Singapore Politics

The past articles of this blog focused mainly on the present and recent history of Singapore Politics, on PM Lee Hsien Loong, Third Generation Ministers and on recent Election issues. But no Singapore Politics would be complete without the history of PAP, its early founding and the tale of 6 men. As such, I will try to attempt on a new direction (more like reverse direction) in bring the past history of Singapore Politics to “blog space”. Thus this will be a 4 Part Series on the Histories and Leaders that would be featured in the coming month. Here are the synopses:

Part 1: History and the Founding of PAP
For those who have visited the PAP website, would know that they have a short concise history of the Party. As in most concise history, the details that they left behind are often the most important and interesting. Stories of their struggles, backstabbing, “politicking” and crisis made what PAP is today. This article will span from 1957 to the day of separation with Malaysia in 1965 and involved the lives of Seven Key Leaders that shaped the present day Singapore Politics. Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, S Rajaratnam, Devan Nair, Lim Chin Siong and Lim Kim San. Aside from Lee Kuan Yew, who is well publicized to say the least, the 6 other leaders will be featured in separate articles.

Part 2: Old Guards and Leaders of Singapore I
True Founders of Singapore: Dr Toh Chin Chye and Dr Goh Keng Swee
Both men were the pioneering members of PAP and Deputy Prime Ministers of Singapore. One is the founding Chairman of the PAP, the other the true architect of Singapore’s success. In the confusion of Singapore’s sudden separation with Malaysia, PM Lee Kuan Yew wept on national television and withdraws to a government bungalow in Changi. But behind the scene was the stabilizing force of Dr Toh Chin Chye made the chaos orderly. Dr Toh also played a crucial role in the development of Science and Technology in industrialization of Singapore. As for Dr Goh Keng Swee, he is widely hailed as the true architect of Singapore’s success with his visionary leadership. He was first Defense Minister and practically transformed the swarm lands of Jurong into an industrial oasis.

Part 3: Old Guards and Leaders of Singapore II
Almost Prime Ministers: Lim Chin Siong and Devan Nair
Both men were said to be Communist and detained for several times for their beliefs. But if history has taken its turn, Lim Chin Siong would have become the Prime Minister of Singapore, or at least this was what Lee Kuan Yew said. Once, Lee Kuan Yew introduced Lim Chin Siong to David Marshall, “Meet the future Prime Minister of Singapore!” David Marshall laughed but LKY said, “Don’t laugh! He’s the finest Chinese orator in Singapore and he will be our next Prime Minister!” History has its own ironies with LKY himself being the PM. Devan, on the other hand, was the lifeline of PAP after the party split. Should he have joined Lim Chin Siong and not created NTUC, the power in office today would not have been the PAP. With the credit of bringing the union over to the PAP, he was later appointed President of Singapore only to unceremoniously resign from office.

Part 4: Old Guards and Leaders of Singapore III
Leaders Home and Abroad: Lim Kim San and S Rajaratnam
The HDB housing is probably one of the very rare cases of public housing gone right in the world. Where every other country failed and Singapore’s public housing succeeded due to one leader, Lim Kim San. Away from home, the Foreign Minister that steered Singapore into the Global map was S Rajaratnam. The investments we attracted, the foreign relations we built, the diplomacy that was forged when Singapore was not even on the world’s map, Rajaratnam made us a “country”. After independence, two main problems plagued Singapore: Housing and Jobs. Lim Kim San assured the housing and Rajaratnam brought in the foreign investors and made diplomacy our only defense when we do not have soldiers.

“Ten different government departments concerted their efforts over ten years to achieve this. It was not just removing the muck from the rivers. The source of pollution had to be removed permanently. First, the vision of what was possible with modern engineering was crucial. Second, we had to have the courage to implement unpopular measures and the tenacity to pursue permanent solutions… To the official, who planned the operations with thoroughness and care, and to those who implemented them with tenacity and fairness, I say “Well done.””
Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

The implementation can be a lengthy process as the ideas and implementation have to be negotiated and “thrown back and forth” for approval within hierarchy based financial guidelines. For some Ministries, the use S$50,000 or more, for any events or implementation has to be approved by the Deputy Secretary. Any events or implementation costing below $50,000 can be approved by either the Coordinating Director or Deputy Director of the division. Each event or implementation will be judged on their relative cost and benefits before implementation. At the end of each financial year (April 05 – May 06), the division will submit their report based on the events and policies organized, reach, outcomes and budget. With the manpower cut in all Ministries (except Mindef), most of such implementation are outsourced to various NGO groups such as Fei Yue Community Services.

