Skip to main content

Post-SG50 Public Policy Challenges and the Outdated PAP Model

According to the Global Trends 2030 #1, a majority of global citizens feel that current government structures are  inadequate to face future challenges. Will Singapore be an exception?  For example, an efficient tax collection system does not mean it understands the tax burdens of the people.


Even the PAP government claims to have first class public administration, the recent policy solutions and responses have failed to gain public confidence and support.  (Or less  public confidence and support as compared to SG50 era).  We are no exception to the global  trends.  More and more non-traditional players, NGOs, will participate in the debates besides a stronger opposition.


Down the road, not only the PAP has to discarded their old and ineffective SG50 model, the oppositions and other players will have to adopt new models too. All of them can not ‘copy and paste’ the old SG50 model. They will have to seek new creative solutions and balances in public policy challenges.     


Under SG50 model, it is a PAP-led and government controlled environment. Any public feedback is just a submission and selection process. In the past, the so-called high public support or confidence was declared without checks and balance, transparency and accountability.  The post-SG50 era will be very different.


Co-creation to replace PAP SG50 model


Professor Aric Rindfleisch of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign explains the digital concept of customer co-creation as follows:
Selection Activity


Customer-led
Co-designing
Collaborating
Firm-led
Submitting
Tinkering
Contribution Activity
Fixed
Open


In the digital world, both customers and firms can lead and co-create values for a product/company. The contribution can come from a fixed or open environment. Fixed contribution means the contribution is related to the product. Open contribution has no restriction.


With small modification, this concept can be translated into a relationship between citizens (stakeholders) and government.    


Selection Activity


Citizen-led
Co-designing
Collaborating
Government-led
Submitting
Tinkering
Contribution Activity
Fixed
Open


Under SG50 model, if there is any co-creation activity, it is in SUBMITTING. Feedback Unit, People’s Association, NTUC, bilingualism,  ...etc are all under this category. They all work under a fixed contribution environment.  Citizens submit their views and opinions. The PAP government selects and then leads the changes.


We hardly see Tinkering, Co-designing and Collaborating in action. However, in the post-SG50 era, public policy discussion will have to have more involvements of non-government actors and of course, oppositions participation.


It also means Singapore has to move away from the fixed and government-led Submitting box to the other three boxes. By doing so and moving away from the old PAP SG50 model,  more co-creation contributions led by citizens, in an open environment, can then be generated in Singapore.   It brings out our potentials.


Let look at some examples:


MediShield reform: The PAP government appoints a committee to study MediShield and medisave contribution, the committee then  submits a report to reform the medical insurance system and covers all Singaporeans. As this is a stakeholder issue, some co-designing and tinkering are needed. But they are absent in this exercise.


Little India Riot report: Again, the PAP government sets up an inquiry committee. It is again a Submitting.  The Little India Riot    
is a complicated issue and involves immigration, population, treatment, psychology, living condition etc.  The report fails to consider open and non-riot views.  It fixes itself into the Submitting box.


Yale-NUS college: This liberal college is again led by the government. The format and organisation is different from Yale in USA. It has a chance to move from Submitting to Tinkering - open environment.  However, under SG50 model, it remains in a government-led and closed environment as politics is only allowed within the campus.   


There are too many examples of Submitting under SG50. Control of mainstream media, Population White Paper, Committee on SMRT strike, NTUC, PA, RC, CCC,  Nominated MPs, election boundary redrawing, NDP, Chingay Parade, school advisory committee, etc.  All these look efficient but are they productive and effective? They make contributions led by the PAP government in a fixed environment. This is the so-called success model of  the SG50 - a box of group thinking.   


In paper, we do see some relaxes in Tinkering and Co-designing. For example, Hong Lim Park is the only place that Singaporeans can have legal protests. However, one will need to apply for a permit and the government can still suspense the activities there.   


We may find private-led activities by some foundations making contributions in Co-designing. For example, Tsao Foundation, Lien Foundation, Shaw Foundation,  they are engaging and promoting social benefits/goods.  However, they have to work under the fixed environment, perhaps some guidelines too. They will not venture into Collaborating.  


The PAP government in many ways is against Collaborating.  Here, there are alternative views or views different from the government. Social media is part of the digital world and new media. The PAP government and their leaders are banning or charging netizens, like ‘To Singapore, With Love’, The Real Singapore, bloggers, Amos Yee, etc.


There are four segments of co-creation contributions. Submitting is the PAP government comfort zone. They are discouraging Tinkering and giving instructions to Co-designing.  Collaborating is the activity that they want to ban, charge and discipline.   


This is the current picture of co-creation. Do you think this can last forever? This is like an airplane flying with one engine.  We must turn on the other three engines to release our potential by having more citizen engagements.   


Outdated PAP model (1).jpg


#1

https://globaltrends2030.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/global-trends-2030-november2012.pdf

Comments

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...