la nausée

Edited: 27 May 2008 at 1200hrs

News has broken regarding the disciplinary action taken in light of the Mas Selamat escape. Appended at the bottom of this post is a ‘quick-reference’ table summarizing (from DPM Wong Kan Seng’s speech in Parliament on Monday) the disciplinary actions taken against the various officers and guards. Certain cells I have left blank, because the information was not available from DPM Wong’s speech.

In all, 9 individuals faced disciplinary action of some kind; 6 by the Internal Security Department, 2 by the Singapore Police Force, and 1 by the Minister for Home Affairs himself.

The Problem of Concurrent Appointments

From the Table, you’ll note that the most senior officer involved apparently held concurrent appointments, as a Command Director of the Internal Security Department (ISD), and as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC).

As DPM Wong noted in his speech, the appointment of OIC, WRDC, is a statutory one. The relevant parts of the Internal Security (Detained Persons) Rules (1990 Rev. Ed. Sing.), read:

Administration of places of detention.

5. —(1) Subject to the orders of the Minister the control of officers of places of detention shall be vested in the officer-in-charge, who may from time to time make such transfers and direct the employment and distribution of officers as he may think fit.

(2) Subject to the orders of the Minister the general charge and administration of places of detention shall be vested in the officer-in-charge.

In contrast, the role of the Superintendent (who answers to the OIC, WRDC), is as follows:

Administration.

3. —(1) The administration of a place of detention shall be vested in a Superintendent.

Duties of Superintendent.

7. Subject to the orders of the officer-in-charge, the Superintendent shall supervise and control all matters in connection with any place of detention the administration of which is vested in him, and shall be responsible to the officer-in-charge for the conduct and treatment of the officers and detained persons under his control, and for the due observance by officers and detained persons of the provisions of these Rules and of all written laws, standing orders, regulations and rules relating to detained persons and places of detention.

Thus, the OIC has general supervision over all places of detention, and all the officers in such places. The Superintendent supervises a particular place of detention, and all the officers and detained persons in that facility.

All well and good. The only thing is, there is only one ‘place of detention’ for the purposes of the Rules, i.e. the WRDC.

A Critique

It seems a well-established policy for public officers (whether in the civil service, the military, or elsewhere) to hold concurrent appointments. Given that DPM Wong has pointed out, however, that the appointment of OIC, WRDC is a statutory one, one may question whether it was prudent to have an individual appointed as OIC, WRDC concurrently with his appointment as Command Director. The latter position, it seems, has to do less with administration and more with policy-formation. Given these two quite different roles, was it sensible to vest them both in one person?

Another criticism may be leveled at the Rules themselves. There is an air of unreality about the current Rules, which contemplate more than one ‘place of detention’. If that were so, it would indeed be desirable for a Superintendent to take charge of each ‘place of detention’, and for all Superintendents to be answerable to an OIC.

But there is only one such ‘place of detention’ — and this will probably be so for a very long time. The present arrangement thus seems unsatisfactory. First, one would think there would be some wasteful duplication involved, since the OIC and the Superintendent probably perform identical duties.

Second, apportioning responsibility in this way may well lead to abdication of responsibility all round. The Superintendent, responsible only for ‘ground management’ (to quote DPM Wong), may avoid taking initiative, and may seek to cut corners (and saw off window handles). The OIC, especially given his concurrent appointment as Command Director, may leave most or all matters regarding the WRDC, its officers and its detainees, to the Superintendent.

Perhaps one possibility which could be explored is to eliminate the appointment of OIC, and to slightly elevate the appointment of the Superintendent, so that he is also in charge of the administration and discipline of officers under his purview.

add to del.icio.us | digg this!

Table (Disciplinary Actions Taken in Light of the Mas Selamat Escape)