave during this period for personal matters. The leave of absence arising from the CPIB investigation was effected only on July 12.

Q: Will the code of conduct for ministers be reviewed?

A: Mr Chan said the general principles of the code – which has been in place since 1954 and was last updated in 2005 – remain valid.

“We will continue to review and update the code of conduct for ministers regularly, taking into account evolving circumstances and needs,” he said.

Q: What are the avenues for public officers to report wrongdoing, and what are the measures in place to protect whistle-blowers?

A: A public service officer who is unsure about a request that he has received – because it seems inappropriate or unrelated to official work – should consult and seek guidance from his supervisor, Mr Chan said.

If the request came from his supervisor, or a more senior officer, the officer can escalate the matter appropriately through the chain of command – including directly to his permanent secretary, the head of the agency, the head of civil service, or the minister in-charge of the public service.

Mr Chan said there is an established internal disclosure policy framework within the civil service, where officers can report any wrongful practices to their permanent secretaries. Statutory boards have their own equivalent processes.

All reports are treated with utmost confidentiality, and every effort is made to protect the officer’s identity, he added.

Between 2020 and 2022, no report that surfaced through this channel was referred to CPIB for investigation.

Under the Public Service Protocol for reporting corruption, officers should directly report to the police or CPIB when they learn of any act of corruption or have reason to believe it may have been committed in their ministries, Mr Chan said.

He added that of the 83 cases that CPIB registered for investigation in 2022, 13 – or 16 per cent – were from anonymous sources.

Four public-sector officers were prosecuted for graft offences in 2022, he said, noting that such cases form a small portion of the cases CPIB investigates each year.

Q. Are political office holders and civil servants required to declare meals received, and what is the value for which such declarations are required?

A: Civil servants must declare to their permanent secretaries any gifts they receive from external parties on account of their official position or work, Mr Chan said.

Officers may be allowed to retain gifts valued below $50 if doing so does not affect the integrity of the civil service, he added.

Those who want to retain gifts valued above $50 must pay the gift’s assessed market value to the Government.

Officers who are invited to meals may accept when there are legitimate work-related reasons, or when it is impractical or impolite to reject the meal, Mr Chan said.

Civil servants should declare and seek approval from their permanent secretaries if they receive any meal invitation, “especially if they assess that the value of the meal or hospitality is incongruent with the professional nature of the meeting and may give rise to perceptions of influence peddling and conflict of interest – real or perceived”, he said.

Political office holders adopt a similar spirit and principles in their official activities, he added.