you're reading...

The Public Service, The Government, The Opposition: A Young Singaporean’s Perspective

Let us face it: the incumbent administration – largely dominated by the People’s Action Party (PAP) – is definitely facing an uphill challenge in the next General Elections (GE) to retain its overwhelming mandate that it has firmly held on to for the past decades. Even with the accusations of subtle gerrymandering and the traditional reliance on carrot-and-stick strategies, the assortment of displeasures and unhappiness – further proliferated with the advent of the Internet and the rise of socio-political websites and weblogs – has contributed to an atmosphere of suspicion, and strengthened the desire for change. The increased accessibility has galvanised individuals and groups into action, and crucially provided the impetus for the Opposition parties to capitalize on such sentiments in the hope of yielding greater political power.

As a young Singaporean, how does one grapple and comprehend the aforementioned complexities? Even though I would not be of voting age for the next elections, measures and directions chartered this moment would naturally have considerable ramifications.

The Fodder Of Our Public Service

As young Singaporeans graduate from Institutes of Higher Learning (IHL), many government ministries and important administration-linked agencies swarm down to poach many bright, scholastic talents to join the ranks of the public service. Because of the stringent selection process and the purported pool of talent, many of these individuals – having been awarded prestigious scholarships and study awards – are fast-tracked within the organisations, and would eventually helm key positions to drive Singapore forward. However, there is one important point: academic talent and co-curricular achievements do not automatically equate to genuine ability in serving the people.

Given the implications of these selection processes and awards, the Public Service Commission (PSC) should give its interviews and methodologies more serious consideration. Besides identifying uniqueness and individuality, the system should strive to ascertain interest and passion in serving the people and the nation; otherwise, these scholars – to-be public administrators – would merely be empty shells with no form of constructive resonance with the ground.

Many on the ground should be cognisant of the fact that the entire interview and selection process has been tainted by pragmatism and self-serving concerns. Academic and out-of-school accomplishments are viewed as a means to an end, and there is an obvious lack of vision, purpose and passion when many apply for their coveted scholarships. High school graduates are often enticed by the lucrative packages, the waiver on tuition fees, the all-expenses-paid grants et cetera. While the public sector should be one that has its intentions directed outwards to the people, its fodder is inevitably filled with “scholars” who are more concerned about power, prestige and stability than the actual career. Is this how we want our public administration to be run and engineered?

The Frustrations With The Government

Let us be honest: it is not that the administration is doing a shabby job; in comparison to many countries struggling with pertinent global challenges, Singapore’s socio-economic progress is fairly commendable. Singaporeans’ general frustration with the government stems not from the perceived ineffectiveness and inefficiency per se; more significantly, the empowered generations – with the growth of the Internet and other physical platforms for engagement and discourse – are lamenting the sense of distance between the people and the authorities. Naturally, the common criticisms of ministers and high-level public administrators relishing in their ivory towers are not without their justifications.

During the floods-fiasco, Singaporeans were enraged with the Public Utilities Board’s (PUB) poor handling of the incidents, as well as the laissez-faire attitudes adopted by the relevant personnel; when in fact citizens were asking for greater accountability in terms of taking responsibility for the damages, and proposing more tangible solutions for the future. Likewise, all we were asking for is for the administrators in the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) to experience first-hand the rush-hour squeeze on public transportation, instead of developing policies based on fuzzy statistics and mere academic information.

Are our agencies and public service really listening? They think they are. Whenever they are posed similar questions, they quickly point to the plethora of community surveys and outreach programmes to garner feedback through their established platforms; but honestly, superficial “public engagement” is not the answer. Public administrators and even politicians need to shed their apathy and lethargy in their domains, cease frowning upon tasks as careers and laborious commitments, and be more genuine and honest in their policy-making. Listen to the sentiments on the ground, on websites, in the newspapers, and even involve yourselves in grassroots and community activities; and instead of dismissing commentaries and suggestions wholesale, take more time and effort in sieving the gems and putting them under consideration.

