This article, as well as the reply from MHA, appeared in TODAY quite some time back. Sze Yong had helped prepare it for posting here, but I've only just gotten around to publishing it. It should be read in light of my speech on security lapses and my OPQ on the sudden deaths of NSmen.
Where do we go from here?
Weekend • June 21, 2008
news@newstoday.com.sg
LAST Sunday night, Channel NewsAsia launched a fortnightly news show called Talking Point. The producers were kind enough to invite me to be a guest.
The show discussed last week’s incidents at two key Government ministries: The tragic deaths of two Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) servicemen during training and the escape of two men from the Subordinate Courts lock-up for a short while before being caught. We focused on three aspects: the flow of information, reactions of Singaporeans and complacency.
The police released the news of the escape nearly 12 hours after the incident. But the information in a press statement, released just past midnight, was very detailed. It went into some length about what really happened in the holding cell on June 11.
As for the reactions of the public, there was general agreement that there was great concern, mainly because the escape had happened barely four months after Mas Selamat’s break-out from the Internal Security Department detention centre at Whitley Road.
On the part of the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), it had reacted quickly by not just telling Singaporeans about the deaths, but also acting swiftly in calling for an unprecedented three-day suspension of all training activities.
Still, it was the issue of complacency that occupied much attention during the show. Simply put, the question was: Had the Mas Selamat lesson been absorbed across the Home Team? In particular, has the rank-and-file on the ground sufficiently internalised the importance of their work?
A series of human errors was blamed for Mas Selamat’s escape. The latest case has also been blamed on human error, and Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam told Singaporeans last Saturday that the risk of human risk cannot be completely eliminated.
But that is precisely why well-designed systems are so crucial: they should mitigate, or even prevent, human risk, if possible. The Subordinate Courts’ security system was audited in March and April. There will be another review to minimise the level of human error, and to strategically reconsider the flow of accused persons through the building.
This, then, raises the question of whether the earlier review had covered those aspects.
Ever since 911, Singaporeans have been reminded to be ever-vigilant; that we need to win every battle but the terrorists only need to win once. I believe that, if (touch wood) there is ever a successful terror attack due to human error, Singaporeans will wonder what is happening to our systems and our guardians of security.
When Parliament debated the findings of the Committee of Inquiry on Mas Selamat’s escape, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng rightly pointed out that “it would be stretching the argument too far” to say that “the whole Ministry and all the Home Team departments are complacent”.
But clearly, complacency existed at Whitley Road, as well as in the Subordinate Courts, at least up until last Wednesday.
In Mas Selamat’s case, the Government’s approach to accountability for errors was to discipline those who were personally responsible, as well as those with direct management over, or statutory responsibility for, the area in question. What the Ministry of Home Affairs needs to ask itself is, moving forward, whether this approach is sufficient to prevent another disaster.
In the same week, two SAF Servicemen died in as many days, while undergoing training. The SAF then suspended physical and endurance training across the military for three days. This suspension ended on Saturday, with the SAF determining that proper procedures are in place and being followed.
Some would wonder about the need for the unprecedented suspension. Was it an attempt to reassure Singaporeans that MINDEF takes these deaths very seriously? Was it to avoid the unthinkable tragedy of yet another training death?
Since the incident, some doctors in private practice have proposed more comprehensive screening of enlistees for heart conditions. A cardiologist has estimated that it would cost about $3 million to screen 10,000 recruits using treadmill tests and echocardiograms, or $5.7 million a year assuming an annual cohort of 19,000 recruits.
Other doctors have rejected such a step as unnecessary, citing high cost and the impossibility of completely eliminating such deaths. In other words, it is not cost-effective. Implicit in such a view is the belief that human life can be adequately quantified in monetary terms.
Sudden cardiac deaths are not new to the SAF, and yet no additional tests were introduced besides resting ECGs for all pre-enlistees in 2000. At the very minimum, MINDEF should conduct a trial project to ascertain whether the additional tests are indeed effective in detecting conditions that existing tests do not. If so, then there is a very valid question as to whether we should introduce the additional testing.
National Service is compulsory. It seems to me that if we as a society demand that all male Singaporeans perform NS, then the least we can do is to ensure that they are thoroughly screened for such potential heart conditions that are known to result in death, regardless of cost.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel,commenting in his personal capacity. He expresses his condolences to the families of the late 2LT Clifton Lam Jia Hao and REC Andrew Cheah Wei Siong.
The best of systems are not immune to human failures
Friday • June 27, 2008
Letter from TOH YONG CHUAN
Director (Corporate Relations)
Ministry of Home Affairs
I REFER to the commentary “Where do we go from here?” (June 21) by Mr Siew Kum Hong.
