Talk by Mr Eddie Teo, Chairman, Public Service Commission, for the Overseas Singaporean Unit’s Singapore Speakers Series on 24 September 2015

“PSC’s Window into the Future of Singapore”

Talk by Mr Eddie Teo, Chairman, Public Service Commission, for the Overseas Singaporean Unit’s Singapore Speakers Series held in Melbourne, Australia on 24 September 2015

Friends & family,

Ladies & Gentlemen,

One reason I love my job is that it gives me a window into the minds of young Singaporeans who have the potential to become our future public sector leaders. Every year, my colleagues and I interview some 350 of the top students from our Junior Colleges and Polytechnics in order to offer them scholarships to study in university, both locally and overseas. (The 350 have been shortlisted from some 2,500 applicants for the PSC scholarship. Although there is no quota or cap, we award some 70 scholarships a year on the average.) Those who accept will serve in the public service, initially under a bond of between four to six years.

2. During the half hour interview, PSC has the opportunity to ask candidates questions not only to determine how suitable they are for the Public Service but also to get a sense of how young Singaporeans feel about our country and its future. One of the topics they have to write an essay on is indeed what kind of Singapore they would like to see in 15 years’ time.

A Biased Sample?

3. Some of you will no doubt wonder if the sample of 18-year olds appearing before PSC is truly representative of young Singaporeans, and if PSC members will get truthful answers to their questions. It is true that in keeping with the growing affluence in Singapore, the socio-economic profile of scholarship recipients has been creeping up over recent years. If this reflects greater stickiness in social mobility, we should be worried. Having a growing underclass with no hope of rising upwards will spell big trouble for Singapore. But as I have argued elsewhere before, the problem has to be addressed throughout a student’s school life, and not just at the end stage, or by adopting affirmative action over meritocracy. If we want those who are less better off to have a fighting chance of being awarded a scholarship, support has to come from pre-school onwards. It has to start when they are two, not when they are 18. By the time they go for the PSC interview, it is too late for the playing field to be levelled. By then, the privileged candidates would already have benefitted from a better home environment, better educational facilities, extra tuition, and more travel opportunities. Our political leaders are aware of this, as can be seen from what DPM Tharman said recently in his lecture to the Economic Society of Singapore:

“But we have to do more to keep social mobility going. The challenge, as we’ve seen in advanced societies, is in sustaining mobility, beyond the first waves that are achieved through meritocracy. Meritocracy is fair, but it will not on its own ensure we keep up social mobility. We therefore have to find every way to help kids who start with less, so that birth is never destiny”

4. The good news is that PSC still gets to interview quite a few candidates who do not come from upper middle-class homes; and we do still get a fairly good sense of how the less well-off see their future in Singapore. In recent years, I have sat at the President’s Scholars dinner at the Istana next to parents who were like my mother 50 years ago – uneducated and unused to the cutlery used at the dinner table. Meritocracy still works in Singapore. There is still hope for the poor but bright student to advance in life today through the scholarship system. And as the government continues to intervene by enhancing support for those less privileged, my hope is that my successors will continue to rub shoulders at the Istana dinner with the parents of bright students from poor backgrounds.

5. PSC is also always wary of candidates who say what they think we want to hear and not what they actually believe. Admittedly, the smart kids we see can be very good at impression- management. Our psychologists, who spend 3-4 hours probing the candidates, will alert us when they come across someone whom they consider to be particular seized with managing how others perceive them. And if the candidate is skilful enough to get past the trained psychologist, he will have to take on the PSC panel, which comprises a diverse selection of experienced and seasoned private sector people. Even the brightest students can be caught out when they constantly contradict themselves in their replies. Only the other day, we interviewed a candidate who was highly ranked by his school and did very well in his psychometric tests but seemed very fake to us because he kept chopping and changing his answers to fit what he thinks will be acceptable to us. The PSC came to the unanimous conclusion that he was not really interested in the public service, had no clue what the job was all about, and merely wanted a prestigious scholarship to go overseas. High IQ and impeccable academic credentials, but low commitment and questionable integrity. Clearly not suitable for the Public Service.

Views & Values

6. What can we say about the present generation of 18-year olds, judging by the essays they write, their school records, their psychological profiles and their response at PSC interviews? Do they reveal inflated self-esteem, and a lack of humility and empathy, as many critics of our meritocratic system seem to think? Does our highly competitive and exam-focused, educational system produce students who feel that if they succeed, it is because of their own individual effort and not because of the support they get from their family, friends, school and community? Has meritocracy produced a breed of swollen-headed elitists and a culture of entitlement? Are they selfish and narcissistic, uncaring about society and community? Do they volunteer for community service only to pad up their CVs and not because they empathise with the poor and under-privileged? Do they apply more for reasons of prestige and not out of a commitment to serve the public?

