Articles contributed to Social Media

By Walter Jayandran -

Call me a skeptic, but I doubt this invitation to Singaporeans to participate in a conversation will be a useful exercise.

In 2002, PM Goh Chok Tong conducted something similar to restructure Singapore with public participation – apparently to the dislike of Singapore’s founding leader. The Government was going to give Singaporeans, where the influence of the Government is pervasive, and where it is commonplace for people to look to the Government to engineer solutions to problems — more space for expression and participation. With the then state of the economy and the challenges faced, and amid worries that the wealth the island republic had accumulated could disappear, there seemed to be a national conversation.

The committee headed by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, outlined some wide-ranging  reforms like a less regimented educational system as well as more political dialogue. Among other things, bar-top dancing would be tolerated, bars could open all night and  homosexuals were to be allowed into the civil service and voice their sexual preferences publicly. After ten years I am left wondering how much has been achieved with those reforms that should have positively impacted Singaporeans. Sadly, we have been disappointed. So ten years later, we have another chance at “Remaking Singapore”? I am not confident that we will have much to cheer ten years from now.

Firstly a large proportion of the population has been alienated by the “growth at all costs strategy”. Over the past 2 decades, the middle and lower income Singaporeans are finding it difficult to identify with a nation where their incomes have been depressed and dwindling but have to contend with increasing cost of living.  That 20% or more of Singaporeans are living below subsistence level income and the gap between the rich and poor is among the highest in the world, confirms the view that growth and success are for the rich and upper middle income earners. Of course the traditional media sings out loud of the support that the Workfare Supplement Scheme and the CDCs’ support for the needy will ensure the poor are not left out in the cold. Are these really solutions for the current dilemma, let alone the long term? And if you really look at the schemes’ conditions of grant, we can conclude that there will be many who will not be eligible for such handouts, or that the amounts given out are paltry. So long as the income divide keeps widening, no amount of conversation will be of use to the man-in-the-street.

 In the PM's rally speech, he again spoke about an inclusive society highlighting "heart, hope and home". The speech fell short on how we can narrow the income gap, or the other critical issues facing the elderly, the sick and the poor. How can we be an inclusive society without tackling the most divisive forces in our society? 

Secondly, there is a growing sense of frustration among the electorate at the out-of-touch-with-reality policies and actions. According to a poll of over 2,000 citizens aged between 21 and 64 conducted last year by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), two out of three respondents felt that national unity would be compromised by the presence of foreigners, regardless whether they were here to settle down or were transient workers. Over 60 per cent of respondents felt “the policy to attract more foreign talent will weaken Singaporeans’ feelings as ‘one nation, one people’”, a significant increase from the 38 per cent of respondents who felt the same way in 1998, when the survey question was last posed. Yet the PM spent part of his recent rally speech berating Singaporeans for negative behavior towards foreigners. He said Singaporeans cannot be "one-eyed dragons", and “we cannot afford to be xenophobic”. The Prime Minister also pointed to foreign publications picking up on stories of anti-foreign sentiments in Singapore and how these reflect on us: "It speaks poorly of what sort of people we are, what sort of people we want to be." .But isn’t it true that this sentiment is a result of the government's own ambitious policy to import foreigners in large numbers? Singaporeans had, in the past, been very graceful and welcoming of foreigners when the numbers were reasonable. Which country in the world would have people behave more gracefully when its government allows foreigners to form 40% of the population competing along side locals for jobs, housing and public transport? The fact that some Singaporeans have reacted negatively is a reflection of how badly constructed that policy is. To now use terms such as "anti-foreigner" and "xenophobic" on Singaporeans is not only unfair but shows the ignorance of the government to the plight of ordinary Singaporeans who have been affected as a result of this policy. One can only conclude that our leaders are oblivious to the sentiment and suffering on the ground – there are workers who have lost their jobs when employers hire foreigners to replace them, there are many middle-aged PMETs unable to find good jobs  due to structural unemployment because employers can now hire younger, cheaper foreign workers. When we talk about "heart", do we feel for our fellow Singaporeans who have been displaced?

Thirdly, there is a loss of confidence that the government will be able to fulfill the desires and expectations of the ordinary Singaporean. The government’s preaching and exhortation of the first world standard of living is nothing more than propaganda. The truth is there are many who do not have “first world comforts”. Let’s take one example of first world standards – the casinos. A recent article in the newspaper here highlighted the proliferation of pawnshops at estate centers in the HDB heartlands. Let’s examine the statistics:

Something is not right and whatever is wrong is probably masked by temporary benign economic conditions. Are we going to see more suicides at Bedok Reservoir?  