The incident at the Subordinate Court happened, as Mr Siew rightly pointed out, due to “human error”. Investigation of the incident indicated that the systems and established procedures were sound. But a few of the frontline officers concerned did not observe the procedures.
The security systems and procedures at the Subordinate Court were reviewed, tested and where applicable, upgraded. However, ultimately there is no human operator system that is not susceptible to human failure. This and the fact that the failures were individual human lapses do not diminish the seriousness of its occurrence and its consequences. However, it is misconceived to generalise that these human failures are reflective of systemic failure when the findings of the investigation, which explored this direction as well, do not support such a conclusion.
Mr Siew asserts that well-designed systems should mitigate, or even prevent, human risk, if possible. Indeed, sound systems lower the risk of failure and all security planners should pursue this end as far as is practicable.
However, all systems are inherently dated insofar as they are based on what its planner or designer knows at that point in time. And all systems have to be operated by individuals, who will have to be empowered to exercise judgment in some situations. Ironically, systems which minimise human judgment and discretion may appear hyper-efficient. But in fact, they face the serious risk of being blind-sided by a changing complex reality.
The ability of an operational system to adjust and overcome glitches and surprises beyond its designed parameters resides ultimately in the human operator. The key is to empower our officers and entrust them to do the right thing at the right time. This comes with some risk of occasional poor judgment. To mitigate this risk and the consequence of error, a key factor we seek to develop is the team’s ability to recover and respond when a lapse occurs.
In the incident at the Subordinate Court, the contingency response was swift and the recovery operations executed professionally. The two offenders were quickly detected and apprehended. The people and the recovery processes worked well.
It is noteworthy, that while SC/Cpl Donnie Lim should not have opened the cell door when giving water to the persons in custody, he also responded professionally and with personal courage. Notwithstanding the pain and injury of the assault he suffered, he picked himself up quickly, ran after the two escapees at the risk of further assault and raised the alert quickly.
The fact is that the human being remains both our weakest and strongest link in the frontline of any security system.
We must always guard against complacency even though we know there will never be zero failure on a permanent basis. To the best of our knowledge, no country or organisation has succeeded in achieving zero failure. Occasional individual lapses and failures will happen from time to time. The key is whether we will learn from such mistakes when they occur and evaluate if they are symptomatic of any deeper problem. We believe we will.
To generalise that the entire Home Team, which consists of many departments with different operational functions, is malfunctioning because of these incidents of specific individual failures does injustice to the commitment and effort of the thousands of regulars, NSmen and volunteers of the Home Team, in keeping Singapore safe and secure.
The low crime, drug abuse and recidivism rates that Singapore enjoy, are among the lowest in the world in comparison with similar foreign jurisdictions with their proportionately larger staffing ratios. This is not the product of work by thousands of men and women officers who are “switched off” or complacent.
Showing posts with label Mas Selamat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mas Selamat. Show all posts
Tuesday, 12 August 2008
Monday, 21 July 2008
Speech on "Security Lapses and Public Confidence": 21 July 2008
Parliament sat today, and I spoke on an adjournment motion filed by Dr Teo Ho Pin on "Security Lapses and Public Confidence".
An adjournment motion is a motion filed by an MP, which can be anything under the sun so long as it relates to a matter within the control of the Government. Technically speaking, it is a motion that is made when the Leader of the House (Mr Mah Bow Tan) moves to adjourn the day's sitting, and has to be wrapped up within 30 minutes unless the House resolves to extend the time limit. The time limit is why my speech was as short as it was -- I was given only 2 minutes by the Speaker.
The video of my speech on Youtube is embedded below, while the prepared text of the speech is further below. After my speech, I have reproduced the text of an OPQ I had filed, and the response of the Second Minister for Home Affairs.
I wrestled with this speech a little. Firstly, I was not sure what would have been covered during Question Time, which would then obviously affect my speech on the adjournment motion. As will be evident, that was not a problem.
Secondly, I was not sure what to say. Ultimately, the subject-matter of the motion lent itself to the content of my speech. Public confidence is shaken, and what would restore public confidence? Full and frank acknowledgment of fault and facing up to the facts.
After the sitting, a Straits Times reporter called for my reaction to the speech, given that it was the Minister's maiden speech as a Cabinet minister. I could only tell him that I was disappointed, given that Mr Shanmugam neither touched on the subject of an apology (and I am somewhat sceptical of the MSM covering that part of my speech) nor answered parts of my OPQ (for instance, on the question of security audits conducted after Mas Selamat escaped) in his reply (which I trust will be covered extensively by the MSM tomorrow) as he had said he would.
