Debate on President's Address 2014
Sir, come 1 June 2014, Singapore will host an impressive group of high-level government and business leaders in the World Cities Summit, definitely a prestigious global event. Included in the programme are specially designed Learning Journeys to unique sites in Singapore. Summit participants will visit:
• Punggol 21, a water-town of the 21st Century;
• The Marina Barrage, an engineering marvel that not only boosts Singapore's water supply, controls floods but is also a recreational destination;
• The Sports Hub, our latest state of the art, fully integrated sports, entertainment and lifestyle hub;
• The new downtown at Marina Bay;
• Pinnacle@Duxton, the first award-winning public housing project and Singapore's first 50-storey public housing.
For a young nation, Singapore has indeed much to show. Led by a pioneer generation of fearless leaders and a determined people who built this city, Singapore has made it, in a mere 50 years. Yet, we are not the happiest campers in the world. We are prone to complain about how many things in our country are simply not right or good enough; and how others should do more to make our lives better. Even our repute as one of the cleanest places on earth is under question, not the outcome of good habits. The Chairman of the Public Hygiene Council, Mr Liak Teng Lit, tells me with indignance, "We are a cleaned city; not a clean city because an army of cleaners clean up after us!"
Sir, the pledges and vision shared by the President in his Address such as keeping pathways open to all, strengthening our social safety nets, caring for the vulnerable, poor and the old, are things that cannot be seen or quantified but things that count. They are the very aspirations surfaced in the one-year-long national conversations, Our Singapore Conversation, engaging some 46,000 Singaporeans through surveys and numerous labour-intensive face-to-face focus groups.
While I support the motion of thanks, I however cannot agree with certainty the President's conclusion that "Our Best Years Lie Ahead". Our best years may not lie ahead. Sir, our best years can only lie ahead if we continue to labour on that which is unseen, yet highly valuable, in our country.
Today, I would like to touch on two areas: one, the Presidency Office, and two, the Public Sector.
The Presidency. Sir, it is not the first time that I have raised the issue of updating our political landscape and the need to review the Elected President, the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) and the Nominated MP schemes.
In the debate on the President's Address in October 2011, I had called for the Government to examine if these created offices are still relevant in today's new political environment. And if the conditions under which they were introduced have changed, let us have the courage to slay these sacred cows before they become obese and unhealthy.
I would like to focus on the Elected Presidency scheme today.
The Presidency became a popularly-elected political office following constitutional amendments enacted in 1991. Until then, the President was a neutral ceremonial head of state. The amendments gave the Elected President reserve powers over government expenditure of financial reserves of our country and also key public office appointments. The Elected President holds the executive right to block attempts by the government of the day, including specified statutory boards, to draw down reserves that it did not accumulate.
I share hon Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang's reservations about the power given to the Elected President.
If the government of the day is elected by popular vote, the electorate has to learn to live with its elected candidates and remove them at the next General Elections should there be better choices.
Added to my concern is also how the Elected Presidency scheme has admitted candidates who were non-executive chairpersons of companies or portfolio managers with no strong substantive executive experience, expecting them to exercise the very critical executive functions asked of the Elected President.
I long for the day of a senior statesman who can represent our country as a head of state in the likes of ex-Presidents Yusof bin Ishak and Dr Benjamin Sheares; statesmen who need not be lugged through yet another political campaigning process that divides the country instead of healing and uniting the people of Singapore.
Sir, as a foundation for more good years to come, we should re-examine the Elected Presidency scheme.
The Public Sector. Sir, the next suggestion I have to ensure that our country's best years are yet ahead, concerns another important key institution in our country – the Public Sector, the Public Service.
I recently watched the play, "Yes Prime Minister", which caused me to ponder on the key institutions of Singapore's national political landscape. The play was adapted from a British political comedy, a satire, a favourite television programme of ex-British Prime Minister Mrs Margaret Thatcher.
The series depicts how in a world of revolving-door politics, where politicians come and go, how senior civil servants are in fact running the country, believing that it is the Civil Service that knows best what is good for the country. The power games in the television series that were played were hilarious but at the same time, sobering. As our political system becomes more vibrant, what is depicted in "Yes Prime Minister" is not an improbable scenario.
With the maturing of the political system and the gradual eroding perception of the politics of fear, the likelihood of revolving-door politics may one day become a reality in Singapore. The top echelon of the Civil Service, of the Public Service, is set to play a critical role to ensure Singapore's stability and survival.
