Of the Public, the Public Service, the Public Servant & 'Moral Behaviour'

RE: Public servants have moral authority to uphold: MPs & public


What's up with the expectation that public servants have to be demonstrate 'appropriate and moral behaviour'?

Paying for sex with someone over the age of 18 is legal in Singapore. So, unless the public servants paid for sex with a kid, they haven't committed any crimes.

What I don't get is the definition of 'moral behaviour'. And when the definitions are not laid out clearly, one is placed in a highly vulnerable position.

I wonder if the public servant's employment contract and/or instruction manual spells out (i) the expectation of 'moral behaviour', and (ii) what exactly 'moral behaviour' of a public servant means.

Having it spelled out and/or disseminated via a mass email is not enough. I also wonder if the normal position and/or scholarship interview processes include such an assessment of the person's moral fibre.

If the system wishes to use 'public expectations of moral behaviour of public servants' as a reason for taking these public servants to task, then the system has to show that it has actively attempted to explain to/ remind ALL its employees of, and to ensure that ALL its employees have been employed based on the criteria of ability to understand and demonstrate 'appropriate and moral behavior', even before commencing the employment relationship.


Since the recent incidents involving public servants (I would like to point out the public servants made up the MINORITY of the online vice ring subscribers), I have been thinking about the tricky issue of who the public servant can safely have a sexual relationship with, without the public or the public service getting involved.

There are many variables and of course many resulting permutations. One can even argue whether the proximity of the persons involved has to be defined by a sexual act alone.

It seems it's difficult to pinpoint how wrong an employee's sexual act is to his employer, as opposed to say, pin-pointing how 'wrong' it is to reveal skin, i.e. covering nothing (criminal), covering little (morally wrong + clearly stated in work guidelines), covering more (acceptable and clearly defined).

For discussion purpose, let's keep things simple and take a look at a plain vanilla sexual relationship between a public servant and X. No work-related interests involved. Just sex.

Public Servant	Sleeps with someone outside of office	Sleeps with someone in office	Pays for sex with someone 18 years and above	Pays for sex with someone below 18 years old
Married	Acceptable - provided no public outburst	Not Acceptable	Not Acceptable	Criminal
Unmarried but with partner	Acceptable	Acceptable	Not Acceptable	Criminal
Single	Acceptable	Acceptable	Not Acceptable	Criminal

If the outcome is highlighted in red, it is criminal, i.e. illegal. That's very clearcut. With such a record, the public servant can no longer serve in the Singapore Public Service.

If the outcome is highlighted in orange, it is not criminal. It is simply not acceptable by the service, i.e. likely to result in internal disciplinary actions. In such cases, the public servant can either receive a letter of warning, be demoted (rare) or be sacked. As we have seen, these implicated public servants usually resign from the service.

If the outcome is highlighted in green, the sexual relationship is tolerated by the service, and does not affect the public servant in terms of black and white records within the service.

Hence, looking at the table above, it seems that the difference in expectations of a married versus an unmarried public servant is that he can no longer sleep with someone from within the office. Having affair(s) outside of the office is acceptable for all.

It is okay if the married public servant sleeps with someone outside of the office, provided that this someone outside of the office has nothing to do with his work.

Hence, if the scenario is tweaked a little, the outcome becomes different. (See table below)

Public Servant sleeping with someone who is: (1) Somewhat related to ongoing public tenders and/or applications for public approvals, (2) But with no clear evidence of accepting monetary bribes	Sleeps with someone outside of office	Sleeps with someone in office	Sleeps with own Spouse	Sleeps with own Partner
Married	Not Acceptable	Not Acceptable	Acceptable	-
Unmarried but with partner	Not Acceptable	Acceptable	-	Not Acceptable
Single	Not Acceptable	Acceptable	-	-

This table has a new dimension of whether X, whom the public servant is having a sexual relationship with, is related to the public servant's work in anyway, e.g. X works for a company (that has tendered for a public project) which requires approval from the public servant and/or his department/organisation.

With the introduction of this new dimension, it is no longer acceptable for public servants to be sleeping with someone from outside the office.

Curiously, under this scenario, if the public servant and X are married to each other, it seems acceptable. This raises an eyebrow. As long as the sexual relationship is not adulterous, the conflict of work interests of the 2 parties is considered acceptable?


So what exactly outlines public expectations of the public servant?

Do the Public Service's expectations of the public servant take dressing from and/or align with public expectations of the public servant?

Is it that public servants cannot pay for sex, and cannot be unfaithful to their spouses?
Or that public servants cannot have close personal relationships with ANYONE who is seeking approval for public tenders/applications?

What is 'moral authority'?
What is 'moral authority' for?

What are the public servants getting in return for upholding this 'moral authority' which the public, and as a result the public service, craves for?

Someone mentioned that public servants are looked up upon by the public, hence public servants have to uphold moral authority. So, it is the currency here 'respect'?

If you, a public servant, uphold 'moral authority', that I, as member of public, would give you respect in return?
要不要笑？HAHAHAHAHAH!

That equation is out-dated and void.
The public does not 'respect upholding of moral authority' more than it respects the owner of copious amounts of money, pretty words, pretty faces, pretty cars and (multiple) hot sexy partners.

That's the true market value of 'respect' these days, though it's still 'wrong' to say it out loud, but it's definitely cool to show that you have it.