When I read about how the Aljunied Town Council's General Manager is also the Managing Director of the facilities management service provider for Aljunied Town Council, I am dumbfounded and enraged. I am enraged not because of the discovery of such commerical arrangements but because it was ALLOWED to happen under the watch of our government.
The article was published in the Straits Times on Thursday 12 May 2011, on page A4, titled “Cynthia Phua promises proper handover”, with the following was reported:
“Aljunied Town Council is now managed by CPG Facilities Management, with whom the town council signed a three-year contract last year. CPG managing director Jeffrey Chua is the town council’s general manager. As the town council managing agent, CPG engages the services of other companies for services such as cleaning, maintenance and lift rescue.”
While CPG Corporation Pte Ltd is the corporatized and renamed Public Works Department, it is not apparent whether Mr Chua, as the Managing Director of CPG Facilities Management Pte Ltd holds shares or options in the firm CPG Facilities Management Pte Ltd (which appears to be a subsidiary of CPG Corporation Pte Ltd) or its parent.
Regardless, I find it difficult to understand how Mr Chua can carry out both his duties as the general manager of the town council, and the Managing Director of the town council’s managing agent.
Suppose Mr Chua, the Managing Director of CPG Facilities Management asked for a higher management fee, in order to deal with the rise in the foreign workers’ levy, would Mr Chua the general manager of Aljunied Town Council grant that request?
If the town upkeep is poor, and HDB blocks are dirty, would Mr Chua the general manager of Aljunied Town Council replace himself as the managing agent?
It appears that there is a conflict of interest in Mr Chua’s roles. If he receives a stipend or salary from both organizations, on whose behalf would he act? If he only receives a salary from CPG Facilities Management, how can he then act in the interest of the residents of Aljunied GRC?
What I find extremely worrying, however, is that this matter only came to light because the Workers’ Party won Aljunied GRC, and there now needs to be a handover. If the PAP had won, would this unhealthy arrangement have continued? Are there any other such apparent conflicts of interest that we do not know about?
Eversince the topic of Ministerial Pay surfaced, the government has repeatedly maintained the rationale of having such policies - Attracting the BEST TALENT to serve in government and to prevent corruption. The logic behind the policy is both plausible and believable. Most Singaporeans either accepted or lived with it (As there is no mechanism to prevent the government from implementing such a policy with a PAP majority in Parliament).
So, how is it that with the best of talents, that those in charge did not catch such conflicts of interest?
There can only be two reasons:-
- The Aljunied MPs knew about the arrangement and chose to accept the arrangement. Perhaps, the fact that the company used to be a government entity was a strong reason why such an arrangement was allowed. If so, then the MPs did not carry out their roles in ensuring that the interests of the residents are at all times protected. Any other factors resulting in such a reason would lead to more worrying conclusions of dubious intent on the part of the MPs (Such as corruption, giving out favours, etc).
- The Aljunied MPs did not know about it and hence couldn’t question the arrangement. If that was true, then there should be even greater cause of concern as it would mean that the MPs were either too busy to be meticulous or worse, that they were lazy and did not take their work seriously. No matter how you look at it, such a reason would point to the fact that the right attitudes of responsibility and servitude were not present.
Regardless, such a situation cannot be in the interest of the residents. After all, the general manager of the Town Council is but a salaried worker. He does not have any altruistic desire to serve the residents nobly or he would have gone into public service. The fact that he is also the managing director for the facilities service provider is sufficient evidence of that. Hence, whenever there is a conflict of interest, he will most probably decide on the promotion of self-interest as oppose to those of the residents. This is a natural instinct for all living things – self preservation.
This brings to the question if the following claims made by PAP/government holds true:-
1. The government has a rigorous process to identify the BEST TALENTS to serve the country
The government is a technocratic one. They are great with technical solutions and are made up of elite scholars and intellectuals. However, is that the right type of people to RUN the country?
