TLDR:
- I reflect on my time working for the government.
- I reflect on four principles that modern governments can consider for modern times.
- The Great Exception: There are structural challenges in being a minority in a small country
- Trade-off mindsets: There is too high a fixation on the myopic “best /better” decision, as opposed to a holistic view accounting for trade-offs.
- Bursting the Bubble: Public Officers should engage deeply in the “real world” and avoid being trapped in a bubble.
- Wacky socio-economic Eugenics: This could include mixing the public - private occupations of families
- All rambly thoughts are my own. Pls dont sue T_T.
In the first phase of my career, I spent around 3 and a quarter years working in the Singapore Government. This post serves as a reflection on what I view as several underaddressed key concepts that underpin the tensions of our time that I observed in the civil service (ie not covering the political nature of governance.)
These are generally built from observations, tinged with a slight critique. These are a reflection of my own experience and hence contextualised to Singapore or other small, developed economies. Larger or less developed economies could find some aspects applicable, though there would certainly be other priorities.
I do look back fondly on my time in government. It taught me a great many things about the way the world works: Service beyond oneself; tensions within and between teams / organisation; and even on human behaviour in the absence of easily accessible metrics;…all useful lessons that deal with working with people and ambiguos targets.
Having now been an “insider” into the public sector, I admire the strength and courage it took to build a (largely, the world agrees) competent government. I could espouse the achievements of Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee and Dr. Albert Winsemius…but I digress.
For the inevitable tensions that crop up every now and then, I find myself with a presumptious confidence, that - to my great privilege - there are clever people in the Singapore government who have a semi-decent semblance of whats going on and are trying to do the right thing. Generally, these are individuals dealing with complex human issues, within complex systems and - largely - doing their best to make it work. Not everyone in the service, sure. But a majority of them to keep the machinery spinning, well lubed and working.
But there are four overlooked themes that I observed, which I feel could strengthen the service, especially as the world enters a phase of great disruption, tension and change. They are all, somewhat interlinked.
The Great Exception and its acute impact on Small Countries
The central thesis of democratic governance is (in my own, non-expert understanding):
Governments pander to the many, and not the few. It is empowered quite literally on the vote of the majority , aside from some checks and balances. 51% vs 49%, 99% vs 1%.
The majority, will hopefully get what they voted for. But tensions will always arise from differences and trade-offs, between the majority and minorites.
Minorities, could be percevied as a class of “Outliers” who may not identify with the majority and are less likely to have their voices heard through a formal political channel. As an outlier - who they vote for may not prioritise their needs over their pandering to the majority of their constituents.
I believe it is a noble goal and good outcome to help minorities strength band together and find a collective voice - sharing experiences and contributing to good / effective policy making.
Size matters
As a result, banding together at scale is an attractive outcome. For example, 1 LGBTQ in a pool of 1 million will find it much tougher to congregate and find their voice as compared to 100 LGBTQ in a pool of 100 million. Figures are purely indicative.
Digital is double-edged
Digitalisation and the connected world, I believe has helped this, by connecting isolated exceptions through new forms of communications. As anIt has led to a proliferation and agglomeration of “outlier” power. This has bred both productive discourse, but also unhealthy tensions. We see this in political (and at times physical) battlegrounds around identiy, orientation, skin colour.
This makes it relatively easier to be an “exception” in much larger countries.
Small countries are disadvantaged
But, for smaller the country, statistically, the pool of outliers, rebels and renegades wil be smaller, and more likely end up as isolated exceptions. Unfortunately, this could result in many being left behind with neither a community or voice to be heard. This, I term as the problem of the GREAT EXCEPTIONS. - Outlier issues are more acute in smaller countries.
Trade off-Oriented Policy Making
For underdeveoped countries, the pursuit and path to development is often somewhat clearer and with larger returns. Generally, the deployment of resources can lead to significant outcomes if handled correctly. For example, an investment into a paved road from an underdeveloped village to a city can lead to immensely beneficial outcomes rather quickly and cheaply.
