Ngiam, Tong Dow

English

Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University

Singapore Management UniversityInstitutional Knowledge at Singapore Management UniversitySocial Space Lien Centre for Social Innovation1-2009Of Government, Innovation and the Social Sector:An Interview with Ngiam Tong DowTong Dow NgiamFollow this and additional works at:http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lien_researchPart of theModels and Methods Commons,Policy History, Theory, and Methods Commons,Public Administration Commons,Public Policy Commons, and theSocial Policy CommonsThis Journal Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation at Institutional Knowledge at SingaporeManagement University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Social Space by an authorized administrator of Institutional Knowledge at SingaporeManagement University. For more information, please emaillibIR@smu.edu.sg.CitationNgiam, Tong Dow. (2009). Of Government, Innovation and the Social Sector: An Interview with Ngiam Tong Dow.Social Space. .Social Space.Available at:http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lien_research/26.SOCIAL SPACE • 2009PERSPECTIVES ONSOCIAL INNOVATION6Of GOVERNMENT, INNOVATION and the SOCIAL SECTORSS:   Would you consider the Singapore government a creative one?NTD:   I  have  seen  creativeness  in  government.  I  can  give  you  two  examples. Decades ago, Dr Goh Keng Swee faced the challenge of raising revenue. How did the man do it? He decided to put a tax on public utilities. It was brilliant. These were services that people could not do without, and yet the tax was small enough for people not to feel the pinch. It was innovative revenue generation and this has continued to this day. Another example is the Certificate of Entitlement (COE). This was then PM Lee Kuan Yew’s idea. It is quite a feat to create money out of nothing. It is only a piece of paper but the revenues are substantial. At the same time, we solved the problem of the number of cars on the road which of course, was the main objective. So, the government can be very innovative when it is faced with challenges.   On  the  social  front,  the  idea  of  partnering  with  the  private  sector  to run  childcare  centres  is  an  example  of  social  innovation,  indeed  social entrepreneurship.  There  was  then  a  pressing  social  need  to  provide affordable childcare centres for working parents. The finance ministry was expected to provide the resources to make this happen, but the government simply could not set up and run more than a few childcare centres on its own. We had to be innovative. We realised that we didn’t have to do it all by ourselves. If we involved the private sector, there would be many takers for  the  subsidies  we  were  providing  to  set  up  private  childcare  centres. Programme subsidy is not a dirty word. It can create the multiplier effect that a social initiative needs. We were creative about the whole process and were not limited to regulatory constraints. We worked our way around the limitations to achieve the desired outcome.  At the end of the day, the government should be honest, identify a problem and explore the best way of making a solution work. It should not try to An Interview with Ngiam Tong DowWith homelessness and unemployment looming large in the 1960s, the pioneer public service team turned the situation around within a span of 10 years. Veteran civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow shares his insights from the days of coming nose-to-nose with social breakdown – a time when creative resourcefulness was the only option. Retired and with the benefit of hindsight, he shares with Social Space his thoughts on innovation, government and the way forward for the social sector.Photo source: Lim Sin Thai, The Straits TimesLien Centre for Social Innovation7PERSPECTIVES ONSOCIAL INNOVATION7do everything by itself, if either the private or the civil sector can help to do it. On the other hand, nowadays I see a trend of government officials  depending  excessively  on  external ‘consultants’ whenever it faces an issue. It is not wise to outsource this task too excessively to  consultants.  Innovation  has  always  been in our government and it should continue to innovate, and I hope that this ability won’t be lost over time. SS:   Do  you  foresee  this  creative  spirit  in  the government continuing to exist, especially so in uncertain  social  circumstances  where  roots  of the problems are multiple and interconnected?NTD:   Yes,  as  long  as  the  leadership  realises  that where the current is swift, it would be wise to use the spontaneity that exists in society rather than try to either do everything itself, or over-regulate  what  other  people  are  doing.  The government  should  identify  needs  in  society and facilitate the emergence of solutions from many sources.SS:   Are you referring to spontaneity in civil society?NTD:   The social sector is spontaneous and flexible. If the social sector does what it does well, the state  should  leave  it  alone.  Of  course  there should  not  be  fraud,  but  beyond  that,  the sector should be left alone to do good well.   Let  me  illustrate  with  an  example.  In  the past,  there  was  a  Tiong  Bahru  coffee  shop that  used  to  be  abuzz  with  singing  birds  in cages,  brought  by  their  owners  –  old    men who  were  there  for  their  morning  coffee.  It was a nice, lively scene. In 1997, the Singapore Tourist  Promotion  Board  (STPB)  and  Tiong Bahru residents wrote in to the town council about  the  space  looking  crowded  and  run-down.  In  response,  well-meaning  Members of  Parliament  (MPs)  of  that  constituency came  in  to  build  structures  and  renovated the  area  under  a  S$60,000  spruce-up  plan. After  a  major  redevelopment  of  the  area  in 2002, you know what happened? The old men stopped going there because the atmosphere was just not the same anymore. The new slick surroundings and the new structure that was built for men to hang the bird cages just did not  resonate  with  them.  