Home > Speaker's Corner

what do u think of Singapore's civil service?

wuming78
31 Aug 03, 20:47

jus interested in finding out how people here thinks and feels about our civil service, given all the exposure it has had recently. the civil service being the armed forces, the homeland security forces, from the people who serve the citizens over the counter for passports and permits and licenses, to those who aid in the policy making process.

please take note the civil service is NOT the government and NOT our leaders. the leader of the civil service is one of the permanent secretaries. and the civil service is supposed to serve the government of the day, whoever it might be.
Viper52
1 Sep 03, 01:20

To sum up my general feelings, I can use 4 words:

- Bloated
- Overpaid
- Underworked
- Inflexible
Atobe
1 Sep 03, 03:08

Read the article posted in "Has the 'Truth' being fully spoken about Singapore Wages ?" - in which it was said that it takes the tax paid by eleven percent of a Worker's Pay is used to pay for the salary of one Civil Servant.

The only consolation that Singaporeans have is that at least the Singapore Civil Servants actually behave as Servants to the Public, and are tame and taught to respect the Public.

This is quite unlike the Civil Servants in Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam - where Civil Servants are NOT civil in their behavior and attitude towards the Public, and are not servants to the Public.
the Bear
1 Sep 03, 07:54

for the first 3, i dunno.. because there are just too many in "senior management" so maybe bloated.. however, the majority are just working hacks.. as to being overpaid, they are paid about the same... underworked? i bet you have never seen what some of them go through these days...

as for inflexible, just look at the sheer number of laws and statutes they have to work under... seriously.. in private companies, they are bound by law, yes.. but policies are flexible...

in the civil service, they are bound by the very laws they enforce.. where the sheer number of laws dictate their ability to make decisions, how flexible can they be?

i would like to take issue with our PM talking about U-turn signs.. he never had to work for the bloated number of senior management who are out to climb over each other, make a name for themselves...

Originally posted by Viper52:
To sum up my general feelings, I can use 4 words:

- Bloated
- Overpaid
- Underworked
- Inflexible
wuming78
1 Sep 03, 08:11

Originally posted by Atobe:
Read the article posted in "Has the 'Truth' being fully spoken about Singapore Wages ?" - in which it was said that it takes the tax paid by eleven percent of a Worker's Pay is used to pay for the salary of one Civil Servant.

i would just like to point out that someone has refuted the view carried by the journalist who wrote that article (a lee han shih writing for today, if im not mistaken).

anyway i feel that as much as bureaucracy and red tape does exist in our civil service, much of it are necessary evils cos of the accountability and responsibility to the public. but of course alot of it are remnants of the old times and are probably out dated, awaiting overhaul.

have any of u experienced personally or had friends or relatives who experienced any red tape and bureaucracy b4?
Atobe
1 Sep 03, 10:58

Has anyone with friends or relatives experienced the frustrations with red tapes recently ?

The classic red tape bungle is the recent event with visa given to foreigners.

On the one hand, the Singapore Government is trying to revive the commercial activities and also the tourism industry, with Singapore Tourist Promotion Board and Singapore Airlines taking the lead role to encourage tourist arrivals.

Yet on the other hand, the Singapore Immigration is reluctantly dragging its feet to issue out visa to foreigners planning to arrive into Singapore.

When a visa is issued to a foreigner, that is also printed on the visa that it is issued subject to the Immigration Officer final approval ON ARRIVAL.

Imagine someone having paid an expensive air ticket, and being disallowed - (or having the original number of approved visit days being reduced) - from entering Singapore.

A recent Straits Times report had someone complaining that a group of businessmen from China had so much difficulties in obtaining their visa to visit Singapore, that they gave up trying to enter Singapore on Business Visa, and simply came into Singapore on Tourist Visa.

So much for the effort of the Singapore Government a.k.a The Ruling Party in its glorified efficiency to revive the Singapore Economy.

It will not be long before Singaporeans will be treated with contempt when we visit other countries, in the same manner that the Singapore Immigration Service looked down upon some nationals from certain countries - who seem to have developed some reputation of being caught in the "entertainment trade".