But the more mature and entrenched an economy, subsequent decisions face two critical bottlenecks
-
Transformation or destruction of the old (legacy and baggage) - Can we remove/break things of the past (thus marginalising past priorities)
-
Diminishing returns (value for money) - Can money be better spent elsewhere?
There is political capital expended at each decision (trade-off), and the spend is only going to increase as problems become more complex.
Currently, I believe that policy making still follows the mindset of “Best, better and more”. Many public departments, in isolation, may strive for what is best in their domain. But the wolrd is never perfect, especially when constricted by the two issues listed above.
Key examples - Social cohesion vs Economic competitiveness, Economic competitiveness vs Environmental obligation. (Yes there is a lot of concern / pushback against current economic structures). Now with covid, its also Health vs many other aspects too (education, economy, social well being, vaccine discrimiation…)
There may need to be a mindset shift from unabashed “Best, better and more” to one that accounts for wider issues more holisitically. More than ever, social costs, environmental costs, happiness, and many more intangibles (link to intangible post) are now coming to the forefront as countries grow and mature. But there is a great risk of Public Service Paralysis - on this - what is the most efficient way to make effective trade offs. This is my view, is where developed coutnries could afford to do more on “trade-off policy making”.
And as expected with such tense issues - observed from a bitterness and an inherent fustration when interests collide within a government - the paved road may become long and winding, navigating several layers of red tape, approvals and worst of all - egos…
The Great Bubble
Andddd while egos are a consistent force to be dealt with everywehere, I found myself curiously observing individuals who have spent their lives in government. There are two downside traits I observed:
Governmental Skin in the Game
First, the issue of credibility, experience and “skin in the game”.
An experience - which I have photographed in my mind - is a particularly jarring one that paints a stark contrast in two worlds.
On one side of the table was a greying old man, torn up by global shifts, running a manufacturing business and employing thousands of workers with a weathered hand.
On the other end of the table - a well-put together, designer handbag toting VP of a government agency, with ultra-secure employment, designing the strategies of the future.
While I laud the initiative, I was conflicted inside. For sure - the intent was noble and good, but I couldn’t help but think - do these two parties have equal skin in the game in the economy? On the former, I’m sure a boss would be concerned about his business, his employees and of course - his money. On the latter, I can’t reasonably place my finger on the outcome of such a meeting - there are far too many layers of complexity and ambiguity;
To be clear, this is not an issue of she vs him. But instead - it is a question of how to connect the two worlds together. The contrast to me was stark at multple levels - knowledge, background, lifestyles and more. It was two different worlds.
Underpinning this are accusations that creep up every now and then - on politicians and the government being disconnected from the general public, especially in a country with one of the highest paid ministers etc. It is an inescapable narrative that will continue to haunt the country for a long time.
Taking Ego out the the Equation
Second, the issue of ego-less decision making
The complexity of issues makes decision making tough, let alone assessing the performance of decision makers.
In the absence of a clear quantifiable metric (like P&L), the public system is ultimately tilted towards the qualitative of “being liked by their boss”. This can risk what is right for an indiv. Does this necessarily correspond to longer hours worked? Or always saying Yes to your boss? Who knows. But it can certainly breed an unhealthy culture that may stifle sound decision making, and/or proper use of resources (aka tax payer money).
Make no mistake - this outcome is prevalent as a part of human nature, but it is even more pronounced in the service due to a lack of a true merit based metric.
I offer no solutions - but merely an observation.
Risk-based Career Eugenics
To minimise this disconnected-ness, I now venture into the highly contentious area of career eugenics…
The great Lee Kuan Yew had his own Eugenic policies, which….I do feel was right… for its time. I would take a slightly different approach to moot my own thoughts (albeit unenforceable, contentious and purely a thought experiment).
Having been both in the government and in startups, and with the occasional curisosity into the personal side of things. It would make great sense to have a marriage (in its actual sense, and more) between a risk-taking private sector (e.g. startups) and the stable public sector.
