Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
UNDP 2010
‘Capacity is Development' is a call to systematically review, capture and discuss key capacity
development lessons of the past and to look on to the future. Through distilling key policy and
investment choices made over time to motivate forward planning on capacity development,
this research paper helped define the content framework of the ‘Capacity is Development'
Global Event. This paper was written by Naresh C. Saxena and Dipa Singh Bagai.
© 2010
DISCLAIMER: The findings, interpretations and conclusions are strictly those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the views of UNDP or United Nations Member States.
13 | G l o b a l E v e n t W o r k i n g P a p e r
barriers are extremely porous, allowing seamless collaboration across agencies rather than the
replication of governmental structures behind the scenes. Second, efficiency is at the core of
the process. Structures are capable of being easily remodelled without fear of creating
territorial issues within agencies. Finally, the osmostic nature of the system of government and
the pragmatic approach that drives it makes it highly malleable. It can be adapted and adopted
to changing circumstances very quickly.
Government Intervention in the Market
How does the Singapore government intervene in the market? First, The Singapore government
invests large amounts in order to increase the country's attractiveness to investors, such as, in
infrastructure and skill building for manpower. Singapore enjoys one of the highest rates of
domestic savings in the world, and has built up over the years huge budgetary surpluses to fund
such activities. These services are provided by statutory boards, set up as autonomous
organisations to provide all infrastructural, promotional, and public utility services.
Second, government promotes industrialization and investment through Government‐linked
companies (GLCs) which complement the statutory boards and are in turn owned substantially
by government or government owned companies, such as Tamasek Holdings.
The third key area where the Singapore government has influenced markets is wage restraint
and import of cheap labour. This strong guard was witnessed during the 1985 recession when
the government cut the employer's CPF (Central Provident Fund) contributions from 25 percent
to 10 percent of an employee's wage.
Fourth, the government has a partial Divestment programme of selling shares of government
companies such as Singapore Telecom and Singapore Airlines in the open market. This makes
its role stronger and more extensive as it provides the government with retaining control and
revenues to invest elsewhere.
And last, Singapore has deregulated several markets, e.g. the electricity and
telecommunication, and more recently civil aviation. The government no more monopolizes
these markets, and it is open for competition among the industry players. Ever since 1989, the
government of Singapore started eliminating restrictions on the sale of telecom consumer
goods to make businesses more competitive, which benefit the end consumer and the business
as well.
The state plays a major role in managing the economy with the market being 'free' only to the
extent that the government allows it to be free. The state determines what is produced, what is
available for export, and what is subsidized, and what is not. But the role of the government is
14 | G l o b a l E v e n t W o r k i n g P a p e r
'primarily market facilitating rather than market inhibiting.’ Singapore is ranked number one
out of 183 economies, as regards ease of doing business, whereas Hong Kong is ranked 4th,
Japan 15th, and China 89th.
Statutory Boards
The Singapore government’s participation in the economy takes two forms – either through the
statutory boards or through the Government‐linked companies (GLCs). Boards are more directly
under the government whereas GLCs are more loosely related to the government, whose
involvement is through equity participation. The Singapore government set up statutory boards
for three reasons. First, statutory boards were formed to perform efficiently the tasks of
development without facing the constraints encountered by the SCS of rigid regulations and
inflexibility. Second, the aim was to reduce the SCS’s workload by entrusting the new
organisations with the implementation of socio‐economic development programmes. Finally,
statutory boards were formed to minimize the movement of talented civil servants to the
private sector.
In order to achieve these developmental objectives, the government established a series of
development‐related institutions or enterprises that are owned, managed, or supervised by the
state. Examples of such state enterprises include the creation in the 60s and 70s of the Housing
and Development Board (HDB), the Economic Development Board, the Public Utilities Board,
the Port of Singapore Authority, the Jurong Town Corporation and Development Bank of
Singapore, and the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (Low and Haggard, 2000).
An example of the responsiveness to external demand is the creation of the Singapore
Cooperation Enterprise (SCE) in 2006 by the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Singapore to have an agency to respond effectively to the many foreign
requests to tap into Singapore’s development experience, and to share Singapore’s public
sector expertise with interested foreign parties, government or non‐government. Examples are
the MoU between the SCE and the State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs of the
Republic of China to cooperate in the transfer of knowledge and expertise for Chinese
government officials, and the MoU between the SCE and the Ministry of Public Housing,
Government of Indonesia to cooperate on the development of public housing policy, low cost
housing delivery and housing finance in Indonesia.