However, should one look at all the arriving nationals in the same manner as those tainted ones that were caught, even despite the frequency and numbers ?
the Bear
1 Sep 03, 11:10

on one hand, you have people ranting about illegal immigrants (majority from PRC), on the other hand, you have others ranting about freedom of movement...

i suggest you take a look at studies about illegal immigrants... i did as part of some study once... the problems from PRC is STAGGERING!

remember the recent story about people being pushed overboard by the smugglers? well, it was the tip of the iceberg...

in any country, where illegal migrants are, and there are strict laws like in singapore, employment of these migrants will result in heavy penalties... these migrants turn to crime and vice...

then i tell you, the immigration people will be under pressure asking why these illegals weren't rounded up?

oh, BTW, when in another's country, obey their laws, else don't go there...

Originally posted by Atobe:
Has anyone with friends or relatives experienced the frustrations with red tapes recently ?

The classic red tape bungle is the recent event with visa given to foreigners.

On the one hand, the Singapore Government is trying to revive the commercial activities and also the tourism industry, with Singapore Tourist Promotion Board and Singapore Airlines taking the lead role to encourage tourist arrivals.

Yet on the other hand, the Singapore Immigration is reluctantly dragging its feet to issue out visa to foreigners planning to arrive into Singapore.

When a visa is issued to a foreigner, that is also printed on the visa that it is issued subject to the Immigration Officer final approval ON ARRIVAL.

Imagine someone having paid an expensive air ticket, and being disallowed - (or having the original number of approved visit days being reduced) - from entering Singapore.

A recent Straits Times report had someone complaining that a group of businessmen from China had so much difficulties in obtaining their visa to visit Singapore, that they gave up trying to enter Singapore on Business Visa, and simply came into Singapore on Tourist Visa.

So much for the effort of the Singapore Government a.k.a The Ruling Party in its glorified efficiency to revive the Singapore Economy.

It will not be long before Singaporeans will be treated with contempt when we visit other countries, in the same manner that the Singapore Immigration Service looked down upon some nationals from certain countries - who seem to have developed some reputation of being caught in the "entertainment trade".

However, should one look at all the arriving nationals in the same manner as those tainted ones that were caught, even despite the frequency and numbers ?
Gun
1 Sep 03, 12:50

[quote]Originally posted by wuming78:
please take note the civil service is NOT the government and NOT our leaders. the leader of the civil service is one of the permanent secretaries. and the civil service is supposed to serve the government of the day, whoever it might be.[/quote

hmmm...I curious what residence of the opposition GRCs have to say about the civil service....
wuming78
1 Sep 03, 14:28

Originally posted by Gun:
[quote]Originally posted by wuming78:
please take note the civil service is NOT the government and NOT our leaders. the leader of the civil service is one of the permanent secretaries. and the civil service is supposed to serve the government of the day, whoever it might be.[/quote

hmmm...I curious what residence of the opposition GRCs have to say about the civil service....

i wont expect residents of the opposition wards to have different opinions about the civil service because they are in the opposition wards. in the end, the civil service serves the people and the government regardless of who actually runs the government.

but of course, we should hear it from the people. anyone has any comments?
Viper52
1 Sep 03, 16:11

Originally posted by the Bear:
for the first 3, i dunno.. because there are just too many in "senior management" so maybe bloated.. however, the majority are just working hacks.. as to being overpaid, they are paid about the same... underworked? i bet you have never seen what some of them go through these days...

as for inflexible, just look at the sheer number of laws and statutes they have to work under... seriously.. in private companies, they are bound by law, yes.. but policies are flexible...

in the civil service, they are bound by the very laws they enforce.. where the sheer number of laws dictate their ability to make decisions, how flexible can they be?

i would like to take issue with our PM talking about U-turn signs.. he never had to work for the bloated number of senior management who are out to climb over each other, make a name for themselves...

Ok, I'll concede that point, underworked would apply to the senior hacks not the lowly staff. But my post, was in response to the original poster's question on the Civil Service, not Civil Servants. So when I say "Inflexible" I'm talking about the civil service as a whole, not civil servants.

