Speech by DPM Lee Hsien Loong at the Administrative Service Dinner and Promotion Ceremony on 29 Mar 99 at 8pm at the Ballroom, Mandarin Hotel

Singapore Government Press Release

Media Division, Ministry of Information and The Arts,

36th Storey, PSA Building, 460 Alexandra Road, Singapore 119963.

Tel: 3757794/5

____________________________________________________________

SPEECH BY DPM LEE HSIEN LOONG AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE DINNER AND PROMOTION CEREMONY ON 29 MARCH 1999 AT 8 PM AT THE BALLROOM, MANDARIN HOTEL

Introduction

First, let me congratulate all the officers who have been promoted and those who have been confirmed or absorbed into the Administrative Service. I also congratulate all those who have been appointed to the Dual Career Scheme.
This is a fitting occasion to recognise the contributions of Mr Philip Yeo. After being seconded to EDB for the last 13 years, Philip has decided to retire from the Administrative Service and continue his service in EDB as its full-time Chairman starting from 1 April 1999.
During his 29-year service as an administrative officer, Philip has made sterling and lasting contributions to Singapore’s economic and defence sectors.
As Chairman EDB since 1986, his relentless drive and frenetic pace is well known. Under his leadership, EDB has brought a growing stream of top quality investments to Singapore.
I fully expect Philip to continue as the passionate, hard-driving, fast-talking, task-master in EDB, delivering jobs and employment opportunities for Singaporeans. With his energy levels, I am sure he will also continue to contribute beyond his EDB portfolio too.

The Road Ahead

I last attended the Administrative Service Dinner in March 1997. I talked about how scientists had discovered that a frog can be cooked alive if the water he is in is warmed up gradually, instead of being brought to a quick boil. Instead of jumping out and saving his skin, the frog adapts himself to the gradually worsening environment, and continues swimming around until he is eventually cooked. I suggested to Admin officers that they all ought to keep a little frog on their desks, as a reminder of the dangers of failing to detect and react to creeping changes in the environment.
Soon after that dinner, our own environment heated up considerably. The regional crisis broke out in July 1997, when Thailand gave up defending its currency, and allowed the baht to depreciate sharply. This triggered off a chain of events that engulfed all of Asia, shook other emerging markets, and totally changed our regional landscape.
Singapore has not escaped the spill-over from our neighbours’ problems, and the general mood of uncertainty and pessimism in the region. Our strong social cohesion and economic fundamentals have protected us from the worst of the storm. Nevertheless, we have had to make prompt and fundamental adjustments to our policies, to stay competitive in the new environment and prepare ourselves for more challenges ahead.
We will need to make many more course changes to navigate through the next 5 or 10 years. Many uncertainties are yet to come. Much as we try to anticipate developments and plan ahead, we have to watch closely as events unfold, and react promptly to new situations. Given the pace and complexity of change, we cannot leave it to a few senior leaders to anticipate developments. Every officer needs to be on the lookout. This is not a time for going on autopilot.
One major uncertainty is how the region will recover. Countries that follow through reforms, clean up their banking systems and strengthen their legal framework will emerge stronger competitors. But countries may also fail to recover, either because the economic measures needed are too painful, or because more basic social and political factors are out of joint. These countries will present a different problem to their neighbours. Singapore far prefers meeting strong competition from successful neighbours, to dealing with spillover problems from faltering economies. Our responses to the two situations will be quite different, but we cannot tell beforehand which will confront us.
Apart from the strategic and political uncertainties, in terms of economic challenges, we need to move quickly into a knowledge economy. International trends are strongly in this direction. Between 1992 to 1998, half of the top 20 Fortune 500 companies in terms of market capitalisation have changed. All 10 new entrants carry out highly knowledge-intensive activities. They include IT-related companies like Microsoft, Intel and Lucent, and telecommunications companies like Bell Atlantic, AT&T and SBC Communications. They also include the American International Group in financial services, and Merck and Pfizer in pharmaceuticals.
Within a few more years, more new companies will have emerged to join or displace them at the top of the rankings. This relentless struggle for pole position likewise applies to Singapore. To keep up with technology and the markets, Singaporeans must continue to learn new skills, over and over again. We have to train, upgrade and transform our workforce, to keep ourselves relevant in such an environment. And to lead successfully, government leaders and administrators too must never cease to learn new skills. This is not a one-time effort, because the frontiers of the knowledge economy are constantly moving.