The Housing and Development Board (HDB) – a successful example
The HDB has not only been credited with the eradication of the dismal living conditions of pre‐
Independence times but also with achieving the highest homeownership in the world (WDR,
15 | G l o b a l E v e n t W o r k i n g P a p e r
2009). A record 92 percent of the total population (which includes those in private estates) own
their own abode. This has been in part accomplished through a government sponsored home
ownership scheme, which enables prospective buyers to get the rented apartment at an
affordable and subsidised price. 93 per cent of those living on rent in public housing have
ultimately purchased an apartment.
The public housing programme has been used by the government to do social engineering. The
government drew on resettlement to break up the ethnic enclaves and communities that had
characterized colonial Singapore. It put its policy of multiracialism into practice by seeing that
all apartment buildings contained members of all ethnic groups in numbers that reflected their
proportion of the national population.
In many countries and for many people the concept of public housing is mostly used as a
housing programme of low quality and insecure place to stay in. But in Singapore, the Housing
Development Board (HDB) flats offer their residents “quality lifestyles in quality buildings”. In
the 1960s and early 1970s, before the growth of export‐oriented industry, housing construction
provided much employment and an opportunity for workers to learn new skills.
HDB has won a large number of prestigious awards for achieving great strides in public housing.
Besides being the sole recipient of the Singapore Quality Award with Special Commendation
and the United Nations Public Service Award in 2008 for its Home Ownership Programme, HDB
has risen to the ranks of the top ten best employers and enterprise friendly organisations in
Singapore. It is also recognised for its engineering prowess, winning a national achievement
award and an outstanding ASEAN award.
The government’s highly interventionist approach and active involvement in the economy is
one of the reasons for Singapore’s initial economic success. Boards and the GLCs, despite being
“government”, have been run on commercial criteria, while it is true that monopoly and quasi‐
monopoly powers have helped profitability. The overall balance of evidence suggests that
Singapore’s boards and GLCs are among the most efficient and well managed state‐owned
enterprises in the world, which is in part due to their private‐sector type orientation (Hwee et
al. 2005). The wide scope of these institutions indicates the state’s active involvement in
economic development for more than four decades. This state‐managed developmentalism has
also worked in favour of legitimizing the ruling party’s political power.
16 | G l o b a l E v e n t W o r k i n g P a p e r
Lessons for Other Countries
Summing up the factors behind Singapore’s success
The Singapore government has managed to improve and sustain the quality of its civil service
because of the successful implementation of the following five policies: (1) the adoption of anti‐
corruption measures; (2) selective recruitment of the 'best and brightest'; (3) competitive pay;
(4) massive computerization leading to transparency and greater consumer satisfaction; and (5)
linking promotion and pay increments with both potential and actual output of the public
servant.
While these policies promote individual excellence, attention has also been given to maximize
institutional outcomes through (1) delegation of authority for operational decisions to
autonomous agencies, while retaining the power of oversight with central agencies; (2) instilling
in organizations a sense of pride and ownership of their outcomes through training and
movements like PS21; (3) linking performance measurement systems of institutions with
incentives and awards for innovative practices; and (4) leading by example which transmits
strong values and principles of good governance socially rather than formally throughout the
organisation.
It cannot be over emphasized that the city‐state’s situation is evidently very different from
many developing countries. Its small geographical size and compactness (supported by an
excellent communication infrastructure), allow for efficient planning, cohesive decision making,
channelling of information, and deployment of personnel within and between the government
and private sectors (Kong et al. 2008). Another is the virtuous circle through which resources
for bureaucratic reform (such as civil service pay increases) have both contributed to, and been
generated by, Singapore’s remarkable economic ascent (Fritzen 2006).
In addition to rules and procedures, performance of an organization is also influenced by its
culture, which is created by and springs from the beliefs, values and assumptions of the
founders of the organization. The early generations of leaders in Singapore, such as Lee Kuan
Yew, Goh Keng Swee, and Rajaratnam, strongly believed in building up an effective civil service
based on integrity, meritocracy and result orientation that would facilitate economic growth
and social development. Overtime, these values were internalized by the civil service, and since
then have stood as guiding principles for its policies and programmes.
Finally, Singapore has emerged virtually as a one‐party democracy. This permits the
government to be more involved in administration than with politics. Its main concern was and
17 | G l o b a l E v e n t W o r k i n g P a p e r
continues to be the management of Singapore. It may otherwise be difficult in a democracy to
announce, as Singapore does, that it will ‘do what is right, not what is popular’.
Are these reforms replicable?
Clearly, it is not easy to replicate Singapore's approach to efficiency and sustaining quality in its
public institutions and its civil service outside of Singapore, because of the high economic and
political costs involved. It is expensive to pay civil servants high salaries, just as it is difficult to
minimize corruption or to introduce a meritocratic system without widespread political
support. Singapore's experience shows that a strong government with a long tenure of office
(50 years) and sustained economic growth in the country have enabled the implementation of
the policies responsible for creating robust institutions, and sustaining quality in the public
service.