As for overpaid, the Dear Son has already admitted himself that civil service pay is too high and not in line with the rest of the market. What more can we say?
[ Neo ]
1 Sep 03, 22:29

Originally posted by Atobe:
This is quite unlike the Civil Servants in Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam - where Civil Servants are NOT civil in their behavior and attitude towards the Public, and are not servants to the Public.

You can't really call them Civil Servants from the way they embrace corruption practices into their daily lives as if these are perfectly all right.

A more appropriate phrase to call them would probably be 'Civil Serpents'. As long as their mouth can stretch it, they even attempt swallow down a whole entire bloody elephant standing there right in front of their eyes.
Atobe
2 Sep 03, 03:27

Originally posted by the Bear:
on one hand, you have people ranting about illegal immigrants (majority from PRC), on the other hand, you have others ranting about freedom of movement...

i suggest you take a look at studies about illegal immigrants... i did as part of some study once... the problems from PRC is STAGGERING!

remember the recent story about people being pushed overboard by the smugglers? well, it was the tip of the iceberg...

in any country, where illegal migrants are, and there are strict laws like in singapore, employment of these migrants will result in heavy penalties... these migrants turn to crime and vice...

then i tell you, the immigration people will be under pressure asking why these illegals weren't rounded up?

oh, BTW, when in another's country, obey their laws, else don't go there...

The time will come when Singaporeans will have to find a place for themselves to work overseas - much like the Filippinos and some Mainland Chinese are doing.

When a few amongst the larger population is doing something stupidly illegal, that affect the other few legitimate travellers to be branded by the same image, it will not be too amusing to these legitimate travellers - whether they are Singaporeans or any other nationalities.

P.R. China has a huge population, and the tip of the iceberg of illegal immigrants that is mentioned, remains but just a tip when compared to the size of the Chinese population.

Let us look at things in its correct perspective.

When a visa for fourteen days is given by the Singapore Immigration HQ, it will be ridiculous for a Junior Officer at the Airport Immigration Counter to arbitrarily judge a person's appearance, and downgrade the number of days allowed in Singapore to any number of days less then what the visa has approved.
wuming78
2 Sep 03, 08:08

Originally posted by Atobe:
Let us look at things in its correct perspective.

When a visa for fourteen days is given by the Singapore Immigration HQ, it will be ridiculous for a Junior Officer at the Airport Immigration Counter to arbitrarily judge a person's appearance, and downgrade the number of days allowed in Singapore to any number of days less then what the visa has approved.

so ur point is that our civil service, or at least the ICA, is giving too much power to the operations people, the people on the ground doing the work up close to the customers?
dustbin
2 Sep 03, 11:16

i will have to agree that the civil service structure is too inflexible. while the PS21 committee (if it still exists?!) try to improve the image of the civil service (less uniformed organisations), the shadow of a hierachial system still lingers.

compared with private firms, there is little chance that a non-scholar will be able to rise through the ranks and take on a high position in the organisation. scholars have already been planned for leadership positions and unless something major happens, he/she will surely take up a leadership post. this is different from private firms, where workers are rewarded for their enterprise with promotions and recognition rather than mere monetary year-end bonus
Atobe
2 Sep 03, 12:42

Originally posted by wuming78:
so ur point is that our civil service, or at least the ICA, is giving too much power to the operations people, the people on the ground doing the work up close to the customers?
The Management Guru may see this as empowering the people at the lower scale to express initiative and authority.

On the other hand, it shows the confusing implementation of Government policies, who on the one hand intend to revive the economy with more tourist arrivals from China - both individual and group travels - and at the same time attempting to get Singaporeans to tap into the Mainland China Economy; all being sabotaged by the treatment meted out to the China Travellers by the Singapore Immigration Service.

With the shabby treatment given to travellers from China, Vietnam, and other suspect countries - (that has their ambitious women misled into the Singapore "flesh trade" ) - can we expect any better treatment from the Government or Immigration Department of these countries towards Singapore Travellers to their countries ?

