On 31 March 2005, Mr Lim Siong Guan stepped
down as Head of Civil Service. On 1 April 2005, The Straits Times
ran a feature interview with Mr Lim. In the 90-minute interview with
The Straits Times , Mr Lim talked about his significant moments
in the Civil Service, working with new, young ministers, the principles
he abides by, etc.
Challenge magazine brings
to you a special exclusive with the full transcript of the interview.
The interview gives a glimpse of the man behind “A Line For
You”, his experiences in the past 36 years in the Public Service,
and his take on the road ahead for the Public Service .
NEW COLUMN
“Perspectives” is a new column in Challenge
magazine. It brings to you the views, ideas and thoughts
of leaders in the Public Service. This instalment kicks
off the series. For insights into more prominent leaders,
look out for this space!
(Click on the question to read his answer.)
ST:
Looking back on your 36 years in the Public Service,
what are some significant moments for you?
A:
I’ve always said, especially
to the younger people joining the Service, that the
real value you give to the Service is what remains
after you leave.
The test of value is what you leave behind, what is
still there after you leave, because the organisation
and the people think it’s really important and
stays with it.
What you do while you’re on the job is important,
but that is not the most valuable contribution you
make.
What you need to do is to create the culture, the
environment and the structure so that there is a sustained
capacity to continue and to succeed.
By capacity I do not refer to the content of particular
policies, but to the ability to continually produce
good ideas, good policies, to implement them well,
to question current policies and to strike in new
directions when called for.
As an example of what I refer to as real value, I
look back with satisfaction at the Ministry of Defence
Productivity Movement which I started; I think it
is still running, though modified and updated with
time.
One idea builds on another. What I introduced as the
PS21 (Public Service for the 21st Century) movement
in the Public Service was developed from what I had
done in MINDEF: instil a culture of service excellence,
where everyone is asked to think all the time of how
they can improve in what they are doing.
Similarly, introducing the idea of “Thinking
Schools, Learning Nation” in the Ministry of
Education involved empowering schools, and principals
on the ground, to make decisions that are best for
their students.
ST:
If you were a young man all over again, would you
have chosen to be in the public sector?
A:
That’s too hypothetical for me.
The fact is that I needed a scholarship to go to university.
So I was bonded. But the bond has never been a problem
for me. Many interesting jobs came my way.
I was given the chance to be General Manager of Singapore
Automotive Engineering (now ST Automotive) at 25.
It was doing maintenance of military vehicles. How
many young people could get that kind of break?
The critical thing is to take every situation as a
learning opportunity. And you must be willing to have
courage and try, and learn as you go.
I tell young officers: don’t be too fussy about
the jobs you want to do. You can only choose what
you know. There are lots of interesting things in
areas you don’t know.
As far as I’m concerned, motivation is an attitude
of learning and doing all you can in any situation.
ST:
Are there any other career highlights?
A:
I was the first Principal Private Secretary to then-Prime
Minister Lee Kuan Yew for three years, in 1978 to
1981.
No one knows what the job is. You go down there and
you define the job. And one of the things I was roped
in to do was to be on Dr Goh Keng Swee’s team
to overhaul the education system.
Would I choose to join the Civil Service all over
again? Knowing now what influence I can have in building
up the Public Service, making things possible in organisations,
contributing to the lives of the people in these organisations,
yes, I certainly would.
ST:
Who are some of the people that you have worked with
who have made the greatest impact on you?
A:
There have been many. I see the postings I have
gone through as great learning opportunities. Sometimes
you learn what to do; sometimes you learn what not
to do.
There was no formal mentorship process, but one person
whom I would say had a big influence on the way I
think about leading organisations would be Dr Goh
Keng Swee.
He was the Minister for Defence when I was a young
officer there. He believed in appointing people according
to their capabilities, in giving them opportunities,
in taking chances. He was thinking of new things all
the time, constantly challenging us on what we’re
doing today. I learnt a lot about administration,
concentrating on what the critical things are, and
being able to communicate the key ideas.