1. Mr Speaker Sir, we have been repeatedly told that the three security lapses this year were due to human error, and that no system can completely eliminate human error. That may be so. But this seems to imply that human error is unavoidable and hence inevitable. This is difficult to reconcile with the Government’s previous calls to Singaporeans to be ever-vigilant, because we have to win against the terrorists every time, but they only have to win once.
2. The inescapable fact remains that we have had three lapses across three different departments within the short span of four months or so. One would have expected the Home Team to be extra-vigilant after the escape of Mas Selamat, and that there would at least have been no more human errors in the period immediately following his escape. As we all know, that was not the case. I daresay Singaporeans’ confidence in the Home Team has taken a serious knock.
3. So I think there is a very legitimate question as to whether three lapses in three different agencies in four months is enough evidence of a wider problem in MHA. MHA has consistently focused on individual officers’ omissions and how even the best-designed systems are susceptible to human error, but has not acknowledged any fault as an organisation. If there are human lapses in different agencies within the Ministry, then there is a valid question as to whether the Ministry itself has done enough to inculcate a culture of zero-tolerance for human errors across the entire Home Team as a whole.
4. Furthermore, in the month or so since the Changi Airport slip-up, there has to date been no apology from MHA to Singaporeans for these lapses. The public would be forgiven for thinking that MHA is in denial, at least publicly.
5. I think an apology is the least that the Ministry could do. And I believe that a clear, unreserved, unqualified apology is a necessary first step towards the restoration of public confidence in the Home Team, because it demonstrates that MHA is squarely confronting the issue. The failure to apologise suggests that it is downplaying the seriousness of these incidents, and denying responsibility. Unless and until this happens, it will be difficult to expect public confidence in the Home Team to be restored.
Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) why have there been repeated serious security lapses across the Ministry over the past few months; (b) what measures have been taken to prevent a culture of complacency in the Ministry; (c) what measures will the Ministry take to assure the public that there is no such culture of complacency; and (d) whether the security audits of detention facilities carried out after Mas Selamat's escape had addressed the risk of human error.
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, I will be responding to Dr Teo Ho Pin's Motion of Adjournment on security lapses and public confidence, and the Question raised by Mr Siew will be answered then.
An adjournment motion is a motion filed by an MP, which can be anything under the sun so long as it relates to a matter within the control of the Government. Technically speaking, it is a motion that is made when the Leader of the House (Mr Mah Bow Tan) moves to adjourn the day's sitting, and has to be wrapped up within 30 minutes unless the House resolves to extend the time limit. The time limit is why my speech was as short as it was -- I was given only 2 minutes by the Speaker.
The video of my speech on Youtube is embedded below, while the prepared text of the speech is further below. After my speech, I have reproduced the text of an OPQ I had filed, and the response of the Second Minister for Home Affairs.
I wrestled with this speech a little. Firstly, I was not sure what would have been covered during Question Time, which would then obviously affect my speech on the adjournment motion. As will be evident, that was not a problem.
Secondly, I was not sure what to say. Ultimately, the subject-matter of the motion lent itself to the content of my speech. Public confidence is shaken, and what would restore public confidence? Full and frank acknowledgment of fault and facing up to the facts.
After the sitting, a Straits Times reporter called for my reaction to the speech, given that it was the Minister's maiden speech as a Cabinet minister. I could only tell him that I was disappointed, given that Mr Shanmugam neither touched on the subject of an apology (and I am somewhat sceptical of the MSM covering that part of my speech) nor answered parts of my OPQ (for instance, on the question of security audits conducted after Mas Selamat escaped) in his reply (which I trust will be covered extensively by the MSM tomorrow) as he had said he would.
Speech on "Security Lapses and Public Confidence"
1. Mr Speaker Sir, we have been repeatedly told that the three security lapses this year were due to human error, and that no system can completely eliminate human error. That may be so. But this seems to imply that human error is unavoidable and hence inevitable. This is difficult to reconcile with the Government’s previous calls to Singaporeans to be ever-vigilant, because we have to win against the terrorists every time, but they only have to win once.
2. The inescapable fact remains that we have had three lapses across three different departments within the short span of four months or so. One would have expected the Home Team to be extra-vigilant after the escape of Mas Selamat, and that there would at least have been no more human errors in the period immediately following his escape. As we all know, that was not the case. I daresay Singaporeans’ confidence in the Home Team has taken a serious knock.