The Public Service, our Executive branch, is the largest employer in Singapore, employing some 139,000 officers in 16 Ministries and more than 50 Statutory Boards.
Together with the other Government-linked organisations, they form our nation's backbone. In recent years, they even set the trends and pace in being one of the best pay-masters. The Civil Service picks the crème-de-la crème me to join its ranks and grooms them to helm its many Ministries and agencies.Its top performers are sometimes eyed for political appointments.
In my opinion, the Public Service needs to upgrade its operating system in at least three ways.
One, in the way it selects and develops especially its leaders. We are In a day and age when a mere web-search will produce an avalanche of good ideas. There is a need to re-think the kind of competencies we need for leadership in the Civil Service in the 21st century – twenty first century competencies, such as facilitation, learning how to coax the best out of partners and staff, networking, communicating effectively in a digital age to citizens who have grown up digital.
Is there still a need for an elite Admin Service which primarily admits persons of a specific form of intelligence? Or should the Admin Service scheme be replaced by a more open and robust system to identify different talents and competencies for different types of leadership jobs? Is there a space for a Civil Service Human Resource (HR) system that is less exclusive and more porous, so that those without the traditional pedigree and yet own the desired leadership competencies might stand a chance of being in the leadership team in the Public Service?
Two, the Public Service also needs to upgrade its operating system in the way it recognises and rewards performances. The traditional system by which officers are ranked in groups amongst supervisors who hardly know the staff, calls for an update. There is rumbling on the ground by even civil servants themselves, no less, on the quality of a recognition system that is based in part on how aggressive one's supervisor fights for one's ranking against other similarly enthused supervisors similarly pushing for their own staff.
Three, the Public Service needs to re-design and resource a more effective communication blueprint that allows it to: one, proactively identify issues that matter on the ground; two, consults and co-shapes with citizens important policies and programmes that affect the lives of the people of Singapore such as the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme or even the latest Pioneer Generation Package; and three, not only informs decisions that ultimately have to be taken but also explains and takes feedback, not once but on an ongoing basis in order to fine-tune and hone its work in order to meet its purpose.
Sir, in the possibility of a future of revolving-door politics where incumbent politicians may not stay long enough to dwell deeper into critical national issues, I feel there is a strong need to take stock of the strengths and weaknesses and update one of the most important key institutions of our country, the Public Service.
In conclusion, Sir, I cannot agree more with the President when he said that an increase in Government spending, especially on social programmes, "does not necessarily create a wealthier, a better or a happier society". Neither will cheaper flats, lower COEs, universal healthcare coverage make us all happier, I suspect.
What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul? Ultimately, however strong or weak our political and public institutions are, our saving grace must come from within each one of us, each Singaporean. Each of us needs to invest in our moral fibre to do the right thing and not do what is populist and self-serving. Each of us needs to exercise the power of one and ensure that our conscience stays intact.
As a people, we need to examine and agree on some fundamentals, update them, so that indeed the best days lie ahead. For example, as we pursue First World ambitions, can we look up from our smart phones and tithe some of our time and resources for those amongst us who are disadvantaged, such as the severely disabled, the abandoned elderly, the ex-convicts and their families, knowing that it would take more than paid social workers and government agencies to give them a fighting chance for success?
Can we pledge that the family unit remains the fundamental unit of our society and the first port of call for love and help, that we do not abandon the care of our loved ones to the care of others? Can we continue to endorse the principle that work comes before welfare, that if we can work, we work, before we seek welfare?
Can we agree that the doers who make things happen, the blue-collared workers who clean up after us, deserve a better lot and a better place in our society? Can we exercise not just courage to speak up for our own needs and causes, but extend consideration and courtesy for others who too have their own needs and causes?
Sir, our Singapore Conversations have only just begun. I agree with other Members of this House who have asked for the national conversations to be continued. A friend of mine who runs a successful tuition agency, a very successful one, asked his students, all youths, what they thought of Singaporeans. The word "selfish" comes up often. When Minister Lim Swee Say recently called for Singaporeans to be better customers, there was a number of people who disagreed with him, claiming that it was bad service that trigger bad customers. But two wrongs – bad service, bad customers – do not make a right.
Hence, until the majority of us agree on the social contract that governs our society, that governs how we treat each other, especially the least amongst us, I am afraid our best days may be over. Nonetheless, Sir, I still support the motion of thanks to the President for his Address at the Opening of the Second Session of the Twelfth Parliament. I thank him for his vision.