To Gen Y scholars - on scholars and the rest, and Public Service

Oct 24, 2010 THINK
Idealistic citizens help push bar for publicservants

Eddie Teo, chairman of the Public Service Commission, gave the opening address at the 2010 Singapore Seminar in Cambridge, Massachusetts yesterday. We reproduce an excerpt of his speech here
(With thanks to Sunday Times www.straitstimes.com )


I am conscious that I am addressing members of Gen Y in the land of opportunity - a deadly combination. On top of that, you are the cream of Singapore's Gen Y, and you sense that the world is your oyster. Some of you may have interned in a global company or visited Palo Alto and had a glimpse of how vibrant and exciting the corporate world can be.

But you have made a choice to work in the Public Service when you were 18 years old. Was it the right choice? Was it wise to opt for nation above self, unlike other members of your generation? Why should you be the one to be responsible for the nation's well-being while they need only be responsible to themselves?

I want to give you some sense of what to expect in the Public Service. Not just the joys and the upside, but also the challenges. As you know, we have a unique and remarkable system of ensuring that the best and the brightest of our young people are recruited into the public service, and then nurtured and developed into public sector leaders.

No other country spends so much money and effort to select the top students from its schools and then sends them to top universities worldwide and locally, on scholarships, before they join the Public Service. And we have been doing this for the last 49 years.

Why do we do this? We do it because we realise that Singapore has only one key resource - its people. Without the best people at the helm of our Public Service, our political leaders would not have been able to bring Singapore to its current level of development.

If our Public Service had been weak, incompetent and corrupt, all our best plans would have failed and the best ideas of our political leaders would not have been implemented. An unsuccessful government with a long record of past failures would have produced a failed state.

Other failed states usually continue to exist long after their systems and institutions collapse as their government leaders continue to milk the depleting state coffers. But given our small size and lack of natural resources, without good government, Singapore would have disappeared soon after Independence.

But being successful in the past does not guarantee success in the future. Singapore's population has changed with global experience, higher education and affluence, and the public now expects much more from the Government than it used to in the past.

As Singapore and the world changes and becomes more complex, the Government must also adapt and change in order to better cope with new problems and challenges. From time to time, we should pause and take stock because no matter how effective and efficient, no system is perfect.

Why do we think that you scholars will make good public servants? First, because you are among the top students in our schools. Second, because we choose you not only because you are academically gifted but also because we think you have other qualities such as commitment, integrity, leadership and people skills.

In other words, at the point of recruitment, we assess you to have the potential to become good public servants and we think you have a more than even chance of reaching the top in your public service career. Of course, you could sometimes prove us wrong.

There is a common misperception that all scholars have it made from the start and that a scholar's future career in the public service will be easy and plain-sailing. Becoming a scholar is no guarantee that you will become a public sector leader. Many scholars, including President's Scholars, have not made it to the top.

Potential alone is not enough. You must demonstrate your ability through sustained and tested performance over a period of time. Public servants are expected to perform during good times as well as bad. Some people perform well during good times but collapse during a crisis.

In considering candidates for promotion within the public service, the fact that they were scholars is never considered a special merit point. When looking for a Permanent Secretary, if we find a non-scholar more deserving than a scholar, we will appoint him or her, rather than the scholar. After all, that is what meritocracy means. We will appoint the best candidate, whether or not he or she is a scholar.

However, if a scholar does not rise to the top within the public service, it does not mean that he or she has failed. Not every scholar can be a Permanent Secretary. Some may fit well in vital niches or do specialised jobs in which they continue to make significant contributions. Some may lead smaller agencies or statutory boards and perform with distinction. Others leave and do well outside, in jobs that better fit their skills, passion and aptitudes.

We have ex-scholars in a variety of jobs - in politics, the corporate world, academia, the media world, the health sector or less well-trodden paths such as the voluntary organisations or NGOs. So long as they are still in Singapore or working for a Singapore company, we have not lost them.

If we look at the list of officers at the grade of Permanent Secretaries today, we find that four out of 27 of them were non-scholars. Only one was a President's Scholar. To me, this indicates that the system is working.

If all Permanent Secretaries were scholars, we may wonder if they were truly promoted on merit. Because a few were not scholars, it suggests that we do not promote people just because they were scholars.

But, on the other hand, if only a small number were scholars, we will wonder if the scholarship system is worth it. Why spend so much to produce so few who can make it to the top? So, within the Public Service, my view is that the system is still working and therefore worth retaining.

If we look at the Cabinet, we find that there are 13 scholars among the 21 ministers. The Cabinet has six ministers who were President's Scholars. But while the Cabinet appears to have done better than the Public Service in this respect, we should remember two points. First, some of the ministers who were President's Scholars were at one time public servants or military officers. Second, among retired Permanent Secretaries, there were nine who were President's Scholars.

Among the CEOs of the top 13 Singapore companies listed by Forbes, only three were scholars. The CEOs of three of our iconic companies - SIA, SingTel and CapitaLand - were not scholars. So the private sector has a smaller share of scholars.

From time to time, we hear the lament that the public sector has deprived the private sector of its share of talent. I think that is a gross insult to the CEOs we have. Many of the CEOs of our top companies may not have been scholars, but they are talented people who have done well because they have what it takes to succeed in business. They are smart, daring, resourceful, determined and savvy.

I am not at all convinced that if we release half our scholars into the private sector, the Singapore economy will do much better. Not all scholars have the business instincts to make them outstanding entrepreneurs. Besides, the PSC selects only a small number of scholars per year out of a much bigger pool of academically gifted students. There is plenty of talent out there and the Public Service seeks only its fair share of Singapore's talent.

Having spent so much resources and money on scholars, our taxpayers have a right to demand that the success rate of individual scholars should be high. However, what is even more important is that successful scholars who reach the pinnacle of government should also excel at problem-solving and implementing well formulated policies to steer Singapore through difficult times as well as into the uncertain future.

The more we invest in our scholars, the higher is the expectation of the public. If our public service is supposed to comprise the best and brightest in our land, it must provide world-class service and superior solutions to our problems.

We are sometimes the victims of our own success. Having had good government for so long, can we continue to sustain the high standards we have set ourselves? There is a price to pay for success. If we strive to be world-class, we will be judged by world-class standards. If we say that we have one of the best governments in the world, the public will expect it to solve virtually any problem Singapore faces.

Some of our citizens are now beginning to expect the Government to do the impossible. Many citizens are now less prepared to give the Government room to make mistakes and are less forgiving and more demanding. They tend to regard explanations as excuses. Take the recent floods. To some Singaporeans, saying that floods are natural disasters and Singapore cannot be flood-free, sounds like a cop out.

Every time something goes wrong in Singapore, citizens ask: 'If our public servants and ministers are so smart and paid so well, why can't they prevent the problem from occurring, or solve it for good after it occurs?'

More and more citizens, especially younger Singaporeans, agonise over the fact that there are still poor people in wealthy Singapore. Many worry about the widening income gap between the rich and the poor.

But, as one academic astutely observes, it is always better to pay the price of success than the price of failure. Give me the problems we have today of managing success, and the expectations that flow from it, than having to solve the basic problems of poverty, hunger, ill health and rampant corruption in Third World countries.

It is far better for a government to be in the happy position of managing the expectations of success than having to cope with the despair of failure. Sincere but questioning citizens will help set the bar higher for excellent public service performance. Idealistic citizens indicate that our people are not uncaring.