It is too risky for the vast majority where both partners, though empassioned, might work in a startup. I cannot imagine a couple looking to have a family when both are in risky career stages of their lives.
Equally, for two Government Workers to come together - gives rise to a great risk of disconnect between how the world actually works, and how they act when making policies. There is a continual criticism that comes up on the tone-deafness of individuals, or “ivory-tower” thinking that I feel I can attribute to idnvidiauls who have grown in, lived, and breathed purely within the bubble of the public service which I have described eralier.
Of course, individuals can have a wide-range of networks in and out of the public service. But could a life partner be a channel to enable this too?
In short: marry diversely, offset familial risk, to promote innovation.
Insecurity, and making tough decisions at tough times
But above all, at the top of the pyramid, is the inescapable apex of politics and politicians.
I believe it is natural for this apex to be confronted with a deep sense of insecurity. It is - afterall, an occupation that hinges on “being liked”. There could be insecurities within, or directed externally, reacting to the whims of the people.
And just like economics, there is trickle-down insecurity, where the insecurity of the top leads to insecurity of the entire public service machienry. It may or may not come from the very top, who have weathered through the system - but it is exceedingly prevalent at all levels of management across the sector.
This can manifest as an impatience to act - we may see knee-jerk reactions.
For example, there is an obsession to conduct more studies on complex topics when it may conclude that neither Option A nor B is neither good nor bad (along with a vast range of assumptions longer than the report itself). I can hardly fathom the amount of manhours placed into such efforts.
But the issues are complex, and science or even facts cannot always guide decisions at this time.
I am dispositioned to believe in patience as a virtue and long-cycle thinking - this is what policies are for to enact change over time. There should be an innate bravery to piss off others (with good reason), to make the right long term judgement, even as the world turns against an individual.
As I descibed in a Difficulty to do policy when intangible, particularly as outocme are less clear, and thus difficult to justify and already difficlt position.
Yet for tough times and tough challenges, I do think that a bolder, stronger political leadrship is necessary - leaders who can take a stronger stance even in times of stress and backlash; leaders who can stand with conviction on longer term outcomes; and leaders with a savviness to help people empthasise with the necessary trade-offs by being well in-tune with the real-world.
As a start - we ought to perhaps teach indivudals on systems thinking and trade-off mindset. To perhaps cultivate a mindset that all things good AND bad are deeply interconnected.
In many ways, I see view governance as paternalistic (or matenralistic, since its 2021), with both disdain and a semlance of love. A mother who tells her child to eat her veggies; a father giving his kid career advice (dammit played into gender stereotypes there) - but good governance should always lean against instant gratification, at a time where instant gratificaiton is pervasive in all our lives.
AN AFTERNOTE ON MINORITIES - ITS VALUE AND COSTS
Since I was thinking about this - there were a few further unstructured thoughts I had:
I should note, and am aware that I do subscribe to the more westernised general belief that all beliefs and behaviours should be respected (tolerance of tolerance), and hence I do idealise a fully accepting society.
The Political value of Minorities
In larger countries, minorities can empowered as an apolitical movement when they are in position to change the outcomes - esepcially so, if they do not traditionally fall neatly within the confidence of major politicla parties.
Though smaller in number, they are potential wild cards for competing political systems to attract. In turn, some political parties looking to capture this significant minority may invest. One could argue that more investment per vote is put into the minorities than the majorities (maybe its true, but its just an intuitive thought I surmise).
The Economic Cost of Minorities
This is a root reason, that I believe the broader society may end up subsidising the asks of the minority. Think public services or investments into niche healthcares (for the minority elderly) and communities (preservation of non-majority culture) - such investments can be accepted by the majority voters; or lead to intra-party tensions which would further marginalise the marginalised.
This is what I term as a “socio-economic cost to non-conformity”, where extra resources are allocated to niche issues.
Its is a delicate balance to manage these investments… and if not maintained, can lead to deleterious social consequencies and frictions that we again see quite often in this day and age.
As unique human beings, we are all exceptions / minorities to some degree - but what kind of structures should exceptions be offered?