3. So I think there is a very legitimate question as to whether three lapses in three different agencies in four months is enough evidence of a wider problem in MHA. MHA has consistently focused on individual officers’ omissions and how even the best-designed systems are susceptible to human error, but has not acknowledged any fault as an organisation. If there are human lapses in different agencies within the Ministry, then there is a valid question as to whether the Ministry itself has done enough to inculcate a culture of zero-tolerance for human errors across the entire Home Team as a whole.
4. Furthermore, in the month or so since the Changi Airport slip-up, there has to date been no apology from MHA to Singaporeans for these lapses. The public would be forgiven for thinking that MHA is in denial, at least publicly.
5. I think an apology is the least that the Ministry could do. And I believe that a clear, unreserved, unqualified apology is a necessary first step towards the restoration of public confidence in the Home Team, because it demonstrates that MHA is squarely confronting the issue. The failure to apologise suggests that it is downplaying the seriousness of these incidents, and denying responsibility. Unless and until this happens, it will be difficult to expect public confidence in the Home Team to be restored.
OPQ
RECENT SECURITY LAPSES
(Preventive measures to address)
Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) why have there been repeated serious security lapses across the Ministry over the past few months; (b) what measures have been taken to prevent a culture of complacency in the Ministry; (c) what measures will the Ministry take to assure the public that there is no such culture of complacency; and (d) whether the security audits of detention facilities carried out after Mas Selamat's escape had addressed the risk of human error.
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, I will be responding to Dr Teo Ho Pin's Motion of Adjournment on security lapses and public confidence, and the Question raised by Mr Siew will be answered then.
Thursday, 24 April 2008
Mas Selamat and Government Responsibility
I was away the past few days on a business trip, and so missed the sittings this week. Much has been written and said in response, and I will highlight three pieces that I came across which I thought were particularly well-written and well-reasoned (disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with everything they say though):
I like Alex Au's piece because it places into context the possible lapses further up the management chain (plus, he took the trouble to watch the videos, which is a truly admirable effort). To pin the blame squarely and solely on the folks at WRDC is inappropriate. So the WRDC supervisor did not carry out audits -- did his manager ask about audits? Did Director ISD ask about audits across the department's facility?
Finally, I like Chua Mui Hoong's column because it comes very, very closest to my own thoughts on government responsibility and accountability. I never believed, and I still do not believe, that the DPM should automatically be fired or asked to resign because of what had happened.
What I do find unsatisfactory has been the apparent reluctance to simply say, "People in the Ministry of Home Affairs made errors, I lead the Ministry, and so I take responsibility for it and I am sorry." Step up, say it, accept it. Only then is it right to move on.
Chua Mui Hoong rightly pointed out that the actual words said -- "This should never have happened. I am sorry that it has." -- fall short of actually accepting responsibillity. In her words:
She calls it a "small detail". I would go further than her. When viewed together with the comments about who is responsible and who will have action taken against them, and how those comments have been articulated, it does seem that there has been no clear and unequivocal acceptance of institutional responsibility for Mas Selamat's escape.
Ministers and top civil servants will never be the ones actually executing and implementing policies on the ground. Does this mean that they will only be held accountable for the policies and high-level decisions that they take? If that is the case, then unless policies are presented to them in excruciating minutiae, it will be well-nigh impossible for them to ever be held responsible for mistakes. Because the mistakes can almost always be pinned down to an error or omission by someone down the line.
Leadership is not management. If you view a minister purely as a manager, then he (and here I consciously chose not write he/she) is responsible for the performance of his direct reports, and his direct reports are responsible for the performance of their direct reports, and so on.
Leadership is different. The leader of an organisation is responsible for the entire organisation. Leadership requires one to take ownership of the group that one leads. Just as one takes credit for the achievements of the group, one must also take responsibility for the failings of the group, including those of individual group members. To be honest, the next time that the Government tries to claim credit for our security situation and attributes it to its policies, how credible would those claims be to Singaporeans?
What has been said about government responsibility, seems to frame the entire discussion around ministers being managers. But ministers are leaders as well. They are our leaders. And they have to demonstrate leadership, to retain the moral authority that leaders need to have.
Conceptually, accepting responsibility is different from the consequences of the occurrence of the failing. Accepting responsibility does not necessarily require the person to also resign or offer to resign. They are separate issues. That is why I, like Chua Mui Hoong, do not believe that it is necessary for the DPM to resign or offer to resign. And if the DPM clearly, explicitly, unambiguously says that he takes responsibility for what had happened, I believe that that would go a long way towards addressing the discontent of most Singaporeans.