7. My view is that this somewhat exaggerated and biased view of scholarship recipients is quite unfair to many of the candidates we interview, who truly want to serve the country and the people of Singapore. As my example earlier showed, there will always be some candidates whose motives are warped and misguided. But if we discount those who apply for the wrong reasons and those who seek to game the system, who are we left with? If PSC succeeds in sifting out such candidates, what are our potential future public sector leaders like and how do they see Singapore’s future?

Lee Kuan Yew’s Children?

8. Our young people are not unaware of the values espoused by our founding fathers, particularly Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. They may not be fully conscious of it, and they may quietly rebel against National Education taught in schools, but because they live in Singapore, go to Singapore schools, and have grown up with family and friends, they are still cast in the same mould as previous generations of young Singaporeans. Many of them have heard the Singapore national narrative. This narrative has been emphasised a hundred times over during Mr. Lee’s funeral and the recent SG50 celebrations: how Singapore was cast adrift post-Separation and survived against all odds, how vulnerable we are as a nation given our size and the neighbourhood we are in, and how we must remain exceptional to continue to prosper. How our people must work hard and stay disciplined because no one owes us a living. How social benefits must not be allowed to erode our work ethic. The ideal citizen envisaged by Mr. Lee Kuan Yew is someone pragmatic, responsible, disciplined, frugal, hardworking, well-behaved, family-focused and puts society before self. Mr. Lee also expected public servants to have all these values as well as stay incorruptible. Singaporeans often take our zero-tolerance policy for corruption for granted, but many foreigners regard it as exceptional and want to learn how we do it.

9. But the young, while cast in the same mould, are not exact copies of the old. Older Singaporeans should not be surprised that the younger generation has different views and different aspirations – even different values. All they have to do is speak to their own children or grand-children. More so than in the past, our young travel more and are exposed to many more sources of information through the internet and social media.

10. Their values have changed, leaving the old somewhat bewildered. When Mr. Lee Kuan Yew visited Australia during my term as High Commissioner, he asked me to organize tea with ex-Singaporean migrants in Perth. He wanted to hear from them why they chose Australia over Singapore. When one of them told him that he gave up a well-paid job in Singapore to migrate here so that he could work half-day and go fishing in the afternoon, Mr. Lee nearly fell off his chair. He just could not understand why anybody would make such a lifestyle choice. To Mr. Lee, it was irrational. You see, Mr. Lee came from the era when the term “work-life balance” had not been invented. To him, life was work and work was life – it was the same thing, no need to balance the two.

11. Besides, we should be worried if the young are not different from us. If they imbibe everything they are taught uncritically, it means they are not thinking for themselves and have closed minds. One of the more enduring lessons I learned from university is to question assumptions and think critically. This exhortation from my tutors has stayed with me long after all the facts they taught have disappeared from my memory.

12. Thankfully, the best and brightest who appear before PSC do still think critically and question what is happening in Singapore, including our socio-economic disparities, our educational policy and system, and our political environment. I am especially pleased that more of our young now aspire to work in the social sector, so that they can help the under-privileged. When they worry about social inequality and the lack of social mobility, some may have moved away from one cardinal belief that our founding fathers had – that social welfare should be discouraged because it breeds a poor work ethic and a dependence on government hand-outs. But they believe that government should do more for the poor because they feel it is just, not because they are socialists or communists. Like students elsewhere and unlike those during my time (the 1960s), they want peaceful change, not violent revolution. Their concerns arise from youthful idealism, not dogmatic ideology. The young students will also notice that the government itself has shifted in recent years – it is now providing more immediate social assistance, whether called a “trampoline” or a “safety net”, while at the same time helping the poor to help themselves to rise in society through longer term measures like education and lifelong learning.

13. Those who worry about the income gap often also say they want our society to be more “inclusive”. When pressed on who they want to include, they cite the aged, the disabled, single mothers, foreign workers, and increasingly, members of the LGBT community. Again, they hold such views not because of any ideology, but because they are idealistic and wish to see all human beings treated fairly and compassionately. PSC’s quest for diversity in selecting scholars has a different purpose. We believe that we need to broaden our talent source by going beyond the top schools because good students can now be found elsewhere, the concept of “merit” has to be constantly redefined as the needs of the Public Service continue to change, and the problems and issues public servants face in future will become more complex, requiring a greater variety of skillsets. The diversity we seek will also require our students to study in countries other than Singapore, the US and UK so that they acquire different experiences and build up different networks of friends. China comes to mind, but we also wish to have more scholars in Australia, if suitable candidates can be persuaded to come here.