The Importance Of A Substantial And Credible Opposition

The ruling party likes to refer to the maxim, “change from within” to reaffirm how its members are not simply yes-men, but individuals who have the liberty to challenge policies or initiatives introduced. Yet such measures are clearly insufficient. If an organisation – including a political party – has had a relatively easy ride for an extended period of time, complacency and contentment with the status quo would naturally set in, and its members would often see no need to challenge something that has been working for considerable years. They would much rather relish in the successes of the past and present, and see no necessity to upset the current equilibrium.

Nonetheless, the rapidly globalising world means that: i) political policies for socio-economic reform need to be more dynamic and wholesome, and blind adherence to tried-and-tested methods would not necessarily yield the greatest net result; and ii) the people would no longer willingly rest on their laurels: for the empowerment they are imbued with has galvanised them to have the desire to be seen and heard.

Checks and balances must come from within and without; who knows how much further we might have progressed if the Opposition was given a greater space to stake their claim and present their manifestoes. While the dual-party stalemate in the United States and the United Kingdom should be another extreme that we should shy away from, the incumbent administration must be prepared – yet not fear – the encroachment of a more substantial and credible Opposition. Rather than seeing it as an unfriendly threat, treat it as a much-needed stimulus and form of competition; especially both sides genuinely wish for nothing more than the continued progress and prosperity of our Singapore.

About guanyinmiao

A man of knowledge lives by acting, not by thinking about acting. Carlos Castaneda.


12 thoughts on “The Public Service, The Government, The Opposition: A Young Singaporean’s Perspective

  1. Yeah….I’ve heard all this talk before about how its going to be different this time aroud. And that how its a watershed elections…bla bla..bla..Singaporeans usually dont express their frustration when they vote.

    the ruling party will win and may even increase their majority.

    Posted by Bill | October 6, 2010, 1:06 pm
  2. the People’s Action Party (PAP) – is definitely facing an uphill challenge in the next General Elections (GE) to retain its overwhelming mandate that it has firmly held on to for the past decades

    Oh really? What is your definition of ‘mandate’? Are the current ‘frustrations’ sufficient for a large swing of votes to the opposition?

    Maybe they are. But I think many of these so-called problems are in fact minor and exaggerated.

    Posted by eternalhap | October 10, 2010, 4:06 pm
    • My notion of mandate is reflected by the general percentage of electoral votes that the incumbent party has amassed through the succeeding General Elections. While it is true that general frustrations reflected on-line are mostly anecdotal in nature, I don’t share the opinion that the plethora of minor problems should be casually dismissed. After all, the average man-on-the-ground cares more for the smaller tweaks in welfare and comfort (of personal benefits), before considering the bigger picture.

      Jin Yao

      Posted by guanyinmiao | October 16, 2010, 6:01 pm
  3. I can see a that the opposition parties are confident of winning GRCs ans single seats in the next election.This why they are all splitting among themselves as each one wants their voice to be heard.If this is the case, than it will be the result of their own downfall.Follow the PAP and close ranks irrespective of your differences. Only than you might stand a good chance.

    Posted by lawrence | March 2, 2011, 2:21 pm
    • Am I right to assume that you are supportive of heightened Opposition unity in general? Do you think such an approach would be more effective; because in my opinion subsuming parties under common umbrellas might compromise individuality and allow weaker elements – parties and politicians – to be subsumed. More time might be spent haggling over minute administrative details instead of focusing on the electorate and its corresponding concerns.

      Jin Yao

      Posted by guanyinmiao | March 2, 2011, 2:58 pm
  4. I dont mean under a common umbrella.What I meant was not in-house fighting within the party.

    Posted by lawrence | March 16, 2011, 3:46 pm
  5. The govt should increase the amount allowed to be from the medisave for personal health insurance. As standing only 800 dollars is the maximum which is insufficient for a person age 60 the premium is about 900 dollars as such one has to pay cash 100 .If you have a medisave balance of 35000 dollars and if CPF is giving 2.5% that should be no reason for one to top up cash if the sum is increased.It would help the eldely

    Posted by Lawrence | March 17, 2011, 6:02 pm


  1. Pingback: Daily SG: 6 Oct 2010 « The Singapore Daily - October 6, 2010

  2. Pingback: Weekly Roundup: Week 41 « The Singapore Daily - October 9, 2010

  3. Pingback: Dear Public Service, Are You Really Listening To Us? « guanyinmiao's musings - October 29, 2010

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: