Commentary: Rules preventing public servants’ misuse of confidential information must be stricter – for their own good

Amid checks on whether public servants used insider information for personal benefit, it should be stressed that no illegality has yet been uncovered. But the idea that it might have taken place unbeknown to anyone is galling, says veteran newspaper editor Han Fook Kwang.

Housing Board flats, condominiums and other high-rise buildings in Singapore. (File photo: iStock)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

SINGAPORE: It is shocking news that the police are looking into whether eight public servants might have used insider information to buy properties near MRT stations for personal benefit.

To be clear, no wrongdoing has been established so far. The police will look into the facts independently and due process will be followed.

But Coordinating Minister for Public Services Chan Chun Sing’s revelation in parliament on Tuesday (Oct 6) that out of 191 cases identified, these eight have been singled out for further action has upped the concern level by several notches.

It also raised more questions about the extent of the problem, how many cases there might potentially be, what safeguards are in place and what this saga says about the integrity of the public service.

CNA Games Guess Word Crack the word, one row at a time Buzzword Create words using the given letters Mini Sudoku Tiny puzzle, mighty brain teaser Mini Crossword Small grid, big challenge Word Search Spot as many words as you can Show More Show Less

Members of Parliament voiced some of these issues but Mr Chan could not answer many of them at this stage beyond providing broad assurances on the handling of sensitive information by public servants and the requirement that they declare properties they own and obtain approval whenever they possess non-public information relevant to a transaction they propose to undertake.

QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED

What can one make of this saga, pending the outcome of the investigations?

First, it was very disconcerting to learn that that it took a US-based economic research organisation, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) , operating thousands of kilometres away in Cambridge, Massachusetts to make the stunning revelation that Singapore civil servants were disproportionately represented as buyers of properties near MRT stations before the locations of these stations were publicly announced.

Was it possible that these illegal transactions might have taken place right under the noses of the authorities - and for how long - without a hint of it being noticed?

It should be stressed - again - that no illegality has yet been uncovered. But the idea that it might have taken place unbeknown to anyone here is galling.

This is because the issue of sensitive information used for private monetary gain is not a new one. Every public service anywhere in the world faces this issue as every government is in possession of valuable information which many people would dearly like to have their hands on.

Singapore should be especially vigilant because the authorities here are involved in many areas of life and market-determined prices are a feature of the economy.

Insider information is particularly valuable in such an operating environment.

If you knew Certificate of Entitlement (COE) supply would shrink at a certain date before it was known publicly, that’s priceless information, or that stamp duty on property transactions would go up, or that the authorities would restrict the purchase of certain products, potentially raising their prices.

How do you protect the confidentiality of the secret information, and from their misuse by public officers?

Mr Chan mentioned several safeguards, including limiting the information to only those who needed to know and subjecting it to security classification.

In addition, since 1990, officers have been required to declare their property purchases, and, for non-owner-occupied properties, to do so annually. They also need to obtain approval from their heads if they possess non-public information relevant to a transaction they propose to undertake.

These are sensible safeguards. But the key question is, how are they enforced?

Who looks at the declarations to find out if any warrant further action, or are suspicious? Or are they merely filed away as a matter of routine?

Following up on these declarations is not a straightforward matter because there are many grey areas to contend with.

The rules should also not be so onerous as to hamper the legitimate actions of public officers to make purchases and investments.

For example if an officer is aware of discussions taking place within government of the possibility of an MRT line being built in a specific area but does not know the specific location of any station, and none have so far surfaced in any discussion, can the officer make an educated guess and buy a property based on his hunch, without infringing any laws?

Supposing he is knowledgeable about government thinking on transport infrastructure as part of his work and he uses this knowledge to make the purchase. Legitimate, or not?

Second example: An officer is already thinking of buying a property and has narrowed it down to two options. He is veering towards option A but before he commits he comes across information of a station being planned in the vicinity of that property.

He was already going to commit but with the new information, he immediately paid the deposit.

Guilty? Or was his timing just fortuitous, or potentially problematic?

How to strike the right balance between deterring misuse of confidential information and allowing some legitimate flexibility and discretion that do not compromise an organisation's ethos and integrity?

THE STRICTER THE BETTER

When deciding where to draw this line, it is prudent to guard against being too lenient because you may not be doing the service or its officers a favour.

On the contrary you may be doing them in.

I found this from a painful experience years ago in my previous job as editor. The newspaper I worked for had a ready supply of shopping vouchers to be given to readers whenever we held contests or events promoting the paper.

They were entrusted for safekeeping to the head of the department that ran the promotions. Alas, he was found out through an audit to have used some of the vouchers for his personal needs, and subsequently sacked.

I realised then that the safeguards in place to prevent this sort of fraud were too lax and the person was given too free a hand to run his unit.

In effect, I was not doing him a favour because the temptation to pilfer was too great for him, given the loose arrangements.

If I had been stricter, he might not be so tempted and his career would not have been cut short so abruptly.

He also had to face the consequences of breaking the law.

The lesson I learnt is that being stricter on the rules may be better for the officers concerned.

It is not that they are not to be trusted but that while I trust you, I also want you to know that someone is watching whether you cross the red line.

In the present case, if officers know that the declarations they make are not scrutinised closely by someone and are only a formality, the temptation to offend might become too great for some.

"Trust but verify" should always be the operating principle.

It is a lesson worth learning for the public service as it decides what further safeguards to put in place.