14. The young are critical of the educational system because they think it over-emphasizes exam results and academic excellence. This is quite remarkable, seeing that they have excelled in, and are benefitting from, such a system. Yet, they are big-hearted enough to welcome greater diversity in our criteria for success – wishing to see that those who excel in sports and in the arts should be recognised and rewarded as well. Judging by the changes being made by the Ministry of Education, when our students express such views, they are only keeping abreast of government thinking, not streaking ahead.

15. The views of the 18 year olds on politics in Singapore are also non-ideological and pragmatic. They want the PAP to continue in power, but they also desire a strong but moderate Opposition. Some are attracted to the Worker’s Party not because they are against the PAP per se but because they share the belief that the government needs checks and balances in order to be more responsive to the people. They want the best of both worlds – the PAP to run an efficient and effective government and the Opposition holding seats short of one third of the total seats in Parliament. Enough to question and criticize the ruling party but not enough to deprive the ruling party of its 2/3 majority, let alone to form a government. When pressed, the students will admit that it is unlikely that the one party dominant political system we had in the last 50 years, will continue indefinitely in the next 50 years. But if the change does occur, they are confident in their belief that Singapore will not collapse because more and more good and capable people will eventually join the Opposition, as many as those who join the PAP today. They are sceptical about the ruling party’s contention that Singapore does not have enough talent to fill two strong teams. As more well-educated Singaporeans join the political fray on the side of the Opposition, our students may feel that their scepticism is being vindicated.

16. But these views are those of a few 18-year olds solicited over the last 5 years. We should not read too much into them as predictors of how the young vote today or in the near future. So, my sense is that in the recent general election in Singapore, when there was a big swing back to the PAP, it would be inaccurate to say that the young voted differently from the old. I think what it meant was that if there were among younger voters those who felt the way our 18-year olds feel, they were prepared to put aside their aspirations for a stronger Opposition to vote in a stronger Government because we are in turbulent economic times, they find that the government has become more responsive since 2011, and they were not convinced that the Opposition fielded better teams. Very pragmatic and rational. And very Singaporean.

Flaws & Weaknesses

17. Lest I give you the impression that our best students are flawless, let me now turn to the negative traits we sometimes see in those who apply for our scholarships. There are four main flaws. First, they have a poor knowledge of Singapore’s history. Second, only a few are knowledgeable about or interested in, current and foreign affairs. Third, they are too risk-averse. Finally, they lack imagination and creativity.

18. PSC members are often dismayed and saddened when candidates reveal their ignorance on basic historical facts about Singapore. For instance, they do not know who S. Rajaratnam is, and they only knew who Goh Keng Swee was when he died. The exhibitions on our Founding Fathers and a rather belated attempt to revise the way history is taught in our schools will go some way to fill the gaps. But it is a sign of the times that even trying to teach our young basic historical facts is being challenged and contested, and the outcome will no doubt be controversial. While history is often written by winners and victors, questions have been raised on how much should be taught about those who lost. The text book writers in the Ministry of Education will have to grapple with how much our history syllabus should teach about people like Lim Chin Siong and what their motives were – to fight against the British colonialists or to establish a Communist republic, or both?

19. Despite the fact that our students nowadays travel quite frequently, and much more than students in the past, many lack knowledge about, or interest in, current and foreign affairs. This apathy will not breed active citizens. Perhaps the internet has produced a generation of young people more interested in bite-size news than deeper analysis found in books and magazines? And if they know about current events, it is often about global rather than regional affairs. Those who are better off know London and Sydney well, but have never visited Yangon or Phnom Penh.

20. It is important for our young to know and understand the neighbourhood Singapore is in. Many influential and powerful people in Indonesia and Malaysia still view Singapore negatively. They regularly seek to remind us that we are a small country and should know our place in the pecking order among nations, and behave accordingly, instead of trying to punch above our weight. I suspect that is why Mr. Lee Kuan Yew once exhorted our young public servants to study Machiavelli – not so much because he wanted us to act like knaves, but because he wanted us to be aware that there are Machiavellians around us, who will take advantage of those who are naïve and weak.

21. Why are our best students fearful of taking the less trodden paths? Why do so many choose to be public servants, lawyers and doctors, and go to the same universities in the US and UK? Why do they apply for government scholarships and not launch into business like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg? I hope that this is partly because the students we see have self-selected themselves and that the private sector is getting its fair share of our top talent. The more entrepreneurial students may have opted not to apply. PSC does not believe in hoarding Singapore’s top talent. We are happy to point candidates to the private sector if their aptitude and passion are better suited there. But the public service also needs a few mavericks like Philip Yeo. Enough to prevent groupthink, but not so many as to disrupt the institution. Philip himself has disclaimed the label. He says that the real maverick was not him, but Dr. Goh Keng Swee. However, Philip’s peers think that Dr. Goh was also a powerful mentor and protector.