Fourthly the electorate is by no means as ignorant as the authorities thinks it is. Let’s look at the TFR issue, one which we are told is causing the problem of a future Singapore. The National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) paints a sad picture of the declining birth rates, a shrinking workforce and an ageing population: “our economy will shrink – there will be fewer opportunities for all. The government understands the problems faced by Singaporeans in the form of competition for schools and various integration and play its part to mitigate these problems. The government will moderate the immigration numbers. It has done plenty and will do more to improve fertility, it will do more to improve productivity, mobilize our resident labor resources like women and encouraging people to work longer”.  It does not need a rocket scientist to tell the leaders that they will not solve the TFR problem until and unless they solve the rising cost of living in Singapore. If housing cost is high, couples delay marriage and having children because of the heavier financial burden of owning a home. Expensive homes means one has to service a larger mortgage stretched and that reduces the financial resources of married couples. In short, higher debt, smaller homes, higher financial burdens…all lead to lower fertility rate. A large part of the so-called incentives is given out as tax rebates benefiting only higher income earners. Giving money to someone who already has plenty is less of an incentive than giving it to someone who needs it to help them support their children.

Any baby shortfall today can only be addressed by importing a baby today or an adult 20-30 years from now. Our current problem is because of the fertility rate of 1970s -early 1990s, that created the workforce demographics of today. However the government brought in 5 to10 times the people needed to make up for our shortfall in fertility rate. These numbers do not include the non-PRs here on work permits and employment passes. Basically, when you look around and see a lot of foreigners and new citizens, they are here not because our fertility rate is low.

Consequently, through this huge influx, the government created a bigger ageing population. In the past the government had put forth many other reasons for the foreign influx – businesses find it hard to get Singapore workers, there are jobs Singaporeans won't take, there are skills we cannot find among Singaporeans.  Maybe this time the government has chosen to use the low fertility rate of Singaporeans as a justification for importing more people.

Finally, more and more Singaporeans are beginning to discern the issues confronting them and sieve the truth between the traditional mass media and the internet. They are able to see through the smokescreen that news producers make. The potency of the new media does make politicians worried. Now it would take a lot more convincing that their arguments for their policies to be believed. I recall a pertinent statement made by a recognized professor:

Today, Singapore society is bombarded by several polarizing forces. Many of us feel a need to stop and pause and really bring our society back together to be "one people" with a truly Singapore outlook. It’s not the fertility rate that will make Singapore disappear. It’s the loss of “feeling as a Singaporean” and the disenchantment that has set upon us as a people that will disintegrate us. I hope our leaders and all politicians realize the damage that has been done, and start the healing before it’s too late. This goes beyond the "inclusive society" bandied around by our leaders.  We want Singaporeans to be welcomed and valued in their own homeland; we want shared success and judged by how well we care for the weak, the meek, the poor and sick and elderly among us. Yes we want a society with heart where less fortunate fellow Singaporeans will not be economically exploited or unjustly treated or left behind by progress. Will the national conversation achieve that? I guess it may not in my lifetime.

~by: Walter Jayandran~

Some readers may recall my last article on this subject in TOC a little more than a year ago (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/12/ethics-and-morality-in-public-service/) where I stated that there was the possibility of a systemic and potentially deep-rooted problem of ethics and morality in the public service. Since then we have had more instances of civil servants’ misdemeanours, notably:

• The SLA fraud case involving more than $12million;
• A clerical officer from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) charged for forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust and conversion of proceeds of crime (offences committed over a four year period); and
• More recently, two scholars who helmed critical organizations in the MHA arrested for "serious personal misconduct" by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB).

In June last year, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said commercial crime that includes fraud and cheating, rose by 13 per cent in 2010. It appears to still be on the rise. In the first six months of last year, 2,129 cases were reported. In comparison, 1,827 cases were reported in 2010. In a paper published in the Singapore Academy of Law, the authors attributed this disturbing trend to "economic development and the lure of living the high life". In the aftermath of the SLA scandal, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told Parliament in November 2010 that the root cause was “human error” and not public sector procurement guidelines and rules, which were fundamentally sound.

As concerned citizens of Singapore, should we accept “human error” as the excuse in the wake of recent spate of fraud and corruption cases in the public sector? Corporate governance expert Mak Yuen Teen, Associate Professor of Accounting at the National University of Singapore Business School, said: "We need to take a long-hard look at ourselves – why is this happening, was there not enough due diligence when appointing people – as this could affect our image internationally, we've always ranked top three or four in the corruption perception index – I worry that this has made us complacent.”

