KillerPerceptions

GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION - THAT IS ONE ALBATROSS OF A LABEL THAT MANY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE SADDLED WITH AND DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SHAKE OFF. It happens like this: You are the good guy but the bad guy does something awful and the victim blames you because somehow he/she sees you two as "one and the same".

Resolving the identity crisis requires a precise understanding of the Three Killer Perceptions of one's stakeholders.

The first perception is: "I don't care who you are, just get the job done." Until the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) took Virtual Map to court over copyright infringement, the local motorist should be forgiven for not being able to distinguish between an SLA and non-SLA approved street directory. And why should they care? Road map users do not mind whose version they are using so long as it points them to the right direction! Herein lies the challenge for SLA - how does it respond when other private firms try to enter this lucrative business by offering more user-friendly maps and guides? Does SLA see its longer-term role as owner, facilitator, coordinator or equal player?

The second perception is: "Say what you want, you are all the same." It may ostensibly be seen to be in the public interest when the Land Transport Authority (LTA) slapped a hefty $387,176 penalty (a small aside: how did the $176 come about?) on rail operator SMRT following a train accident in January. One common refrain among commuters is: "Aren't they one and the same?" A more cynical view might follow: "Aren't they taking money from the right pocket to pay to the left pocket?" The final criticism is: "Won't the fine be recouped from taxpayer's money?" The challenge for LTA here is to be seen to be impartial yet at the same time accountable.

The third perception is: "If you screw up at the bottom, you screw up the top." Here the case in point is Temasek Holdings' (legally-correct but politically challenged) claim that it operates as a private investment company and that assets within its portfolio are owned by the firm. The view from the outside, however, is entirely different. Economists and fund managers are less concerned with the fact that the Singapore Government does not direct its investment, business or commercial decisions. They are more concerned that Temasek is 100 per cent owned by the Singapore Government through the Finance Minister. Thus, if critics view that sovereign wealth funds lacked transparency or are not used optimally by Temasek, the barometer is not to measure such standards against corporate governance in the business world but the higher calling of public governance which all government agencies are subject to.

The whole-of-Government approach, which is the cornerstone of Singapore's impressive bureaucracy, makes these mistaken killer perceptions a greater challenge for the Public Service to rectify, as they are struggling to balance between their unique identities and that of a wholesome national identity. This, of course, need not be the case. Statutory boards and government agencies are, on the contrary, better off being different in order to be more effective in contributing to the unified whole. But if they are unable to see themselves out of the maze of self and public identity, shouldn't the public be forgiven for wandering and wondering in it?

Note : The views expressed in this article do not represent those of the Civil Service College.