Our Civil Service is the Public Face of the Singapore Government, and unlike the British Civil Service that advises the Government on Policy Matters, the Singapore Ruling Party do not tolerate such strong influence from the Singapore Civil Service.

It is the Singapore Political Master that set the agenda for the Civil Service - unlike the Civil Service of Britain and Japan, which seems to enjoy greater influence.

Looking at the crisis between the late President Ong Teng Cheong with the Singapore Civil Service to obtain the true picture of the accounting of the Singapore Reserves - so as to allow himself to better perform his role to safeguard the Singapore Reserves with one of the "two keys" - the performance of the Civil Service seems to be very dismal.

This could be attributed to the tight control of the Ruling Party over the performance of the Civil Service on certain sensitive issues.

Read from the following site:
http://www.singapore-window.org/ sw00/000310a3.htm
wuming78
2 Sep 03, 14:12

Originally posted by dustbin:
i will have to agree that the civil service structure is too inflexible. while the PS21 committee (if it still exists?!) try to improve the image of the civil service (less uniformed organisations), the shadow of a hierachial system still lingers.

compared with private firms, there is little chance that a non-scholar will be able to rise through the ranks and take on a high position in the organisation. scholars have already been planned for leadership positions and unless something major happens, he/she will surely take up a leadership post. this is different from private firms, where workers are rewarded for their enterprise with promotions and recognition rather than mere monetary year-end bonus
PS21 is a department, not a committee. and it does not have a PR agenda for the civil service. hence its work is not to improve the image of the civil service.

perhaps you would like to noe that the civil service recruits extensively from our graduate population and many of these get into high positions and rise up quickly. in fact, scholars are not treated differently from graduates they recruit. when scholars return from studies, they go through the same deployment exercise as though they have just been recruited from school. and subsequently, their career path is also dependent on performance and the only hint that they were scholars is the fact that they cannot quit.
wuming78
2 Sep 03, 14:28

Originally posted by Atobe:
The Management Guru may see this as empowering the people at the lower scale to express initiative and authority.

On the other hand, it shows the confusing implementation of Government policies, who on the one hand intend to revive the economy with more tourist arrivals from China - both individual and group travels - and at the same time attempting to get Singaporeans to tap into the Mainland China Economy; all being sabotaged by the treatment meted out to the China Travellers by the Singapore Immigration Service.

With the shabby treatment given to travellers from China, Vietnam, and other suspect countries - (that has their ambitious women misled into the Singapore "flesh trade" ) - can we expect any better treatment from the Government or Immigration Department of these countries towards Singapore Travellers to their countries ?

Our Civil Service is the Public Face of the Singapore Government, and unlike the British Civil Service that advises the Government on Policy Matters, the Singapore Ruling Party do not tolerate such strong influence from the Singapore Civil Service.

It is the Singapore Political Master that set the agenda for the Civil Service - unlike the Civil Service of Britain and Japan, which seems to enjoy greater influence.

Looking at the crisis between the late President Ong Teng Cheong with the Singapore Civil Service to obtain the true picture of the accounting of the Singapore Reserves - so as to allow himself to better perform his role to safeguard the Singapore Reserves with one of the "two keys" - the performance of the Civil Service seems to be very dismal.

This could be attributed to the tight control of the Ruling Party over the performance of the Civil Service on certain sensitive issues.

Read from the following site:
http://www.singapore-window.org/ sw00/000310a3.htm

i agree that in many cases communication of policies have not been effective, meaning the ground level staff may not understand and hence implement it as the policy was meant to be, and hence to play safe they become over zealous.

also, our public service does have influence over the government, serving the advising role, especially in terms of policies. of cos the direction is provided by the government, but the process and the implementation and background work is done by the civil service. hence in that sense the civil service advises the government.

im not sure if there was a crisis betw President Ong and the civil service, or betw him and the government. i would think its the latter, since the civil service is meant to serve the government and the president.

btw, i cant go to the url u posted. can paste the article here? thanks!
Atobe
3 Sep 03, 03:20

Originally posted by wuming78:
im not sure if there was a crisis betw President Ong and the civil service, or betw him and the government. i would think its the latter, since the civil service is meant to serve the government and the president.

btw, i cant go to the url u posted. can paste the article here? thanks!
For your reading pleasure:

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw00/000310a3.htm

Ong Teng Cheong is out but not down

ASIAWEEK March 10, 2000.

