SINGAPORE: It is uncommon for political parties in Singapore to engage background screening firms to vet potential candidates ahead of an election, firms in the sector said.
While background checks on political figures are not unusual, they are typically requested by private companies seeking to assess potential appointees, rather than by political parties themselves.
But firms say such checks could help safeguard parties against reputational damage, helping them distance themselves from a problematic individual by demonstrating due diligence in the selection process.
These checks are becoming increasingly relevant in an era of heightened scrutiny, with social media, news platforms and online forums providing vast amounts of accessible information, said industry players.
At the Workers’ Party’s (WP) recent annual members' forum, secretary-general Pritam Singh revealed that the party had engaged commercial firms to help in candidate screening and personality reviews as it prepares for the general election, which must be held by Nov 23.
"Of course, none of these measures are foolproof, nor can they guarantee that all previous infractions of an individual will come to light. It is important that I set this expectation. But the party will do our best,” Mr Singh had said.
During the last general election in 2020, WP candidate Raeesah Khan faced police investigations for social media posts allegedly promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion or race.
One post had been made just two months before the election, and Mr Singh later said he had been unaware of the posts.
The use of background screening firms could help prevent such situations, said Mr Kannan Chettiar, CEO and co-founder of due diligence firm Avvanz.
“It is quite rare in general for political parties themselves to employ the services of background checking firms like ours. I haven't seen any such cases before,” said Mr Chettiar, who has over 12 years of experience in the sector.
His firm has conducted checks on politicians taking up appointments in private companies, though those checks were initiated by the companies themselves.
“But in this day and age, parties should invariably conduct such background checks. Especially nowadays, people can have so much baggage,” he said.
Mr Mervyn Ho, general manager of background screening firm RMI, emphasised the importance of vetting for public-facing roles like Members of Parliament. Any allegations, derogatory articles or media mentions would affect the public’s view not just of the candidate but also the party, he said.
“Assessing a candidate for a public-facing role is comparable to hiring a C-level (executive). There’s going to be considerable public interest and expectation.”
A mistake could cause the party significant reputational damage, he said.
Singaporeans' increasingly global profiles necessitate checks that account for foreign business interests or overseas work, another firm pointed out.
“Public figures, including MPs and candidates, tend to be held to a higher standard. In this day and age, with the right amount of motivation and effort, it's not difficult for anyone to find and dig up the past,” said Mr BC Tan, managing director and co-head of Southeast Asia at Kroll’s investigations, diligence and compliance practice.
All the firms interviewed said they do not have any local political parties among their clients.
Professional screening also offers political parties a degree of separation from candidates’ past controversies, if they emerge later, the firms said.
“It protects the party, as the party is showing the public what they have done and the steps they have already taken to ensure due diligence,” said RMI's Mr Ho.
The goal, he said, is to demonstrate that while bad judgment or changes in character may be difficult to foresee, extensive checks had been conducted at the time the candidates joined the organisation.
“Arguably as important is that we are experts in this area of work and a non-biased independent third party," Kroll's Mr Tan said.
“There is an accountability consideration. Should there be scrutiny in the vetting process, it can be objectively said that a third party came in and found no conflict or discrepancies."
Industry players said that while the WP likely conducted internal checks, engaging a background screening firm adds a layer of professionalism, given their more advanced methods of obtaining information.
The process typically begins with the candidate's consent and takes about two weeks, depending on the complexity of the screening, the firms said.
Background checks often include verifying credentials with employers and educational institutions, assessing financial soundness through credit or bankruptcy checks, and checking for ongoing litigation or past convictions. Social media and traditional media are also scrutinised for derogatory information.
The person being screened is aware of the checks being done, and has to give consent before the process can begin, said Avvanz's Mr Chettiar.
“Some higher-risk individuals require more thorough vetting. For example, criminality checks in such cases will cover the past decade compared to fewer years for regular cases,” he said.
“For every 10 profiles we screen, at least three will have some form of discrepancies, in the form of fake credentials, inflated backgrounds, derogatory social media footprint or undeclared offences.”
All findings are then compiled into a formal report for the client, raising any red flags that may have been found.
However, the final decision on how to proceed ultimately lies with the clients who hired their services.
“Sometimes they think that just because a conviction is for a smaller, less serious crime, like maybe for drunk and disorderly behaviour, and not something bigger, then it’s scant.”
The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) told CNA it uses a range of screening processes and feedback sources to vet potential candidates.
“No screening process can be 100 per cent effective. But we do our best to identify candidates who are committed to serve our nation, of good character and have a heart to improve the lives of our fellow citizens,” said a PAP spokesperson.
During the 2020 general election, potential PAP candidate Ivan Lim withdrew from the race just two days before Nomination Day following online criticism of his conduct during National Service, along with other allegations.
The Singapore Democratic Party said it has not used background screening firms for potential candidates. "Partly because the majority of them would have been active with the party for a number of years at the point of selection and their backgrounds known to us,” a spokesperson told CNA.
The Progress Singapore Party declined to comment.
Continue reading...