A government elected by the people is said to ‘govern by consent’. This means that a reasonable level of public trust is of fundamental importance to the proper functioning of the government. The degree to which the public is prepared to trust government is strongly influenced by perceptions as to the general ethical standards of that government.

 PUBLIC TRUST

York Willbern, in an article entitled "Types and Levels of Public Morality", argues for six types or levels of morality (or ethics) for public officials. The six levels he differentiates are: basic honesty and conformity to law, conflicts of interest, service orientation and procedural fairness, the ethic of democratic responsibility, the ethic of public policy determination, and the ethic of compromise and social integration.

Let’s just consider the importance of the first two types of morality for the purpose of this discussion:

Basic Honesty and Conformity to Law

“The public servant is morally bound, just as are other persons, to tell the truth, to keep promises, to respect the person and the property of others, and to abide by the requirements of the law". For public officials, there is an additional reason why it is important to adhere to these basic moral codes and laws: they have more power than the average member of the society, and hence more opportunity for violation of those codes or laws. There also is the negative example that misconduct by public officials provides.

Conflicts of Interest

This relates to public officials, because it deals with the conflict between advancing the public interest, which a public official is charged to do, and advancing one's self-interest. The duty here is to ensure that the public interest comes first, and that one does not advance his or her personal interest at the expense of the public.

INFLUENCES ON ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR

Most of an individual's ethical development occurs before entering an organization. The influence of family, religion, community, and school will determine individual values. The organization, to a large extent, is dealing with individuals whose value base has been established.

There are three qualities individuals must possess to make ethical decisions:

• The ability to recognize ethical issues and to reason through the ethical consequences of decisions, the ability see second and third order effects (one of the elements of strategic thinking);
• The ability to look at alternative points of view, deciding what is right in a particular set of circumstances. This is similar to the ability to reframe; and
• The ability to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty, making a decision on the best information available.

As important as these individual characteristics are, the influence of the organization is equally important. The ethical standards that one observes in the organization will have a significant effect on individual behaviour. "People will do what they are rewarded for doing" (Andrews). The organization has its greatest impact in the standards it establishes for ethical and unethical conduct in its formal reward systems. Informal norms also have a strong influence on individuals' behaviour, as do the actions of the leaders of the organization.

Perhaps the government needs to review the whole approach to ethical behaviour by its employees. Firstly, how much due diligence is done in appointing senior officers (as highlighted by Professor Mak) becomes a critical factor in assuring ethical leadership. Secondly, governments, agencies and senior public officials need to introduce various mechanisms, structures and approaches to encourage or enforce good conduct. To be effective, these need to be both proactive and reactive, and comprehensively address culture and behaviour, guidance and enforcement and means and ends (process and outcomes).

Some of these mechanisms may have been implemented but not followed through consistently enough:

1. Standard Setting – e.g. agency codes of conduct, ethics training, etc.;

2. Expectation Setting – e.g., establishing and maintaining an organizational culture that articulates the norms and values of the organization and the standards of behaviour expected of staff;

3. Prevention Strategies – e.g., removal of opportunities through fraud prevention measures, disclosure of interests registers, gifts and benefits registers etc.;

4. Enforcement Mechanisms – e.g., whistleblowing legislation; and  

5. Deterrence Mechanisms – e.g., watchdog bodies comprising independent members

Finally, strategic leaders (including ministers) must understand that their actions, more than words alone, will determine the operating values in the organization.

TO BEHAVE ETHICALLY IS TO BEHAVE IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO BE RIGHT OR MORAL. ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IS THE BEDROCK OF MUTUAL TRUST.

by Walter Jayandran

In the wake of recent revelations of criminal offences among public and community service officials, one is justified in asking whether there is a systemic problem of ethical behavior and morality defects in public service agencies. In fact, what are the causes of this increase in public and community service ethical lapses?

It appears that not much has been learnt about individual ethical fitness from the myriad corporate malfeisance , events of gigantic misappropriations such as in Enron, and the host of recent global financial institutional misdemeanors. There is growing concerns for a new focus on leadership criteria based on moral aptitude. If nothing is done to improve ethics and morality issues, the public will soon lose trust and confidence in these public service agencies.