BY ROGER MITTON Singapore

PUBLIC protests are rare in Singapore. Official ones, rarer yet. But 12 years ago, the then deputy prime minister, Ong Teng Cheong, led a noisy demo against American interference in Singapore's affairs. Some local lawyers had been detained without trial and a US diplomat (later expelled) had suggested other Singaporean lawyers should stand as candidates against the ruling People's Action Party in coming elections.

While PM Lee Kuan Yew and his designated successor Goh Chok Tong spoke out, it was the deceptively unassuming Ong who marshaled 2000 trade unionists to stand in approved areas with anti-Uncle Sam banners. "Don't smile," said the DPM. "This is serious business." Unfortunately, a cameraman caught Ong doing just that.

The incident encapsulates his character: fiercely committed and doggedly law-abiding, but with an irrepressible human streak and a ready chuckle. The anti-US protest was not the first time Ong had made waves. Two years earlier, he had sanctioned a strike without telling his fellow cabinet members - and they were pretty peeved.

Before that, he revamped Singapore's then moribund arts and culture scene, only to be scolded for spending too much. But on these and other matters, Ong never backtracked when he believed the interests of Singaporeans were at stake.

This stubborn determination to do right by his country became starkly evident when Ong defeated little-known former accountant-general Chua Kim Yeoh to win the presidency in 1993. Ong was the republic's first elected president (his predecessors had all been appointed).

Many thought that the PAP loyalist, who had been inducted into the party by Lee and who was a close friend of Goh, would continue to toe the party line and agree to everything the government sent to him for approval.

They thought wrong. He decided from the start that he would be an activist president, not a lackey of anyone. At times, this caused him to be at odds with the government. This less than cordial relationship still generates vigorous debate among Singaporeans, even though Ong's term ended six months ago.

Now, speaking for the first time with an international publication since he stepped down, the 64-year-old Ong says: "I had to do [my] job whether the government - or anyone else - liked it or not" (see interview).

What exactly did the job entail? In 1991, when Goh was already PM and Lee senior minister, the Constitution was amended to allow for an elected president with the power to veto key appointments and to act as guardian of the republic's prodigious financial reserves. The idea was that the president could prevent the reserves being frittered away by a "rogue government" taking over from the PAP. (Lee recently pegged the reserves at "over S$150 billion" - US$87.7 billion.)

But even within the PAP hierarchy there were divergent views. Goh said the president would act as a check and balance, and that his government was "in fact, clipping its own wings" with this measure. Lee strongly disagreed, saying: "I would not have used those words because 'clipping one's wings' would evoke in my mind the swans we have at the Botanic Gardens. They are there because they cannot fly away." Lee viewed the president's custodial role as excluding the capacity to hobble the government .

(Continue Below)
Atobe
3 Sep 03, 03:25

(continuation of article)

In a parliamentary session last August to discuss the differences between Ong and the government, Lee stressed that while the president would have "a certain blocking power," he would have no executive authority.

Opposition MP J.B. Jeyaretnam growled: "Isn't his decision to say 'no' to the government's proposal to use the reserves not an exercise of executive power?"

Actually, that was the one thing Ong never got to do during his six-year term, so it was never tested.

What the PAP's leaders were united over was that candidates must meet stringent conditions. Besides being "a person of integrity, good character and reputation," a candidate has to have occupied high public office or headed a company with paid-up capital of at least S$100 million (about US$58.5 million).

The criteria are stringent enough that Ong's successor, S.R. Nathan (a former ambassador and head of the secret service), had a walkover last September when no suitably qualified opponent came forward.

This irked Jeyaretnam: "There is a feeling among a great many Singaporeans that they have been completely left out, cheated, of their chance to choose the president."

In choosing Ong as its first candidate back in 1993, the government appeared to have forgotten his independent streak and his activist past. As one of them, they thought there was no need to worry.