While background checks on political figures are not unusual, they are typically requested by private companies seeking to assess potential appointees, rather than by political parties themselves.
But firms say such checks could help safeguard parties against reputational damage, helping them distance themselves from a problematic individual by demonstrating due diligence in the selection process.
These checks are becoming increasingly relevant in an era of heightened scrutiny, with social media, news platforms and online forums providing vast amounts of accessible information, said industry players.
At the Workers’ Party’s (WP) recent annual members' forum, secretary-general Pritam Singh revealed that the party had engaged commercial firms to help in candidate screening and personality reviews as it prepares for the general election, which must be held by Nov 23.
"Of course, none of these measures are foolproof, nor can they guarantee that all previous infractions of an individual will come to light. It is important that I set this expectation. But the party will do our best,” Mr Singh had said.
REPUTATION AT STAKE
During the last general election in 2020, WP candidate Raeesah Khan faced police investigations for social media posts allegedly promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion or race.
One post had been made just two months before the election, and Mr Singh later said he had been unaware of the posts.
The use of background screening firms could help prevent such situations, said Mr Kannan Chettiar, CEO and co-founder of due diligence firm Avvanz.
“It is quite rare in general for political parties themselves to employ the services of background checking firms like ours. I haven't seen any such cases before,” said Mr Chettiar, who has over 12 years of experience in the sector.
His firm has conducted checks on politicians taking up appointments in private companies, though those checks were initiated by the companies themselves.
“But in this day and age, parties should invariably conduct such background checks. Especially nowadays, people can have so much baggage,” he said.
Mr Mervyn Ho, general manager of background screening firm RMI, emphasised the importance of vetting for public-facing roles like Members of Parliament. Any allegations, derogatory articles or media mentions would affect the public’s view not just of the candidate but also the party, he said.
“Assessing a candidate for a public-facing role is comparable to hiring a C-level (executive). There’s going to be considerable public interest and expectation.”
A mistake could cause the party significant reputational damage, he said.
Singaporeans' increasingly global profiles necessitate checks that account for foreign business interests or overseas work, another firm pointed out.
“Public figures, including MPs and candidates, tend to be held to a higher standard. In this day and age, with the right amount of motivation and effort, it's not difficult for anyone to find and dig up the past,” said Mr BC Tan, managing director and co-head of Southeast Asia at Kroll’s investigations, diligence and compliance practice.
All the firms interviewed said they do not have any local political parties among their clients.
Also read:
DEGREE OF SEPARATION
Professional screening also offers political parties a degree of separation from candidates’ past controversies, if they emerge later, the firms said.
“It protects the party, as the party is showing the public what they have done and the steps they have already taken to ensure due diligence,” said RMI's Mr Ho.
The goal, he said, is to demonstrate that while bad judgment or changes in character may be difficult to foresee, extensive checks had been conducted at the time the candidates joined the organisation.
“Arguably as important is that we are experts in this area of work and a non-biased independent third party," Kroll's Mr Tan said.
“There is an accountability consideration. Should there be scrutiny in the vetting process, it can be objectively said that a third party came in and found no conflict or discrepancies."
Industry players said that while the WP likely conducted internal checks, engaging a background screening firm adds a layer of professionalism, given their more advanced methods of obtaining information.
HOW SCREENING WORKS
The process typically begins with the candidate's consent and takes about two weeks, depending on the complexity of the screening, the firms said.
Background checks often include verifying credentials with employers and educational institutions, assessing financial soundness through credit or bankruptcy checks, and checking for ongoing litigation or past convictions. Social media and traditional media are also scrutinised for derogatory information.
The person being screened is aware of the checks being done, and has to give consent before the process can begin, said Avvanz's Mr Chettiar.
“Some higher-risk individuals require more thorough vetting. For example, criminality checks in such cases will cover the past decade compared to fewer years for regular cases,” he said.
“For every 10 profiles we screen, at least three will have some form of discrepancies, in the form of fake credentials, inflated backgrounds, derogatory social media footprint or undeclared offences.”
All findings are then compiled into a formal report for the client, raising any red flags that may have been found.
However, the final decision on how to proceed ultimately lies with the clients who hired their services.
“Sometimes they think that just because a conviction is for a smaller, less serious crime, like maybe for drunk and disorderly behaviour, and not something bigger, then it’s scant.”
HOW OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES DO IT
The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) told CNA it uses a range of screening processes and feedback sources to vet potential candidates.
“No screening process can be 100 per cent effective. But we do our best to identify candidates who are committed to serve our nation, of good character and have a heart to improve the lives of our fellow citizens,” said a PAP spokesperson.
During the 2020 general election, potential PAP candidate Ivan Lim withdrew from the race just two days before Nomination Day following online criticism of his conduct during National Service, along with other allegations.
The Singapore Democratic Party said it has not used background screening firms for potential candidates. "Partly because the majority of them would have been active with the party for a number of years at the point of selection and their backgrounds known to us,” a spokesperson told CNA.
The Progress Singapore Party declined to comment.
Continue reading...