Shifting our approach to governance and administration

These challenges demand an open approach to governance and administration. We must involve and co-opt people and ideas at all levels, both inside and outside the Government. Strong leadership at the top remains essential, but it must be complemented by systematic efforts to involve the whole organisation, reach out to the wider public, develop a shared understanding of issues, and benefit from the experiences and perspectives of others.
The reforms to civil service personnel management, the scenario planning exercises and the PS21 initiatives are all based on this fundamental premise. But we must push this idea much further, to unleash the full potential that Singapore is capable of. This is what the Singapore 21 vision is about.

Singapore 21

In August 97, the Prime Minister asked RAdm Teo Chee Hean to chair the Singapore 21 Committee. Its task was to recommend ways to strengthen Singapore’s heartware – social cohesion, and the sense of belonging and mutual responsibility. The report is being finalised and the Prime Minister will be launching the Singapore 21 vision next month.
The key idea in Singapore 21 is "Active Citizenship", i.e. getting Singaporeans to actively contribute their ideas, time and energy to build a better Singapore. This is critical, if our people are to strengthen their sense of ownership and belonging to Singapore.
Singaporeans can participate at many levels – national, community and the neighbourhood. They can participate in many fields – economic, social, in the arts and in sports. Their contributions can help to improve policy making, upgrade our living environment, strengthen community bonds and give care and support for the less fortunate.
To realise the ideal of Active Citizenship, we need to involve and consult more people in formulating government policy. Our environment in the 21^st century will be very different. Our society will be more educated and sophisticated. Our problems will be more complex. We need to understand the concerns of those affected by our actions, and tap the widest range of experience and knowledge available. In a rapidly changing environment, much of the valuable and up-to-date information is held by people at the front-line. Policy makers must draw on this knowledge to understand realities on the ground, and reach better solutions.
Consultation is necessary not only for developing good policies, but to ensure smooth implementation. The objective is to develop sound policies, not populist ones. Good examples of this process are the restructuring of the financial services industry, and our recent cost-cutting measures. Both entailed widespread discussion and consultation, but neither was at all populist.
MAS could not have carried out the changes to the financial sector without actively involving the industry. The Financial Sector Review Group depended heavily on private sector inputs. Whether in formulating new rules for fund managers, restructuring the stock exchange and SIMEX, or developing a new framework for corporate governance, we relied on individuals and groups in the private sector. The participants did not merely throw together wish-lists or populist measures. They responded to our trust with responsible, sound recommendations, putting the broad interests of Singapore first. They put enormous efforts into this public service, for no greater reward than the satisfaction of contributing to a national effort to upgrade the industry. This was not a public relations exercise. It was a serious effort to augment MAS’ expertise with knowledge and abilities outside the government, and establish a new method of working between MAS and the financial sector that it supervises.
The cost cutting package could not have been implemented had the Government, employers and unions not thoroughly discussed beforehand how best to deal with the economic crisis, and reached a consensus on the need to reduce wage costs. The Committee for Singapore’s Competitiveness tapped a wide range of non-government views, and distilled them into coherent recommendations. In parallel the Government worked for months with the unions and grassroots leaders to prepare the ground, and ensure that the workers affected by the CPF and wage cuts understood what was at stake and supported the belt tightening. In doing so, we drew upon the foundation of mutual trust built up over decades. Thus by the time the Committee published its report, the government was ready to accept the recommendations and implement them without delay.
Outside observers, perhaps not understanding how consensus building works in Singapore, sometimes attribute our ability to make fast and drastic changes to our lack of freedom and dictatorial methods. If coercion and regimentation were the secret of success, North Korea would have the highest growth rate in Asia.
The concept of Active Citizenship goes beyond consultation. Many of our policies can only succeed through an active partnership with the people sector and private sector. Schools alone are not able to mould good citizens, the police by themselves cannot ensure public safety, and the Ministry of Community Development on its own cannot provide all the social services we need. The public sector must seek out partners in the people and private sectors to accomplish these missions. Therefore participation by members of the public cannot be confined to armchair offering of views and criticisms. Words must be followed up by deeds, and people must commit time and energy to causes which they believe in.
While the realisation of the Singapore 21 vision is the collective responsibility of all Singaporeans, the civil service plays a key role. Its policies and the way it implements them set the tone and the environment in which the private sector and people sector operate. Singapore 21 is much more than the civil service doing a few projects with the private or people sectors, to show that we are working together. It requires a fundamental re-orientation in the way the civil service thinks and operates, including perhaps changes in the structures and systems in the service itself. Ministries must not see their industries or communities as mere recipients of their policies, but as valuable networks to tap in formulating, implementing and communicating policies. Our underlying mindset must be that we do not know everything we need to know to do our job well, and therefore must learn from the outside world.
I am pleased that most Ministries have begun to work with people sector and private sector groups in a more systematic and institutionalised way. The Ministry of Education, for example, is actively encouraging schools to forge links with parents and the community through alumni associations, School Advisory and Management Committees and student community service programmes. The Ministry of Home Affairs has partnered Community Development Councils to implement safety and security measures tailored to the community’s specific needs. This Community Focus Plan initiative reinforces the message that safety and security is everyone’s business and all Singaporeans play a part.
Involving people sector organisations is particularly important in social services. The government can provide most of the funding, but only committed and dedicated volunteer organisations can deliver these services with care and compassion. The Ministry of Community Development therefore needs to partner grassroots and voluntary welfare organisations to deliver social services. The Ministry of Education also needs to work with Voluntary Welfare Organisations to provide more schools for children with special needs.