The continued absence of a clear, explicit acknowledgment and acceptance of responsibility and apology will make it difficult for Singaporeans to accept what has been said and to move on. And that is a huge pity. It was a chance to set an example of true accountability and transparency to the world, and I think we let that chance slip.
- TOC Editorial: Government’s lack of accountability bad for the PAP, worse for Singapore on theonlinecitizen.com
- The great hunt: more management failures than guards' lapses on Yawning Bread
- Beyond witch-hunts to sanction for lapses by Chua Mui Hoong (yes, on The Straits Times -- read it first before snorting in disbelief. I must admit I was surprised.)
I like Alex Au's piece because it places into context the possible lapses further up the management chain (plus, he took the trouble to watch the videos, which is a truly admirable effort). To pin the blame squarely and solely on the folks at WRDC is inappropriate. So the WRDC supervisor did not carry out audits -- did his manager ask about audits? Did Director ISD ask about audits across the department's facility?
Finally, I like Chua Mui Hoong's column because it comes very, very closest to my own thoughts on government responsibility and accountability. I never believed, and I still do not believe, that the DPM should automatically be fired or asked to resign because of what had happened.
What I do find unsatisfactory has been the apparent reluctance to simply say, "People in the Ministry of Home Affairs made errors, I lead the Ministry, and so I take responsibility for it and I am sorry." Step up, say it, accept it. Only then is it right to move on.
Chua Mui Hoong rightly pointed out that the actual words said -- "This should never have happened. I am sorry that it has." -- fall short of actually accepting responsibillity. In her words:
"["This should never have happened. I am sorry that it has."] expresses regret at an incident happening ... ["We made a mistake and I'm sorry for the mistake"] accepts institutional and personal responsibility."
She calls it a "small detail". I would go further than her. When viewed together with the comments about who is responsible and who will have action taken against them, and how those comments have been articulated, it does seem that there has been no clear and unequivocal acceptance of institutional responsibility for Mas Selamat's escape.
Ministers and top civil servants will never be the ones actually executing and implementing policies on the ground. Does this mean that they will only be held accountable for the policies and high-level decisions that they take? If that is the case, then unless policies are presented to them in excruciating minutiae, it will be well-nigh impossible for them to ever be held responsible for mistakes. Because the mistakes can almost always be pinned down to an error or omission by someone down the line.
Leadership is not management. If you view a minister purely as a manager, then he (and here I consciously chose not write he/she) is responsible for the performance of his direct reports, and his direct reports are responsible for the performance of their direct reports, and so on.
Leadership is different. The leader of an organisation is responsible for the entire organisation. Leadership requires one to take ownership of the group that one leads. Just as one takes credit for the achievements of the group, one must also take responsibility for the failings of the group, including those of individual group members. To be honest, the next time that the Government tries to claim credit for our security situation and attributes it to its policies, how credible would those claims be to Singaporeans?
What has been said about government responsibility, seems to frame the entire discussion around ministers being managers. But ministers are leaders as well. They are our leaders. And they have to demonstrate leadership, to retain the moral authority that leaders need to have.
Conceptually, accepting responsibility is different from the consequences of the occurrence of the failing. Accepting responsibility does not necessarily require the person to also resign or offer to resign. They are separate issues. That is why I, like Chua Mui Hoong, do not believe that it is necessary for the DPM to resign or offer to resign. And if the DPM clearly, explicitly, unambiguously says that he takes responsibility for what had happened, I believe that that would go a long way towards addressing the discontent of most Singaporeans.
The continued absence of a clear, explicit acknowledgment and acceptance of responsibility and apology will make it difficult for Singaporeans to accept what has been said and to move on. And that is a huge pity. It was a chance to set an example of true accountability and transparency to the world, and I think we let that chance slip.
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Mas Selamat
I normally don't blog during office hours, but this got me all excited. I just received a Notice Paper from Parliament (No. 85 of 2008) with the following contents.
NOTICE FOR THE SITTING ON 21 APRIL 2008
1. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs:
Committee of Inquiry Findings on Mas Selamat Kastari’s Escape.
2. Prime Minister:
Government Responsibility.
Unfortunately, I will be in Hong Kong for business next week, and have already applied for leave from the Parliamentary sittings next week. I've asked whether there will be a debate on the statements and when that will take place.
NOTICE FOR THE SITTING ON 21 APRIL 2008
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
1. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs:
Committee of Inquiry Findings on Mas Selamat Kastari’s Escape.
2. Prime Minister:
Government Responsibility.
Unfortunately, I will be in Hong Kong for business next week, and have already applied for leave from the Parliamentary sittings next week. I've asked whether there will be a debate on the statements and when that will take place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)