In the context of policy implementation in Singapore, the Top-down approach seems to be the more appropriate fit, especially during the 1980s and 1970s. However, in recent years, the civil service has been down-sizing and mandated a fiscal budget reduction of 2% each year (with the exception of Ministry of Defence), lead to further constraints in resources. With the limited number of civil servants and manpower, it is difficult to cater to the broad scope and demands from the public in terms of implementation and functions. As such, alternative methods to implementation, such as outsourcing of some of the Ministries’ functions, are frequently used within the bureaucracy. Increasing, implementation of policies is carried out by external non-governmental organizations and service deliverers. Thus, the Bottom-up approach seems to be realistic for some policies. To compare the approaches, we will use similar policies within the same Ministry, so that we could evaluate its relative merits and shortcomings.

How to Achieve “The Singaporean Efficiency”?
In knowing the different perspectives of the Top-Down and Bottom-up Approaches, how does the Singapore Civil Service achieved such “Singaporean Efficiency”? As seen from the two perspectives, the ideal implementation (be it whether the policy is “right” of “wrong”) is when civil servants implement according to the guidelines with minimal deviation from the instruction given by their Permanent Secretaries. As such, very often the top-down approach provides better control over the implementation than being left in the hands of the front line civil servants (Bottom-up Approach eg: Teachers, Policemen..) to interpret the “law” or instructions.

One the core method is to self-select the civil servants according to their risk behaviour. Ideally, the civil servants should not be risk-taking people that would question too much over the “rightness” and “wrongness” of the policy but implement it with minimal deviation from the policy guidelines. As such, if you look at the entry requirements of all civil services you will find a common characteristic. Compared to the private sector, the civil service is much more “paper qualification” dependent. People who enter the civil service have already a very risk-averse attitude that they are promised of a certain level of the “iron rice bowl” and level of promotion based on the fixed criteria. If the civil servant doesn’t make too risky of decisions, or question his authority that much, he is quite certain on his career path of progression. Based on the incentive schemes and wage pay structure, the input of civil servants is basically self-selecting. Thus in some sense, middle and lower levels of civil servants tends to be the less risk taking individuals that would follow commands and instructions. Thinking and questioning are pretty much left to the top-level chain of commands (your scholars and political elites).

Relative Merits and Shortcomings
The shortcomings and problems of both approaches as been well-delve into, but the research on the merits of both Top-down and Bottom-up approaches are much lacking. Intuitively, the shortcoming of one approach is the merit of another and from this standpoint we can compare the two approaches relatively.

To describe the merits and shortcomings of both models, we can use the Education Policies as an example. Ever since the 1980s, Singapore has adopted the “streaming” system to group and segment the students based on their academic results. At the age of 10, the students are streamed into three different streams based on their (Primary School Leaving Examination) PSLE results. The best students were grouped into EM1, earmarked for scholarship programmes and access to better teaching facilities and schools. The bulk of the average students will fall into EM2, while academically weak students where transferred to the bottom stream, EM3. I think the details, most people are fairly knowledgeable of it.

Contrast to the streaming policy is the “Teach Less Learn More” policy launched in 2004. This is a deliberatively vague and broad policy by the Ministry of Education. The concept of this policy is to have multiple paths for students to excel and allow the schools and teachers to have the flexibility and autonomy to teach outside the prescribed syllabuses. The details and further information for both policies are stated below:

(Click on Image to View)

The streaming policy, enforced by the Ministry of Education, resembles the Top-down approach while the “Teach Less Learn More”, policy is a Bottom-up implementation approach. From this we could see and compare the relative merits of both perspectives.

Merit 1: Control and Coordination
The Bottom-up “Teach Less Learn More” policy relies heavily on the implementation by the “service-deliverers” and “street-level bureaucrats” such as the teachers. The professionals (teachers) have a key role in ensuring the performance of a policy, which implies that policy formulation process maybe skewed by policy implementation which is dominated by professionals. Each teacher has their own perception in developing methods of teaching or “implementing government policies” and will result in outcomes which are quite different to those intended or desired by policy-makers.

On the other hand, the Top-down “Streaming” policy provides the Ministry of Education (MOE) with better control and coordination of the implementation. This reduces the variation of teachings and allows MOE to have the ability to correct or fine-tune the policy implementation, if needed. The distinction between policy formulation and policy implement allows for easer identification of problems if the policy is not effective in solving the problem. Thus the Top-down approach allows for more control and corrective action, if needed, compared to the Bottom-up approach.