Unleashing Energies within the Government

For the civil service to achieve the ideals of Singapore 21, we must start within the service itself. We must develop a management culture which encourages officers to participate in the process of decision making, to contribute views even if they do not have the final say, to be generally aware of what is happening in their ministries even when it does not directly concern their job, and to work across department and organisational boundaries to tackle issues together as a Singapore team. Strict hierarchical organisations cannot do this. Nor do we need a secretive working culture where everything is on a "need to know" basis, except perhaps for a very few departments where security is a paramount consideration.
In a knowledge economy, knowledge and contribution are more important than rank. We must work and communicate with a network, in a collegial way, rather than by rank and structure. The email makes it easy for us to do this, but of course it also shows up who is contributing to the discussions and who is not. It is not just computer technology that makes this style of working possible. It is also our system of meritocracy, where the more senior officers are fully expected to know their stuff, and to have the self confidence to engage in free discussions with subordinates without feeling threatened or out of depth.
We need to change the thinking of every civil servant, to get him to view his responsibilities broadly, come forward and contribute. This is the essence of PS21. Having staff suggestion schemes and WITs teams, with your participation taken into consideration in your performance evaluation, signals our emphasis on empowering officers at all levels. But it will take considerable time and effort to get every civil servant to internalise this change, and realign mindsets to the new approach.
Several ministries are already beginning to do this. In the "Thinking Schools, Learning Nation" exercise, the Ministry of Education has been thoroughly relooking at all aspects of education. More than 300 teaching professionals and HQ staff worked in 32 teams to suggest what should be questioned, and propose possible answers. They in turn consulted large numbers of colleagues for comments and ideas. MOE also created databases on their Intranet website which allowed all teachers to express their views freely.
The energy and enthusiasm released were overwhelming. There were proposals for curriculum changes, new approaches to school appraisal, more autonomy for schools, improved school designs, and so on. This burst of ideas did not come about spontaneously. It was the result of thoughtful organisation, and the conviction of the senior leadership in the ministry that our people do want to participate and get involved, do have good practical ideas and can see the big picture for Singapore.
The Ministry of Home Affairs is a second example. MHA has adapted the practices of a learning organisation with promising results. Hitherto the Police, Civil Defence, Immigration & Registration, Prisons, Central Narcotics Bureau, and ISD have been run as separate organisations. This created the usual problems of boundary management and sub-optimal synergies. Then some of their officers went through learning organisation programmes together, to prepare themselves to re-invent MHA as a Home Team that can work together and innovate.
The change has been profound. Mid-level Home Team officers developed masterplans across departments for major changes. Major building and technology projects that had been stuck, got going. CNB and Prisons, working with Police, community organisations, SCORE and schools have brought the drug problem well under control.
Other agencies too have been quietly generating ferment. In the Ministry of Manpower younger officers are being engaged and enthused pursuing the Ministry’s new development missions. PSD has been wholly ISO 9000 certified, and was awarded PSB’s Singapore Quality Class as well as the People Developer Award. These examples show that the civil service is capable of innovation, not only from the top down, but at all levels.

Conclusion

To maximise our chances in an uncertain world, we must energise our people, motivate them and unleash their creative potential. We must get our organisations to work cohesively and productively towards common goals. Singapore 21, the concept of an Active Citizenry, and PS 21 are all approaches to this problem.
How to get maximum performance out of people and organisations is an ancient and universal problem. Hundreds of inspirational management tomes have been published on this subject. My own attitude towards these formulas is sceptical but pragmatic. Consultation complements but cannot replace capable leadership. Empowerment is important, but it is not a magic word that, when uttered, releases energies undreamt of. Buzzwords are helpful, but more vital than repeating them is actively putting the ideas into practice. Only then can we upgrade the quality of public administration, bring Singaporeans closer together, and guide Singapore safely through what will be a bracing and demanding phase of nation building.