The Civil Service
Formerly, in The Great Divorce, it was mentioned that it was not entirely the fault of the PAP that we have some irksome policies in place in Singapore. As commented, the civil service is partly to blame. Why is this so?
In most countries, civil servants are not well paid at all, and are severely handicapped by tight budgets. This is because the political climate makes governments scrutinize budgets and tighten belts. Also, changes happen quite often in these places, since a change of government, often means a change in many senior positions (just look at the changes in the White House when a new president gets sworn in).
Looking at Singapore, civil servants are generally well paid, and they have not experienced a change in government. Also, the government does not feel threatened by any opposition party, and will not be ousted soon. As a result, budgets to feed programmes tend to be fat. So, while private companies may use SAP consultants from lesser known companies, the MOE uses those from one of the top name consultancies.
On careful observation, the civil service is not about reinventing a new and better Singapore, but about keeping status quo. Many issues are dealt with cosmetically, rather than tackling them at the roots. Perhaps they think it is too complicated, and just want to be seen doing something. For a civil service that is not going to see any changes in government any time soon, should it not be braver in policy decisions then?
A friend also noted that fact that the civil service is filled with dead wood. The ones who are any good, like many scholars, try their best to escape her clutches. Some break their bonds, or convince a company to buy them over, others leave immediately on completion of their bonds. What is left in a lot of the positions, are people who would not be able to justify their positions in the private sector. Yet these people are seldom humble, but tend to lord it over others. Many are the ones behind the curt, single-sentence replies from government departments.
So, here comes the six million dollar question. Is it not time for a major revamp of the civil service in Singapore? To actually move with the times? If Singapore wants to move into a high-value-added economy, so must her civil service. We know that it is not enough to be efficient in the private sector, but we have to be value-creating. How about seeing some of that in the public sector? Each privatisation of former statutory boards (Singtel and HDB, for example) have shown how much dead wood there is.
In most countries, civil servants are not well paid at all, and are severely handicapped by tight budgets. This is because the political climate makes governments scrutinize budgets and tighten belts. Also, changes happen quite often in these places, since a change of government, often means a change in many senior positions (just look at the changes in the White House when a new president gets sworn in).
Looking at Singapore, civil servants are generally well paid, and they have not experienced a change in government. Also, the government does not feel threatened by any opposition party, and will not be ousted soon. As a result, budgets to feed programmes tend to be fat. So, while private companies may use SAP consultants from lesser known companies, the MOE uses those from one of the top name consultancies.
On careful observation, the civil service is not about reinventing a new and better Singapore, but about keeping status quo. Many issues are dealt with cosmetically, rather than tackling them at the roots. Perhaps they think it is too complicated, and just want to be seen doing something. For a civil service that is not going to see any changes in government any time soon, should it not be braver in policy decisions then?
A friend also noted that fact that the civil service is filled with dead wood. The ones who are any good, like many scholars, try their best to escape her clutches. Some break their bonds, or convince a company to buy them over, others leave immediately on completion of their bonds. What is left in a lot of the positions, are people who would not be able to justify their positions in the private sector. Yet these people are seldom humble, but tend to lord it over others. Many are the ones behind the curt, single-sentence replies from government departments.
So, here comes the six million dollar question. Is it not time for a major revamp of the civil service in Singapore? To actually move with the times? If Singapore wants to move into a high-value-added economy, so must her civil service. We know that it is not enough to be efficient in the private sector, but we have to be value-creating. How about seeing some of that in the public sector? Each privatisation of former statutory boards (Singtel and HDB, for example) have shown how much dead wood there is.