Skip to main content

AIM, Customer Service and PAP Politics


Every morning, before opening hours we can see customers queuing outside banks, finance houses, CPF, HDB and other government offices. And inside the offices, staffs are sitting under the comfortable air-conditioning environment, talking, walking, laughing and ignoring customers waiting outside under the hot sun.

This is the typical customer service in Singapore. When you complain, the standard answer is ‘law-by-law’; we can only open at 8am, 9am and not early than that. Some offices or clinics are kind enough to provide chairs for early birds, but these facilities are placed outside the offices or clinics. 
You are not allowed to enter the premises to wait for services.

So, customers are not the kings in Singapore.   Putting money into the banks/finance companies, seeking legal or medical or other professional services, looking for government services, all these activities do not require quality customer services.  Or rather, customers are at a disadvantaged position begging for helps or assistances even you make due payments.

And in the many long and short queues, there are definitely some senior citizens, sometimes some people with mobile difficulties or children.  But law is law, the OPDs, the government offices can only do so much.  What is surprising is the private sector, the business sector all agree with this typical and uniquely Singapore customer service.      

PR, HR or Personnel departments in the world will have fewer problems and would very much like to have Singapore style of customer services. Standard, no less no more, everything is served according to the book.  There is nothing wrong about the services except you demand better and quality services.

No wonder the debate in the parliament is also law-by-law. And ‘WP adjournment motion on town councils inadmissible’ is expected. Yes, just like the customer service, debates have to go law by law and other than that are ‘inadmissible’.

MND Review on AIM

So, when you hear or read the parliament debates on the MND Town Council Review Report and the ministerial statement on the Review, you are just like the customers waiting outside the offices under the hot sun and have ‘no say’. There are some kind-hearted staffs who may want to help customers and even go forward to serve the customers but they are prevented to do so. ‘Law-by-law’ the offices can only open at 8 or 9 am some even not allow to place chairs outside offices.  

So, this is our kind of customer service and our kind of parliament debates. Under the law, you restrict yourself to do more but in your heart, you know improvements are needed and lot of them. 

What do you think?  The PAP has absolute majority in the Parliament.  If you want a better customer service, if you want to take back your rights as a customer, you have to exercise your votes as a rightful customer in 2016.

There is nothing wrong with the ‘law-by-law’ attitude, you queue and then you will be served. You want to be served first; you come early and wait outside the offices. You cannot expect better customer service other than the typical standard one.  And for this, we are proud that we are ahead of many countries, especially developing countries.    

Perhaps if you are willing to pay or you are high net worth individuals, the personal bankers will come to you, the private hospitals or the A class government hospitals welcome you, the lawyers,  doctors, architects will all come to you.

However, not to forget, even you are flying first class; your risk is the same as the economy class passengers in the same flight.

Another review another standard customer service

MND is going to make a comprehensive review of the management of town councils. Does another review mean a reform or a revolution on town council management? Is it a new standard service guideline replacing the old one – the AIM one? What is expected is another standard customer service - the ‘law by law’ customer service of the PAP politics. MPs continue siting and (so-called) debating in the air-conditioning parliament building and ignoring what is happening outside the Parliament.

The PAP is performing the customer service according to law and according to the parliament procedures. Everything is protected and guarded and in paper, there is no conflict of interest at all.  

There is nothing wrong for the PAP if this type of customer service can retain parliament majority for them.  But changes are happening everywhere. Customers have begun to understand their rights and demand better quality services.

Come 2016, the customer voters will judge whether they agree or not agree with ‘the ministry gives “the same latitude” to all political parties in town council transactions with political affiliates.’   

Comments

  1. Er... what are you saying when you cite 'law by law'?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...