There
is an article in the ST on 28 Apr by the Eddie Teo, the Chairman of PSC on the
ethos of a bygone era, the things that the Civil Service breathed and lived by.
The story of the Civil Service is best summarized by what Eddie Teo said in
these paragraphs.
‘There
was already a strong ethos of incorruptibility. I recently met Mr David Rivkin,
President of the International Bar Association, who asked how our ethos of zero
tolerance for corruption was imparted to, and sustained in, the public service.
I told him there had been no training classes or brainwashing sessions.
But
public servants watched and followed the examples shown by our political
masters. We were incorruptible because
they were incorruptible. We saw that they lived simple, frugal and
unostentatious lives and dedicated themselves totally to nation building and
improving the lives of Singaporeans. All the older public servants who worked
closely with our pioneer generation political leaders will have stories to tell
about their frugal habits. To people like Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee,
there was no such thing as work life balance. Work was life, and life was
work.’
These
few paragraphs sum up the ethos and philosophies of a time not too long ago
that seemed strangely different from what it is now. And it is only a couple of
decades apart. The difference in ethos and values and the motivations of the
Civil Servants are simply glaring. And they lived and work and developed a new
ethos by the living examples of the political masters today.
Though
apparently the message of an incorruptible, merit based and impartial Civil
Service is still there, the essence and practices are starkly different from
the days gone by. Indirectly Eddie Teo
touched on the new values and aspirations of a new generation of people that
looked at life differently and wanted to live life differently and these would
and must affect their work style and ethos as civil servants. Affluence and opulence are the new
aspirations and wide income gap is good as it allowed the top to indulge in the
decadence of wealth and an extremely good life of plenty.
What
makes the new civil servants today are greatly influenced by the affluence of a
better time and also by the examples they see in their political masters. They
follow the leaders and whatever the leaders do would and must rub down on them.
The civil servants of today are not the same as the civil servants of yesteryears,
crafted by a confluence of changes from many dimensions. The aspirations are not similar and the ethos,
have they changed?
Policies
and political decisions were and are made by politicians. Civil servants are
now expected to defend political decisions, in a way compromised to take sides
with the politicians. This is a big diversion from the past when the political
masters were confident to take a stance and make their own defence.
The
emerging problems facing civil servants today is the possibility of a change of
political fortune and new political masters on the horizon. How would such a
change affect the impartiality of civil servants, their loyalty to party versus
dedication to the service of the people, and their tenure of service? Would it
affect the ethos of the Civil Service? A relatively less politicized civil
service like the British system would provide better continuity than a
politicized civil service that would have to go with the flow of political
realities, serving the wrong masters of the land. They would have difficulties
to stay relevant and remain in the Civil Service when the political masters
changed. They are now in the same sampan as the political masters, to float or
sink together.