So  my  point  is,  if something  spontaneous  is  doing  well,  leave well alone and don’t interfere, even though it is with good intentions.SS:  You are saying we need less management and more ‘chaos’ for innovation to happen? NTD:    The  social  sector  is  in  a  unique  position  to embrace chaos. The only thing they should not commit is fraud. If I have one message for the government, it is to not take that spontaneity away. The social sector is by nature a chaotic sector but it can be harnessed. Over-regulation need not be the modus operandi. In line with their  role,  the  government  tends  to  sanitise, organise and streamline sector activities.  Each ministry regulates according to their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).   I  can  share  with  you  an  example  during  my time in the Ministry of Finance (MOF). It was decided by the then Land Office, now known as the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), that the price of state land be pegged at its potential market  value  and  that  charities  that  were occupying public buildings should be paying the market rate in rent. Why should this be so if the government is in a position to facilitate the good work done by the charities? To get around this  issue,  the  MOF  paid  out  subsidies  to then Ministry of Community Development of Singapore (MCDS), which were then returned to  MOF  as  rental  revenue  –  out  one  pocket and back into another. It was more of a book-keeping exercise to work around the rigidity of the system.   Recently, I got to know of charities that now need  to  pay  market  rate  rentals  for  public buildings.  These  charities  should  not  be spending time and resources just raising funds to  pay  rents  to  the  SLA.  Yet,  because  of  this unflinching principle that one cannot subsidise land use, charities are distracted from their real ... it (government) would be wise to use the spontaneity that exists in society rather than try to either do everything itself, or over-regulate what other people are doing. The government should identify needs in society and facilitate the emergence of solutions from many sources.SOCIAL SPACE • 2009PERSPECTIVES ONSOCIAL INNOVATION8mission of helping and caring for the poor and disadvantaged.  SS:   But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. How can the government provide support and still let civil society do things its own way without regulation?  Surely  with  government  support comes the obligation to allow government some control? NTD:   And  this  is  where  I  am  reminded  of  my  late mentor, Hon Sui Sen. I learnt a lot from him. Back then, I was an overzealous civil servant, scrutinising  numbers  and  questioning programmes. Hon Sui Sen’s advice to me was simple: “Please leave well alone.” If something is working well, don’t muck around with it. If a clock is ticking well, don’t dismantle it and see if you can make it tick better.SS:   It has been quoted of a senior civil servant who once  said:  “What  the  government  does  not choose to support and fund, nobody in society should even be doing.” Would you agree with this sentiment?NTD:   I  totally  disagree  with  this.  I  don’t  know who might have said this, but it sounds very defensive,  afraid  of  facing  any  criticism  that the government didn’t think of everything and someone else has an idea that is valuable. My advice for the social sector is not to take any notice of this. Even as a public officer, I would never advocate this. As a public sector actor, if I had not addressed an issue as well as another sector actor, then I should jolly well leave him to do it and not discourage him in the process. I should also not come in with regulations to control something I didn’t even think of in the first place.   Let me share with you a story told to me by a friend in the hotel industry. He was comparing Singapore and Hong Kong in their approach to town planning. If we look at the political-legal context  of  these  two  countries,  there  is  little difference  –  both  ride  on  a  legacy  of  British laws and regulations. Yet, there is a difference in approach. For instance, in Hong Kong, when the government has a land use plan and has an idea of what building it wants in a space, if a developer says he has a different proposal, the civil servants will sit down and discuss with him on whether they can make the plan work for both parties. In Singapore, the answer would be a simple ‘no’. In analogical terms, when the plan is a circle and you want to implement a square, it is less work simply to turn down the proposal rather than think of how to make it work, figuratively to ‘square a circle’.  Yet in Hong Kong, if you seek to square this circle, the regulator will sit down with you and seek to make it possible. We should learn from these positive examples.SS:   So  what  is  the  ideal  relationship  between government and civil society?NTD:  Government  facilitates  and  mobilises  the altruistic intentions of people into action. Let me start with my own positioning of the social sector. Firstly, the social sector should do what the government and the private sector cannot do.  The  social  sector  is  in  a  unique  position and it should find a niche that the government or  private  sector  is  not  addressing.  And  I don’t mean to refer to the social sector as an afterthought. Secondly, during the discussions called ‘The Next Lap’ some years ago, the late Dr Tay Eng Soon wrote a paper on the social sector and he mentioned the need for more than one helping hand. That is how the concept of ‘many helping hands’ arose. Thirdly, the social sector should  help  people  at  the  point  where  they need help the most.   