He was very strict about standards and getting things
done well. He had the rule, for example, that draft
minutes of meetings must be on his table within 24
hours. There was one time I submitted after 26 hours.
He said: “I’ve forgotten the points. I
can’t clear the minutes.’’ It’s
tough, but you learn quickly.
ST:
Is that [24-hour rule for clearing meeting minutes]
a standing rule in the Civil Service?
A:
I don’t think so, but it is my rule.
Wherever I go there is the 24-hour rule, which has
been modified to 24 hours to clear with the people
attending the meeting, 48 hours to clear with me.
My officers all know the rule.
It is very good discipline. It’s not that you
want to make life unpleasant for people. The minutes
are going to have to get done anyway. The earlier
you do it, the earlier we clarify what exactly was
intended, and the earlier you get the things out to
the people who have to act on the decisions.
Continuing on the question of mentorship, I would
say that the three years I spent under MM when he
was PM was a tremendous learning experience on governance
and diplomacy. He made it a point to expose me to
many issues and, most of all, to explain why he wanted
particular things done rather than simply issuing
the order to get it done.
You see, you can always be a boss who says: ”This
is what I want done. So just carry on and do it.’’
But you can be a different kind of boss who says that
this is what I want done and this is the reason.
Because when you know the reason, you will do things
with understanding. And if there is a better way to
do it, you can suggest it. You cannot improve anything
if you don’t know the reason for doing it in
the first place. The critical thing is to take every
situation as a learning opportunity. And you must
be willing to have courage and try, and learn as you
go.
When you lead an organisation, you are not there because
you have a vision and everybody else are soldiers
to be ordered around to get things done.
You are there to bring together a whole group of people
to have that common dream and that sense of common
purpose. And in order to do that, people need to understand
why they are doing it, why it is a good thing to do,
and as the world changes, they will also know when
they need to adjust.
ST:
What are some principles you abide most closely by
as a civil servant?
A:
I would say attitudes towards people and work. Treat
people with respect, everyone has ability and talent
— look for them and build on them, help people
be the best that they can be, do what is right, mean
what you say, listen, consult, consider, make decisions
in good time, put yourself in the other person’s
shoes. But the demand which is most overriding is
integrity — integrity in relationships and integrity
in work: you must have people who are trustworthy,
whose word is their honour, who do not try to cover
up, who are willing to admit their mistakes and learn
from them. And you yourself must be such a person.
Leadership can be fun and energising but carries heavy
responsibilities for the lives of your people and
the performance of the organisation.
ST:
You’re a very experienced administrator. What’s
it like working with new, young ministers?
A:
The job of the Public Service is delivery of policy.
We can put up ideas on policy changes, but the minister
makes the choices.
No matter how brilliant the ideas civil servants have,
we have to bear in mind that those policies in the
end have to be carried by the political leadership.
Changes in terms of operating policy to help improve
the Civil Service, that’s our responsibility.
But when it comes to changes on national policies,
that is the prerogative of the political leadership.
So long as this relationship is understood by civil
servants, I don’t see why there should be any
problem with older civil servants working with younger
ministers. We have a job to do, and they have a job
to do.
ST:
Given that senior permanent secretaries can be a lot
more experienced and maybe even more politically sensitive,
what kind of leeway can they have to influence the
minister?
A:
It’s a principle of life for me to try to
help people be the best that they can be.
Just like I keep asking, “How can I help the
people in my ministry be the best that they can be,
whether it be by way of experience or postings or
training or just discussing and arguing out with them
their points and my points?’’ I ask myself,
“Why should I also not try to help the ministers
be the best that they can be with information on how
the Public Service works, and staff inputs on policy
options, implementation issues, historical perspectives,
failures in the past, and so on?” But I make
a point of never offering advice or opinion on political
matters.
ST:
And would that also include steering ministers away
from decisions which in your view are not the
right ones?
A:
Civil servants must not be “yes’’
men. If you have a committee of “yes’’
men, we only need one person.
The civil servant who has been thinking about a policy
and its options has the responsibility to put his
views and recommendations to the minister.
If the minister thinks a decision ought to be different
from what is proposed, then we all wish very much
for the minister to explain why he thinks differently.