Another important aspect in relations to education policies implementation approach is the relative ease of changing approaches. For the Top-down approach to change to Bottom-up approach is often easier compared to the opposite. In giving autonomy and flexibility to the schools and “street-level bureaucrats”, it will difficult to retrieve the control if there is a need to implement a Top-down approach. Such change to centralize power may encounter resistance by the street-level bureaucrats and may result in future policy failure or loss of control.

Merit 2: Individual Biasness vs Responsiveness to Needs
As one of the political scientist expressed, “A public officer has discretion wherever the effective limits on his power leave him free to make a choice among possible courses of action or inaction”. In both modes of implementation, those at the front line of policy delivery have varying bands of discretion over how they choose to exercise the rules which they are employed to apply. However for the case on the education policies in Singapore, the “streaming” system minimizes the limits of individual biasness as well as the responsiveness to needs. The “Teach Less Learn More” policy, on the other hand, creates more room for individual biasness as well as to provide better responsiveness to the needs to individual students. Depending on the formulation of the policy and problem definition, there might be a need to balance or trade-off between having individual biasness or better responsiveness to needs of voters (or subjects where the policy is imposed on).

The street-level bureaucrats who are close to the problems and clients are likely to know what works in local environments and for particular groups. This would provide better responsiveness and adaptability to the local needs.

Merit 3: Efficient Use of Resources
The Top-down “Streaming” approach allows for better projection and efficient use of resources compared to the Bottom-up approach. The resources, including financial and manpower allocation, can be pre-planned in most top-down models but would be difficult and less accurate for bottom-up approaches.

For the “Streaming” policy, schools are allocated the funds based on population and the estimation of the cost for students in each of the streams. Under this policy, schools that perform better are relocated more resources to develop their facilities. In contrast, the “Teach Less Learn More” policy has too many variables for the allocation of funds and resources. As such, they are distributed based on vague projections, resulting in some schools being under-funded while others have inefficient usage of the resources.

Merit 4: Flexibility and Innovations
One of the main merits of the Bottom-up approach is the flexibility it allows compared to the top-down approach. The “Teach Less Learn More” model allows teachers the flexibility of teaching as well as for students to learn at their own pace and the modules that they are interested in. In such environment, innovation and creativity are likely to thrive better than the rigid hierarchical structure.

Inherently, each human (students in this example) is different and special in their own ways. By having a single tracked policy to cater to multitude of personalities and characters would sometimes be ineffective or inefficient. For the example of education policies, some degree of flexibility can be conducive for innovation and learning.

Merit 5: Democracy vs Implementation of “Unpopular” Policies
Implementation is a policy/action continuum in which an interactive and negative process is taking place over time between those seeking to put policy into effect and those upon whom actions depends. Occasionally, “unpopular” measures are implemented for the good of the society. One such example in Singapore is the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP).

Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) is an electronic system of road pricing based on a pay-as-you-use principle. It is designed to be a fair system as motorists are charged when they use the road during peak hours. When it was implemented in 1999, there was much criticism from the general public due to rise in cost of owning a car. However, the fact is that the ERP proves to be an effective policy to ease the heavy traffic conditions during peak hours as well as a vital source for government revenues. Should this be left to the street-level bureaucrats to implement, the implementation might not be possible due to the self-interest of each bureaucrat. Prior to the electronic gantry to detect the vehicles passing through, traffic officers were place at the junctions to manually record the carplate numbers of cars which did not purchase entry passes to the roads. Very often, the officer will not be able to record all carplate numbers that did not purchase the entry passes due to the volume of entry. This is an ambiguous process that allows for much room for error and individual judgement.

This highlights two merits of the top-down approach: enable to implementation of difficult and unpopular policies, and more consistent interpretation of the law.

Conclusion
In reality, implementation is a process which is structured by conflicts, bargaining, negotiation and deal making. All implementation processes involved a certain degree to top-down and bottom-up approach. While it is impossible and unrealistic to assume one form of approach is better than the other we can observe the various merits and shortcomings of each perspective to better see how policies succeed or fail. And for Singapore to achieve such “Blind Efficiency” (as one Permanent Secretary calls it), it may not be an absolute boon or bane for politics in Singapore. With over 20,000 civil servants in Singapore (hardly constitutes a Single-Member Constituency (SMC)), they are the backbone and unsung players of the politics in Singapore.

By the way, sorry for this lengthy article! And note that all sources are available via public domains and nothing here that the "Official Secrecy Act" will be interested in. :P