As NUS pro-chancellor, I am involved in the University’s Annual Giving Programme, part of which funds bursaries for poor students. In this capacity, I hear stories of students from poor families  who  go  to  school  without  breakfast and without money for tuckshop food. What amazes  me  is  that  in  contemporary  times, In Singapore, when the plan is a circle and you want to implement a square, it is less work simply to turn down the proposal rather than think of how to make it work, figuratively to ‘square a circle’.  Yet in Hong Kong, if you seek to square this circle, the regulator will sit down with you and seek to make it possible. We should learn from these positive examples.Lien Centre for Social Innovation9PERSPECTIVES ONSOCIAL INNOVATION9this is still happening. Cases of dysfunctional families do exist and they do not provide a good environment  for  the  young  to  develop.  We need to address this issue as a pressing need for the future. Now, the government and the civic sector can do something about it. We can set up boarding schools where dormitories, proper food and supervision can be provided for the poor kids who are possibly in the bottom 10% of  the  population.  Their  contributions  back to  society  will  far  outweigh  the  investment we put into them. While government revenue is available for this, we need people with the empathy  and  dedication  to  see  it  through. This is where volunteers come in. Volunteers’ time  is  far  more  valuable  than  to  just  spend it on fundraising. Of course, altruism can be expressed through giving some of our wealth to the poor. In this area of need, I would suggest that a charitable mission set up dormitories for children from dysfunctional families with full funding support from the government. SS:   Can’t the social sector do it on its own, without depending on government money?NTD:   Yes it can, but the volunteer’s time should not be expended just on raising funds. The state can and should help with the funds. I refer back to the example of the MOF and the Ministry of Social Affairs during my time when there was a need for childcare. The government invited the private sector to partner the Ministry of Social Affairs  and  it  has  worked.  The  government should use funding in an intelligent way. SS:   Thus far, we have seen government innovation being  motivated  by  the  need  to  survive  and by  sheer  economic  pragmatism.  Could  the government have unwittingly imparted a sense of calculativeness in the social sector and in turn, muted the heart element that is so necessary in social innovation? NTD:  I  am  concerned  about  finding  this  balance between the head and the heart. I recall then Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) S. Rajaratnam saying  that  ‘Singaporeans  know  the  price  of everything and the value of nothing’. It rings true today. But I must say that doing things with a heart does not mean merely giving money to charity. I firmly believe in the wise saying about giving a man a fishing rod instead of a fish so that you equip him with the tool to succeed. I particularly recall a time when I was walking around  the  streets  of  Bangkok  with  Dr  Goh. I had seen a beggar by the roadside and had wanted to give him a coin when the Minister stopped me. “Why not?” I asked. Dr Goh told me that the beggar should have thought more about his choices in life that led to his current predicament  of  begging.  If  the  outcome  of my  giving  was  to  encourage  more  begging, then  I  would  have  to  rethink  my  notion  of compassion.   Coming from this reasoned understanding of compassion,  I  am  still  concerned  about  our perceived  philosophy  of  hard-headedness minus the heart and its effect on our citizens. The  decision-making  principle  of  whether  it is economic or uneconomic to help does not sit  too  comfortably  with  some  people.  Take for instance the issue of kidney dialysis – why can’t we have government funds to support the running of dialysis centres? Currently, dialysis centres are run by charities. Now, kidney failure is a terminal disease. Except in a few cases where it is a bridge to kidney transplant, there is no prospect of patients ever becoming fully active and productive. If the government refuses to pay for their dialysis, it may be efficient and economic, but it is not very humane.    Another example is the F1 Race. I had expressed my  disagreement  that  we  should  spend millions on what is essentially a sports event, when at the same time, we are so parsimonious in  giving  a  higher  living  allowance  to  the destitute.  The  Minister-in-Charge  was  angry with me for saying this and to be fair, I think his  rationale  is  that  we  mustn’t  encourage a  dependency  syndrome.  While  economic prudence is definitely needed in government budget  management,  I  am  concerned  about the sense of proportion in meting out this harsh economic rationale. SS:   Any last observations to share? NTD:    The  solution  to  a  social  problem  can  come from  various  sources.  It  need  not  start  from any  particular  sector  or  individual.  The  most important  thing  is  initiative,  honesty  and  a sense of ownership over the issue. And where this happens, it is best for our government to facilitate and support these efforts to allow them to  achieve  their  full  potential.  As  our  country develops and more of our young become highly-educated, my wish is for the leadership to stay in touch with the ground and our roots. Ngiam Tong Dow is a former permanent secretary of the Ministry of Finance and the Prime Minister’s Office of the Government of Singapore. He has also served as permanent secretary of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry National Development and the Ministry of Communications. He was also the chairman of the Singapore Economic Development Board and the Development Bank of Singapore.

Of Government, Innovation and the Social Sector: An Interview with Ngiam Tong Dow

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University