Singapore bolsters its business competitiveness

The Straits Times, Asia News Network, Singapore

Business and wealth creation are in. Staying smug as a nation of public servants and salaried workers is out, or the place could become ossified. To varying degrees, this rendering of Singapore's next evolutionary phase has been made in committee studies, by invited visiting advisers and the Government itself.

Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew has now taken a practical measure of the matter: He says the public service should give up about half of its brightest, the state scholarship recipients, to the private sector after a reasonable tour of duty.

He mentioned six to seven years, about the period of a bond. He sees this as essential in stimulating growth of an entrepreneurial class in a nation of finite talent. There could be interesting outcomes flowing from his comment, made in an interview with Singaporean media. Civil service chiefs would be expected to get cracking fairly quickly.

There could be consternation in the upper reaches of the public sector: The very idea of swopping the cushy, prestigious world of writing policy papers for the unknown hazards of business would not appeal to many.

Remember, Lee wants them to be not executives in suits but sleeves-rolled-up business people -- making things, creating jobs and wealth. There could however be a small coterie in the service who would relish the prospect.

Select officers already are given immersion in the private sector, albeit in state enterprises. But all this still has to meet the defining marketplace test: Do clever bureaucrats necessarily make astute entrepreneurs? Business leaders and aspiring businessmen have on occasion assailed civil servants for being rule-bound and tone-deaf to the dynamics that drive businesses. The two categories of talent and energy are as different as chalk and cheese. Of course, one will never know unless one tests the notion. So there...

But any discussion of a reverse talent flow between government and business will run up against one immutable poser. As demonstrable talent is so scarce to power the nation's globalization phase, is it still feasible for the Government to cream off the best for the public service? The lop-sidedness between the mandarinate and private industry has been obvious for a while.

The professions corner what few bright sparks are left, leaving business... what? The Public Service Commission is the prime recruiter for state duty with its blue-riband scholarships. Private companies are no match for its lure, bar a few acknowledged top-liners such as Shell or Citigroup.

What are the PSC and related state agencies to do about their efficient harvesting? The PSC could reduce sharply the number of scholarships offered, but how would this serve the nation's interests? It could designate a proportionate number of awards for direct entry into business and industry.

But why should taxpayers educate scores of smart young people to benefit the privater sector? A way out, suggested after the furor of some years ago caused by scholarship bond-breakers, is to reduce the bond period to a minimum of, say, two years. But this is still far from satisfactory.

In the end, it could boil down to making the public service less of a cocoon. In some positions, it pays much too well relative to what firms pay. There is security of tenure. Bureaucrats do not face the terrors of market appraisal to the extent found in companies. Advisedly, it is also easier to hide mistakes and survive periods of non-activity. If these parameters of culture can be equalized between the sectors, the spirit of risk-taking will be forced upon the coddled.