For instance, the Singapore government started to decentralize HR functions after putting in
place some of the critical factors for success, which has not, in turn, led to the expected
favouritism, nepotism, and corruption. The effectiveness of a decentralized HR policy depends
on how well it is administered. A common weakness in decentralizing HR is to delegate
authority to act without adequate standards for guidance or adequate audit and oversight
mechanisms to ensure compliance with general policies.
Therefore an objective analysis of the political climate and managerial competence of each
country would have to be done before replicating reforms that have proved to be such a great
success in Singapore.
In many developing countries, especially in South Asia, the quality of public management
depends to a large extent on the nature of party politics and the quality of political leadership.
There is a feeling widely shared among the political and bureaucratic elites in many
governments in Asia that public office is to be used for private ends. Election cycles etc. place
intense political pressures for distribution of patronage that leave little time or inclination for
investing in conceptual thinking in the design of good programmes, weeding out those not
functioning, and monitoring the programmes with a view to take remedial action to improve
the effectiveness of delivery, and to invest in policies that foster enabling environments. Weak
governance, manifesting itself in poor service delivery, excessive regulation, and uncoordinated
and wasteful public expenditure, impinges on development results and social well being. In the
ultimate analysis public service issues cannot be isolated from those of political economy.
For comprehensive reform and accountability of the public service to be sustained, a strong
political and administrative will from the top is necessary. In its absence, reforms remain only
18 | G l o b a l E v e n t W o r k i n g P a p e r
on paper. Accountability has to be induced; it cannot be decreed by fiat. It is a result of a
complex set of incentives, transparency in processes and decision making, and checks and
balances at various levels of government. A good civil service is necessary but not sufficient for
good governance; a bad civil service is sufficient but not necessary for bad governance.
The experience of Singapore reveals that political history, party politics, macroeconomic
considerations, adaptability of the civil service, and farsightedness of leaders are critical factors
in determining the outcomes, the type of change, and the extent of the reform initiatives.
(Samaratunge et al. 2008). Other countries concerned with improving governance would
certainly benefit from studying the success of reforms in Singapore. But it would be useful to
recall the combination of factors that have contributed to Singapore’s extraordinary success in
public service delivery, and to remember that “Bureaucratic models are not packages ready for
export or import; they provide illustrations of options and styles for consideration in their
separate parts, and for adaptation before acceptance in a different context.”
19 | G l o b a l E v e n t W o r k i n g P a p e r
Bibliography
Bernardo Robert (2008): The Role of Incentives in Civil Service Reform: the Singapore Story
Cheema, G. Shabbir, (2005): Building Democratic Institutions; Governance Reform in Developing
Countries, Kumarian Press, Bloomfield, CT.
Chen, Shian Jan and Winston Tan (2008): Achieving Performance through Budgets, paper presented at
the Malaysian Evaluation Society (MES) Third International Evaluation Conference, Kuala Lumpur: 31
March ‐ 4 April
Chhabra Samir (2008): Performance Management Case Study: the case of Singapore
Fritzen, Scott (2006): Discipline and Democratize: Patterns of Bureaucratic Accountability in Southeast
Asia, The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore
Haque, M. Shamsul (2003): New Public Management in Malaysia and Singapore, Journal of Comparative
Asian Development.
Hwee, Yeo Lay, Tan Hsien Li and Joanne Lin (2005): Governing Singapore: How, Why, and Where are we
Heading? Singapore Institute of International Affairs, September
Kong, LEE Sing, GOH Chor Boon, Birger FREDRIKSEN, and TAN Jee Peng (2008): Toward a Better Future:
Education And Training For Economic Development In Singapore Since 1965 Edited, World Bank
Low, Linda and Haggard, Stephan (2000). State, Politics and Business in Singapore. Working Paper Series,
May. Singapore: Department of Business Policy, National University of Singapore.
Neo Boon Siong and Geraldine Chen (2007): Dynamic Governance: Embedding Culture, Capabilities and
Change in Singapore, World Scientific, Singapore
Quah, Jon S.T. (2008): Good Governance, Accountability and Administrative Reform in Singapore,
American Journal of Chinese Studies, Vol. 15, No. 1 (April 2008): 17‐34.
Samaratunge Ramanie, Quamrul Alam and Julian Teicher (2008): The New Public Management
reforms in Asia: a comparison of South and Southeast Asian countries International Review of
Administrative Sciences 74(1)
Tay, Janet (1999). Public Service Reforms in Singapore. New York: Management Development and
Governance Division, UNDP.
WDR (2009): World Development Report, World Bank
20 | G l o b a l E v e n t W o r k i n g P a p e r
21 | G l o b a l E v e n t W o r k i n g P a p e r