That was a mistake.

As president, Ong promptly set about actively doing the job as it was laid down in the Constitution. Almost immediately there were problems over how much power he should have and how much information he should get. In rapid succession, there were four constitutional amendments to try to plug these holes.

Mostly, they entailed grabbing back some of the powers that had been vested in the elected president, like his right to veto both defense spending and laws that curtailed his own authority.

Only regarding the reserves did he continue to hold sole discretionary power; he could decide whether to approve or reject requests to draw on the funds. In order to make such decisions, Ong wanted to know how much the reserves were worth. He hit a roadblock.

Those who had the information stalled over okaying its release.

There was no urgency since none of the budgets presented to him for approval included a request to draw on the reserves.

Still, three years into his presidency, Ong wrote to the government complaining that he had not got the figures. With a general election looming later that year, he felt it was procedurally important that he should know the dollar-and-cents details.

Finance Minister Richard Hu says Ong got a response on Aug. 14 - "less than two months later." Ong says it was "a few months."

The rancor was undisguised and it continued unabated.

The government said it would take "56 man-years" to provide the information Ong wanted. The president said tersely: "Never mind. Go ahead."

Later, he agreed to accept just a list of the government's immovable assets rather than a dollar-and-cents valuation. When he finally got it, he says it was incomplete. He complained that he still learned of vital information from the newspapers, instead of being informed first. And he chafed under the minimal staff he was allotted.

Many of these problems may just have been - as the government has argued - teething pains associated with the civil service dealing with a new, untested institution. But they added up to the unusual image of top officials publicly squabbling, a sight not seen since the 1980s when Lee lambasted the former president and PAP stalwart, Devan Nair.

Later, personal problems intervened for Ong. His wife had colon cancer and died in July, and his own lymphoma had flared into a high-grade form in 1998.

Given all this, he says he told Goh he was disinclined to stand for re-election. But the PM recalls it differently, telling Parliament that Ong told him last February that he was thinking of standing again. Ong insists: "I have not told anybody that I wanted to stand again."

Whatever, Goh says he advised Ong to get a medical report first. In March, Ong went to the US to see the world authority on lymphoma, Stanford University's Dr. Saul Rosenberg.

Ong recalls: "He checked that I was in complete remission. So I was fine after my treatment." His Singapore physician, Dr. John Wong, concurred with Rosenberg, but apparently harbored enough reservations that when the cabinet considered this matter, they decided not to support Ong if he decided to run again. Said Goh: "The cabinet concluded that there was a strong likelihood that the president's health would affect the discharge of his official duties in the next few years."

Goh said Ong was ruled out solely on health grounds. Not everyone bought that. Says Jeyaretnam: "Because he was being a bit of a difficult boy they decided they wouldn't have him for a second term." Ong was hurt.

When he next met the PM, he told Goh that if he wanted to run for president again it would be his own decision. The response caught Goh's men by surprise.

They knew that if Ong ran, he would almost certainly trounce Nathan, which would be hugely embarrassing. A month before the polls Ong finally told Goh that he would not stand.

But he had one last bite: when he made the announcement, he also revealed all the problems he had endured over the past six years.

Many Singaporeans feel the ex-president's experiences confirm their perception of a bureaucracy that is more often curt than not. "Civil servants aren't supposed to talk to you," says nominated MP and constitutional lawyer Simon Tay, "and that really has to change."

The Ong episode also suggests that the precise role of the elected president remains unclear. Even PAP men defend the new institution with less than wholehearted conviction.

Admits Lee: "It is an open secret that some of my colleagues think I am attempting something which is futile." As to the disputes at the top, there are those who see these in a positive light.

"The issue here is not a lack of debate, but the robustness of the debate," says Industry & Trade Minister George Yeo. "When Ong Teng Cheong took the job he knew he was testing new ground. The PM knew it, [Ong] knew it, there would have to be tension. [Otherwise], the problems would not surface. It was a necessary tension for it to work." But did it?

Published in the ASIAWEEK March 10, 2000.