22. The majority of those we interview do not score highly on creativity and imagination. Only a few are deemed by the psychologists as being able to think out of the box and to offer unconventional ideas and solutions. Again, self-selection may have played a part, and the more creative and imaginative students may have opted not to apply. My old friend, Kishore Mahbubani, has been criticising the present generation of public servants for being unimaginative and uncreative, unlike older generations of public servants. He claims that there is no incentive for public servants today to surface new ideas and they are rewarded for playing safe, not being innovative. Kishore is, as usual, being deliberately provocative. I agree that we need our public servants to be more creative, but I think Kishore over-rates the creativity of the older public servants and under-rates the creativity of younger public servants.

23. It is counter-intuitive for a highly competitive meritocracy like Singapore to regard failure as acceptable. Many years ago, I invited the American innovation guru Gary Hamel and then Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina to Singapore to brief our senior public servants and politicians. They spent a whole day explaining how innovation requires experimentation and repeated failures. The response from the audience was, at best, lukewarm. One Minister told me that it was not feasible in our government culture to get people to accept failure; we were too focused on success.

24. The Public Service needs more creative people because it has to transform itself to help bring Singapore to a higher level of economic and social progress. Future productivity can only come from greater innovation, not from the addition of more labour and capital. Private-public sector collaboration can only work if there are innovative people both inside and outside the Public Service. Unconventional ideas coming from one party alone is a recipe for failure. And if the service wishes to utilise behavioural economics to “nudge” citizens to behave in ways contributing to the public good, it must have creative people to imagine clever ways to do so. Wicked problems that are unpredictable and come from the realm of “unknown unknowns” also need creative solutions.

25. Having said that, I am not at all suggesting that we abandon all rules. There are, in fact, good reasons for public servants to follow rules. Rules help keep them honest and impartial. If public servants are given too much discretion to interpret rules, and become too creative, it will be a matter of time before our system degenerates to one where guanxi prevails. One rule for the common citizen, and another – or even no – rule for family and friends. On the other hand, an inflexible adherence to rules will cause bureaucratic inertia and create an unthinking Public Service which lacks initiative and compassion.

Conclusion

26. Our best and brightest – the potential public sector leaders – have imbibed many of the values passed down by our founding fathers. By and large, success has not gone to their heads. They work hard, stay humble and help the less privileged. Many are committed to serve the public and see their job as a calling. But they must shed the “kiasu” and “kiasi” attitude which other Singaporeans continue to share and become bolder, less risk-averse and more innovative. Hopefully, they will pick up these traits in university and carry them bravely through their future career. Hopefully too, their bosses will give them enough space to experiment and make mistakes, because anyone in Silicon Valley will tell you that without failure, there can be no innovation.

27. Singapore has succeeded in the last 50 years to stay exceptional, partly because it has had a superior Public Service, respected and admired all over the world. Working together with visionary, strong, capable political leaders, the Public Service has played a key role in implementing the policies which brought Singapore from the Third World to the First World. But solving yesterday’s problems will not be the same as solving tomorrow’s problems, which will prove to be unpredictable and far more complex. Coupled with this is a society with many more divergent voices, resulting in a more vigorous contestation of ideas. Our people will no longer accept government edicts. They want their say and will not hesitate to complain and criticize any perceived failure, loudly and persistently. In formulating any government policy, trade-offs will become more and more difficult to make. Old solutions cannot solve future problems, and Singapore cannot govern through nostalgia.

28. A younger generation of political leaders and public servants must imagine and invent totally different solutions as they govern a population that will become more difficult to govern. The people must be critical but remain responsible and reasonable; the government must welcome and not fear disagreement. If the government draws the bandwagon too tightly, it will make too many enemies. If managed well, those outside can be co-opted and turned into allies. If the government’s new skillsets prove inadequate, Singapore will slowly cease to be exceptional and start to decline. We risk not so much an apocalyptic collapse, but as Ho Kwon Ping puts it, “a more mundane descent into mediocrity”.

29. However, I should really not end on that dismal note. Over the last 50 years, our people and our country have inherited strong foundations and robust institutions from our pioneer generation. My own experience in the public service and from interviewing thousands of our 18-year olds, tell me that the next 50 years can be bright, provided we stay incorruptible, meritocratic, and cohesive while sorting out our differences, and learn to be more innovative while staying savvy and vigilant. Very difficult, but not impossible.

30. Thank you.