Tweaking S’pore’s public service for the future economy

[chahlley]

(Commentary Today Thursday 2 March 2017)

Tweaking S’pore’s public service for the future economy

Reuters file photo

Share

By Benjamin Goh -

-

Updated: 12:10 PM, March 2, 2017

The 2017 Budget applies a 2 per cent cut to budget caps of all ministries and statutory institutions from this year. Justifying the decision, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat said: “With our spending needs increasing, the Government must continue to spend judiciously, emphasise value-for-money and drive innovation in delivery. We can do better — and more — with less.”

A key strength of Singapore’s governance lies in its public service. Even the most critical reviews of the city-state’s development story concede that the strong bureaucracy propelled the country’s growth.

Most Singaporeans still have a healthy respect for public servants, and working in public service is generally seen as a desirable profession.

But as we approach more amorphous economic conditions that challenge existing employment models, what succeeded for the public service in the past may not carry well into the future. One area is civil service employment practices.

In the recent Committee on the Future Economy report, a major initiative cited in public sector reform was the merging of graduate and non-graduate employment. It is a welcome move, but more changes ought to be implemented.

World Bank data show that 39 per cent of the Singapore’s Government expenditure in 2012 went to public servant wages, much higher than other high-income countries (averaging 19 per cent) and East Asian and Pacific countries (22 per cent). Can the figure be reduced without compromising Singapore’s economic development, bearing in mind that the government’s stated policy is to pay attractive salaries to attract top talents and to deter corruption?

EMPLOYER OF LAST RESORT?

A consistent theme in recent discussions about the future is that the economy must be reconfigured, from one led by the government and big businesses to one driven by local entrepreneurship and innovation.

This refocus happens at a time when private enterprises have also begun reshaping themselves to face economic realities, including moving from full-time employment towards more contract-based work.

The public service, for good reasons, grounded in the nature of policy work, has been shielded from the vagaries of the private sector. During uncertain economic times, however, perceived job stability attracts many people to move into public service, a phenomenon amply documented in the academic literature.

The future economy potentially accelerates this process. The civil service, which includes ministries and statutory boards, employed 143,000 staff in 2014. This is about 4 per cent of the country’s labour force, or 6.5 per cent of its resident labour force.

With a projected 2.5 per cent annual growth in the number of public servants, the growing service must guard against recruiting those who are solely seeking job security in service, making the public service an “employer of last resort”.

As a professional service, the dangers of being a back-up option cannot be understated. Where policy decisions have tremendous repercussions on foreign relations and domestic livelihoods, retaining the right expertise within the service is of national importance. In the long run, a public service perceived to be rigorous will also be more competitive in attracting talent.

Explicit motivational factors such as pay and prestige matter, but intrinsic motivation in the form of compassion, rigour and values will continue to define the success of the service.

The public service should consider emulating the very business practices it advocates to private companies.

First, more investment should continue to be made in human resource professionals, who are crucial arbiters in sifting out applicants who are indeed willing and able to do the job.

Second, there should be a counter to the public service’s preval‎ent image as a forgiving employer (often giving underperforming employees three annual reviews before termination). An ethos of forgiveness is commendable, especially in a society that gives few second chances. But for a major institution like the public service, there must be a rigorous and prompt method of eval‎uation before tolerance of inefficiency demoralises and discourages otherwise hardworking professionals.

Third, the public service also must contend with its long-standing internal practices. Within the service, the scholarship system remains a source of grievance for some.

For a public agency, spending close to half a million on each scholar is hard to justify without harnessing the individual’s overseas exposure for leadership positions. Yet, having a fast-track scheme also creates tensions in the workplace when career progression is perceived to be determined by one’s academic performance at age 19 — when students apply for the scholarship based on their pre-tertiary results.

It is timely and useful to debate the value of education, training and development. Agencies should reconsider how they calculate their “rate of return” for scholars. Are scholarship funds best used only when scholars occupy leadership positions? Or do scholars also contribute effectively in professional positions that are less “leadership” and “policy” in nature?

In keeping with a competitive hiring model, scholars could also compete for positions upon graduation — similar to the private sector. A returning economics major, for example, should not be placed in an agency that he is “passionate” about, but prove that he or she shows the relevant skills and passion to contribute towards a particular position in that agency.

There have been attempts to foster a more rigorous matching mechanism between skills and job positions through the Public Service Leadership Programme, but deployment decisions generally still lean in favour of scholarship “tier” rather than skill suitability. To ensure a more productive public service, more resources should go to professional development programmes for officers at all levels

The leadership-identification model in use is the Current Estimated Potential, which uses a complex set of metrics such as degree honours and work performance to determine one’s leadership potential upon entering the service. Providing more resources to a greater number of public officers creates more equity, which, in turn, sharpens “meritocracy” in the service.

The public service is the bedrock of Singapore’s economy and our system of governance, but it requires changes to stay relevant.

As in the private sector, recruitment and employment practices of an earlier era could hinder the public service’s success in the future economy. Changes should be made so that our success as a nation will continue to be assured by the vibrancy and selfless contributions of our public servants.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Goh is pursuing a Master in Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.