Technocrats are great as the enablers of progress and efficiency. But they are notoriously known for not being intuitive and hence cannot understand what OTHERS need. They rule by logic, not heart. More importantly, they do not take into account the understanding of the human psychology and how that will affect the outcome of scenarios. For example, the above mentioned case of conflicts of interest may very well never happen as there may be checks and balances in place to ensure that it will never happen. However, the fact that the situation opens itself up for questioning and doubt should be taken in serious consideration as is how the residents will react when the situation is known and perceptions created. Hence, the question of what is the rigor of the talent acquisition process that PAP/government employs needs to be examined and made known. Does it truly identify the RIGHT RATHER THAN BEST TALENT to serve the country?
2. High Pay is needed to attract the BEST TALENT and prevent CORRUPTION
I continue to maintain that when compensations are at such astronomical levels, it brings to question the motives of candidates wanting to go into public service. The government still has not acknowledged such a possibility and continues to staunchly defend the compensation policy (both pay and pension). At times, even leaders of private enterprises have demonstrated more accountability to their employees than any of our Cabinet Ministers with $1 pay/annum:
· Steve Job of Apple
· Vikram Pandit of CitiGroup
· Richard Wagner of GM
· Robert Nardelli of Chrysler
· Allan Mullally of Ford
While they may still take home millions in other channels like stocks options and grants (which is based on performance), they are still forgoing their otherwise base compensation.
In addition, if the talent acquisition process does not get us the RIGHT TALENT to lead the country, then does the HIGH PAY even makes sense? Won’t we be reinforcing the perpetuation of errors?
As for corruption, I strongly believe that it depends on the moral make-up of any individual. A person is corruptible because his/her DNA entertains such provisions. It is therefore easily defensible if the selection rigor ensures that such moral make-up is truly tested and qualified.
3. The government is a CLEAN GOVERNMENT
No one will argue that there is virtually no corruption in the ranks of our policy makers. However, the definition of corruption is taken in its most narrow sense – Monetary gains.
If we expand the definition to include intangibles like morals, justice and equality, then I suggest that our government isn’t all that clean.
Many incidents shows that our government has corrupted its moral authority:-
1. Placing monetary wealth/gains ahead of all other values like servitude in itself corrupts the morals of the country and the government. This is especially evident when you speak to the citizens. Many are focused on economic progress. Many are swayed by the offer of upgrading and what it means to them financially.
2. Continue to promote opaqueness so that there is less opportunity for debate and questions – What you don’t know, you can’t question.
· How much do we have in our country’s reserves?
· How are the top civil servants measured in their performance and what consequences were met out when they make mistakes?
· How are future leaders being selected/assess?
· Would the Aljunied Town Council commercial arrangements, ever been made know if PAP remains in control of that GRC?
3. Putting partisan interests ahead of citizens’ interests. The government has linked upgrading to votes when in fact every citizen is entitled to government programs since it is taxpayer’s monies and not PAP’s. The redrawing of electoral boundaries. Conducting external surveys (Did the government use their party funds or taxpayer monies?).
More importantly, my concerns sky-rocketed when I notice the similarities of our society's situation to a summary on Orsen Welle’s novel “Animal Farm”-
Orwell describes an all-to-familiar corruption that undermines the goal of the revolution: in which those leading the revolution rally the masses not so much for the good of the masses, but so that the leaders can assume the role of master, complete with all of the oppressive conduct that goes with an authoritarian regime.
While the government is not oppressive, it serves to intimidate through its intolerance to questions of its leadership. They will cajole, bribe, scare and smear whatever is required to maintain the psychological prison that they have successfully erected in the minds of most Singaporeans. The rule in every sense is authoritarian psychologically.
So long as the government continues to value technocrats, future government leaders will continue to retain the technical expertise but not the human connection. They will continue to lack the compassion/grace to understand how societies really work and to embrace the diversity of differences of perspectives. In their minds, Singapore is a factory/company, not a society (Think of why Singapore, Inc. was mooted?).
Clearly, there is enough for every citizen of Singapore to ask
WHAT IS THE RIGHT KIND OF TALENT for Singapore?
No comments:
Post a Comment