Most of us have an internal ‘moral compass’ that indicates to us what is right and wrong with regard to our own thinking and actions and that of others. Integrity while difficult to define in a few words, could be defined as the personal quality of having high moral principles, being reliable (consistent), honest and trustworthy.

Ethical behaviour requires that we use our moral compass to guide us in our interactions with others. Ethical behaviour is also about the ability to inspire trust in others.

More often than not, discussions about ethics in organizations reflect only the “individualistic approach” to moral responsibility. According to this approach, every person in an organization is morally responsible for his or her own behavior, and any efforts to change that behavior should focus on the individual.

But there is another way of understanding responsibility, which is reflected in the “communal approach.” Here individuals are viewed not in isolation, but as members of communities that are partially responsible for the behavior of their members. So, to understand and change an individual’s behavior we need to understand and try to change the community.

Ethical behavior in business is critical. Personal moral standards have to be impeccable. How much more important is it to have the highest moral standards when one is in public service?

If ethics and morality are important for groups and organizations, they should also be important for public officials, and for very much the same reasons. York Willbern, in an article entitled “Types and Levels of Public Morality,” argues for six types or levels of morality (or ethics) for public officials. The six levels he differentiates are: basic honesty and conformity to law; conflicts of interest; service orientation and procedural fairness; the ethic of democratic responsibility; the ethic of public policy determination; and the ethic of compromise and social integration. For the purpose of this article, I shall highlight on the first three.

Public officials are given the trust of the public to develop and carry out policies that are in the public’s best interest. Living up to this trust has a significant impact on the national will; public confidence is essential to the exercise of national power. Thus public officials have a moral duty to act in a trustworthy manner.

This brings us to the question of how community leaders are identified and assessed and groomed. Are we to rely on just the recommendations of an MP ?

Much of a person’s ethical standards are formed through upbringing and the value system established within his or her family environment. Developing a moral compass later in life is not easy.

Ensuring ethical fitness in a proactive manner will result in preventive, rather than corrective, ethical management. We have read reports of many young foreigners being eager to serve in grassroots organizations. That is fine so long as proper screening and background checks are made to ensure proper motivation to serve the community. Is there a robust process in place to ensure the right people are engaged? Many organizations use psychometric tests that provide some insights into the personal motivations and hidden values, beliefs and attitudes that interviewers and recruiters may not pick up in interviews. As the saying goes in HR circles – “ hire right, manage easy.” Agencies also need to seek background information from past employers, and people who have interacted with the applicants in professional and other facets of the individual’s life. By obtaining inputs from varying sources, one can prevent potential ethical misadventures.

The organization as an ethical environment

At a minimum, a code of conduct must be in place, specific to the ethical issues confronted in the service. It should be the subject of ethics training that focuses on actual dilemmas likel Organizations must also ensure that perceived ethical violations are adequately investigated and that wrongdoing is punished. Research suggests that unless ethical behavior is rewarded and unethical behavior punished, written codes of conduct are unlikely to be effective.

Building an ethical climate

Basic honesty and conformity to law The public servant is morally bound, just as are other persons, to tell the truth, to keep promises, to respect the person and the property of others, and to abide by the requirements of the law.

Conflict of interest. This relates to public officials, because it deals with the conflict between advancing the public interest, which a public official is charged to do, and advancing one’s self-interest. The duty here is to ensure that the public interest comes first, and that one does not advance his own personal interest at the expense of the public.

Service orientation and procedural fairness. The moral obligation of public servants is to follow established procedures, and not to use their power to circumvent those procedures for their own convenience or benefit. Power must be used fairly and for the benefit of the public.

Specific Strategies

• Establish rules which require public officials to give reasons for their official decisions;
• Institute management approaches that enable public officials to deal assertively with corruption and unethical practice when they encounter it, even at the risk of offending their superiors.
• ‘whistleblower’ protection law to protect appropriate ‘public interest disclosures’ of wrongdoing by officials;
• ethics audits to identify risks to the integrity of the most important processes (for example financial management, tendering, recruitment and promotion, dismissal and discipline);
• new Human Resource Management strategies (which link, for example, ethical performance with entry and advancement, and ethical ‘under-performance’ with disciplinary processes), merit based promotion and recruitment, anti-discrimination protection;
• training and development in the content and rationale of Ethics Codes, the application of ethical management principles, the proper use of official power, and the requirements of professional responsibility, and
• effective external and internal complaint and redress procedures.

Conclusion

Whatever the reasons or excuses for the failures by public and community leaders, it is hoped that the deterioration is arrested and resolved in order for public trust to be regained.