Han Fook Kwang was a veteran newspaper editor and is Senior Fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

在对公务员是否利用内幕信息谋取私利进行调查的同时，必须强调的是，目前尚未发现任何违法行为。但资深报社编辑韩福光表示，想到这种行为可能在无人知晓的情况下发生，就令人愤慨。

新加坡的组屋、公寓和其他高层建筑。（图片来源：iStock）

这段音频由人工智能工具生成。

新加坡：警方正在调查八名公务员是否可能利用内部信息在地铁站附近购买房产以谋取私利，这一消息令人震惊。

需要明确的是，目前尚未发现任何不当行为。警方将独立调查事实，并遵循正当程序。

但公共服务统筹部长陈振声周二（10月6日）在国会透露，在已确认的191个病例中，这8个病例已被单独挑出来采取进一步行动，这使得人们的担忧程度提高了好几个档次。

这也引发了更多关于问题的严重程度、可能存在的案例数量、现有的保障措施以及这一事件对公共服务的诚信度意味着什么等问题。

CNA游戏 猜词游戏 逐行破解单词 流行词游戏 用给定的字母组成单词 迷你数独 小小谜题，挑战你的大脑 迷你填字游戏 小方格，大挑战 单词搜索 尽可能多地找出单词 显示更多 显示更少

国会议员们提出了其中一些问题，但陈先生目前除了就公务员处理敏感信息的方式以及要求他们申报所拥有的财产并在拥有与拟进行的交易相关的非公开信息时获得批准这一要求作出广泛保证外，无法回答其中的许多问题。

待解答的问题

在调查结果出来之前，人们该如何看待这一系列事件？

首先，令人非常不安的是，竟然是由远在数千公里之外的美国经济研究机构——位于马萨诸塞州剑桥市的国家经济研究局（NBER）——才揭露了新加坡公务员在地铁站附近房产购买者中所占比例过高这一惊人事实，而当时这些地铁站的位置尚未公开宣布。

这些非法交易是否有可能就在当局眼皮底下发生，而且持续了很长时间，却没有任何迹象表明有人注意到？

必须再次强调，目前尚未发现任何违法行为。但一想到这件事可能在无人知晓的情况下发生，就令人愤慨。

这是因为利用敏感信息谋取私利并非新鲜事。世界各地的公共服务部门都面临着这个问题，因为每个政府都掌握着许多人梦寐以求的宝贵信息。

新加坡尤其应该保持警惕，因为这里的政府部门涉足生活的许多领域，而且市场决定的价格是经济的一个特点。

在这种经营环境下，内幕信息尤其宝贵。

如果你在公众知晓之前就知道拥车证（COE）供应会在某个日期减少，或者知道房地产交易的印花税会上涨，或者知道当局会限制某些产品的购买，从而可能提高其价格，那么这是非常宝贵的信息。

如何保护机密信息的保密性，防止其被公职人员滥用？

陈先生提到了几项保障措施，包括将信息限制在需要知道的人员范围内，并对其进行安全分类。

此外，自1990年起，警员必须申报其房产购置情况，非自住房产则需每年申报。如果他们掌握与拟进行的交易相关的非公开信息，也需要获得上级批准。

这些都是合理的保障措施。但关键问题是，如何执行这些措施？

谁会查看这些申报表，以确定是否有需要进一步处理或可疑的申报表？还是仅仅作为例行公事地归档？

对这些声明进行后续处理并非易事，因为其中存在许多灰色地带需要应对。

规则也不应过于繁琐，以致妨碍公职人员进行合法采购和投资。

例如，如果一名官员知道政府内部正在讨论在某个特定区域修建地铁线路的可能性，但不知道任何站点的具体位置，而且到目前为止，任何讨论中都没有提到过地铁站，那么这名官员能否根据自己的直觉做出有根据的猜测并购买房产，而不违反任何法律？

假设他因为工作关系了解政府在交通基础设施方面的考量，并利用这些知识进行购买。这种行为合法吗？

第二个例子：一位警官正在考虑购买房产，并将选择范围缩小到两个选项。他倾向于选择A选项，但在做出决定之前，他偶然得知该房产附近正在规划建设一个警察局。

他原本就打算下单，但得知新信息后，他立即支付了定金。

他有罪吗？还是他的时机选择只是巧合，或者可能存在潜在问题？

如何在防止滥用机密信息和给予一定的合理灵活性和自由裁量权之间取得适当的平衡，同时又不损害组织的理念和诚信？

越严格越好

在决定如何划定这条界限时，要谨慎行事，避免过于宽容，因为这样做可能对服务机构或其工作人员不利。

相反，你可能正在害他们。

多年前，我在上一份编辑工作中经历了一件痛苦的事情，才让我意识到这一点。当时我工作的报社总是备有充足的购物券，以便在举办竞赛或报纸推广活动时赠送给读者。

这些优惠券被委托给负责促销活动的部门主管保管。然而，审计发现他将部分优惠券用于个人用途，随后被解雇。

我当时意识到，防止此类欺诈行为的保障措施过于松懈，而且给予该人管理部门的自由度也太大了。

实际上，我并没有帮他，因为在这种松散的安排下，他很容易受到偷窃的诱惑。

如果我更严格一些，他可能就不会那么容易受到诱惑，他的职业生涯也不会那么突然地戛然而止。

他还必须承担违法行为的后果。

我从中得到的教训是，严格执行规则可能对相关警员更有利。

并不是说他们不可信，而是虽然我相信你，但我也想让你知道，有人在看着你是否越过了红线。

在这种情况下，如果警官们知道他们所作的声明不会受到任何人的仔细审查，而只是一种形式，那么一些人可能会有太大的诱惑去犯罪。

“信任但要核实”应该始终是操作原则。

对于公共服务部门而言，这是一个值得吸取的教训，因为它决定了需要采取哪些进一步的保障措施。

韩福光是一位资深的报纸编辑，现任南洋理工大学拉惹勒南国际研究院高级研究员。

订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。

订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。

加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。