He has his reasons, just as we have ours.
My operating premise is that reasonable people with
the same bits of information ought normally to come,
more or less, to the same conclusions. So if the conclusions
are different, we need to understand why. Are the
assumptions different? Are the perceptions different?
Are the judgments different?
Until such time that the final decision is made, I
hope very much that civil servants will keep presenting
their views.
But once a decision is made, let’s move on.
There is no need to think that a problem can have
only one solution. So long as a policy has been thought
through and is reasoned and reasonable, I would consider
that a sound decision. I don’t see this in terms
of a win-lose proposition.
As for me all these years, I’ve never found
myself in a position where a minister made a decision
I considered unreasonable, even though it may be different
from what I had recommended.
ST:
There’s a common perception that the Civil Service
is bloated and lacks bottom-line discipline.
True or false?
A:
In the private sector, there’s a bottom-line
that gives immediate feedback. You’ve got shareholders
who sit on top of you and demand their dividends.
You’ve got customers who can walk away from
you if they don’t like your service or your
product. And there are bankers who want to make sure
you can repay their loans.
So you’ve got, in a sense, four pressure points
which we must admit the Public Service, as a whole,
doesn’t have. That is why we have to “artificially”
create the pressure points. Thus we have the discipline
of having to maintain a budget balance: if we tax
less, if we collect less revenue, we must spend less.
We put pressure on budgets by having the across-the-board
2% cut last year, and a further 3% this year.
We have introduced a headcount tax and demanded a
productivity dividend from ministries which go into
a Reinvestment Fund for redistribution to worthwhile
new programmes. We also have the Cut Waste Panel and
an Economy Drive with nearly $500 million in savings
last year.
These are the kinds of deliberate tightness we have
put in the system to drive productivity and new thinking.
We do not separately impose absolute manpower figures:
we let the financial constraints take care of that.
But these external constraints are not enough. We
must at the same time push for internally-driven measures.
This is why the PS21 movement is critical, and we
expect ministries to strive for the Singapore Quality
Class and other national benchmarks of organisational
excellence.
ST:
After 36 years, you still sound enthusiastic about
the Civil Service. Any reason why a young, ambitious
person today with lots of opportunities outside, should
choose a Civil Service career?
A:
If you are looking for work which is meaningful,
which is useful, which is beneficial, which is fulfilling,
you can find it in the Civil Service.
There are three aspects in making a great Public Service.
First, it has to be a great people organisation because
everything runs on the quality and the capacity of
our people.
Second, it has to be a great ideas organisation, anticipating
the future, ready for change, willing to move
in new directions.
And third, it has to be a great action organisation.
This is about execution, being proactive, not just
sitting on today’s achievements but all the
time striving, all the time moving, all the time stretching
to higher standards.
We are not perfect, but we are intent on continually
improving and on being an excellent Public Service
for Singapore and Singaporeans.
Interview transcript published with permission
from Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) — The Straits Times
Photograph of Mr Lim courtesy of SPH — The Straits Times
HIS VIEWS
ON DEALING WITH CHANGE
Mr Lim was the Permanent Secretary for Education from
1997 to 1999. At that time, changes were coming thick
and fast at the Ministry of Education (MOE). Principals
asked for things to slow down. This was what Mr Lim said
to them:
“I told them to treat change like a buffet. A buffet
has all kinds of good dishes on the table. If you eat
every dish like a full meal, you will soon get indigestion
and a stomach ache. The sensible thing is to take only
what suits
you best.
Treat the changes from MOE the same way. They are all
good ideas. But if you implement all of them at one go,
you will get indigestion. Choose what will work best for
your school at this point. Keep in mind the rest, but
leave them aside for the time being.
To ask MOE to slow down the changes is like asking the
chef to stop producing new dishes and just have a few
dishes for the buffet. That will be a poor buffet. And
stopping the flow of new ideas will mean a poor menu for
improving schools.
Treat change like a buffet. You know the need for deep
change. You know you have to keep moving. Take what suits
you at this point. You can think about the other changes
later.’’
