Louis delivered the following speech at Debate on Annual Budget Statement 2017:

Louis: Sir, I am grateful we have a Budget, which is long-term, and one, which is not only about the economy but also our environment, our families, about building an inclusive society and about strengthening community bonds.

I have 27 specific recommendations for the Government and have filed 27 cuts, speaking about protecting the environment, curbing smoking and helping smokers quit, strengthening responsible financing, helping divorcees, single parents and their children, tackling animal cruelty and wildlife crime, improving our rehabilitation process for inmates, strengthening our humanitarian aid, helping domestic workers, helping neglected children, helping stay-at-home mothers, tackling oil spills, enhancing the ElderShield, helping couples with difficulties conceiving, enhancing our ElderShield and helping our IPCs who internationalise.

But the key in our Budget, our policies and all the recommendations we will be making in this House, will be in the implementation. The execution is crucial. A crucial player in the implementation is our public service. This year, I will focus my speech on how we can strengthen our public service.

As fellow Member, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has mentioned, there is no doubt that we have an efficient and corrupt-free public service. My concern is that in the pursuit of efficiency, we have compromised a key value − compassion. In our pursuit to automate most things, we now have a system without a heart. Our aim seems to be to process each case as fast as possible and to follow the book as strictly as possible. Do not deviate, do not rock the boat and do not question.

Unfortunately, many people fall through the cracks when the system is so rigid, when we view things in black and white and where compassion is not exercised regularly enough. There are the famous four words "case-by-case basis" but in reality and based on my experience on the ground, we have to fight with all our might to get that "case-by-case basis".

Not long ago, one of my residents died in very unfortunate circumstances, her husband was remanded and she left behind two very young children. Her sister was thrown into the deep water, while grieving the loss of her only sister and still single, she suddenly becoming a mother of two. She needed help, she needed some compassion. I spoke to HDB on her behalf urging them not to chase her for the mortgage, give her some time to grieve, compose herself for a very difficult next chapter of her life and in any case, both owners of the flat are no longer there.

HDB agreed, but later still sent a letter demanding payment. She came to see me in tears, worried HDB will repossess the flat. I asked HDB why did they do that. The answer was that they did not know the letter was sent as it was computer-generated. Not long after, she received a letter from IRAS demanding tax payment for her late sister.

I appreciate that on paper we are right to demand payment but on compassionate grounds, should we do so, as our fellow Singaporean is trying hard to get back on her feet. Can we not afford to show some compassion? And this is just one out of the many cases I have encountered.

Sir, we have spoken a lot about how we need to adapt to a changing environment, to be creative and to innovate. These are the exact things our public service needs to do as well. We need them to think out of the box. We have now developed a mindset where a solution, which has been used for years, becomes the right solution. We think that if we change, it means we have been wrong all these years and we do not like to be wrong.

I spoke about chickens in Parliament last week, and now I will speak about monkeys. Our response to monkey issues is as "knee jerk" as it can get. We receive a complaint, a trap is laid, a monkey is caught and killed, and we put a tick on the box that something has been done. And in a lot of the cases, that is "case closed".

I was there when an AVA contractor was poaching monkeys from a protected area away from where he was supposed to be trapping monkeys. He was eventually fined. But when a trapper returns to AVA with a monkey, how can we possibly verify that he trapped the correct monkey or even a monkey from the correct location? Does the trapping even help? Professors at our local universities and NGOs have all voiced our concerns and based on science, have concluded that the culling of monkeys actually makes the situation worse.

I asked an officer on the ground why do we do this when science says it does not work. The reply is that, "This is what we have always done. I do not think it works too, but my director told me to do it". There are other ways of managing this issue, we can choose to think out of the box, innovate and choose to address the root of the problem, rather than symptoms of the problem.

Perhaps the easiest way to come up with new ideas is to listen to suggestions from others, to engage the wider community, to create partnerships. I have been to too many dialogue sessions where we talk so much rather than listen attentively, we defend our policies rather than listen to ideas on how we can make our policies better.

We still do sessions where we explain a decision rather than get feedback to make a decision. The cross-island line saga is perhaps the best example of how we should have engaged the wider community and how we should have done sessions to get feedback to make a decision, rather than make a decision and then call for a dialogue. Is this process more tedious? The answer without a doubt is, "yes". But will people feel more engaged, more empowered? The answer is without a doubt, is also, "yes".

Sir, it is not my intention to paint the public service in a bad light, but I have worked with many outstanding public servants in the last 16 years of my life as a civil society activist and the last year and a half as a Member of Parliament. These are a rare breed who devote their lives towards serving Singapore, but I see issues that we need resolve urgently so that we can continue to have an efficient, committed, yet compassionate public service.

Moving forward, I have some suggestions to make. For a start, we need to cut some slack for our ground officers, our frontline staff members who will be the first to detect people who have fallen through the cracks, who can alert us. Many I have spoken to feel that when they bring such cases to their superiors, they are scolded for not following the books. We need to develop a culture where they are not penalised for being different and where they are giving some flexibility when processing cases.

I suggest that all Bills that we debate in this house are put on REACH for extensive public consultation before the First Reading. I suggest that Members of this House are also provided with a report on the suggestions made by members of the public. We should list all suggestions provided, whether we agree with them or not. This is not new and an excellent example is the report done by ECDA published on 20 November 2015 with regard to the Public Consultation on Proposed Early Childhood Development Centres Regulatory Framework, the Bill that we debated just few days ago.

I suggest that senior public servants attend Parliament and listen to the debates so they have a better understanding of the concerns we are raising. Like football, nothing beats watching a "live" performance than reading a report.

I suggested this last year and I will suggest it again. We should release a draft Budget Statement so the public has a chance to make suggestions before we finalise the Budget. I listened to Senior Minister of State Indranee on the radio last week, and there were so many good suggestions on how we can improve the Budget, but of course they were made after the Budget has been cast in stone.

It is a wasted opportunity not to be able to implement some of the really good suggestions to improve Budget 2017. It is a wasted opportunity to just have a one-way conversation. I suggest public servants who draft policies actually go down on the ground and experience different jobs related to their policies. In the past year, I have experienced what it is like to be a healthcare worker, a driver, a Town Council cleaner, a coffee shop cleaner, a police officer, a kindergarten teacher, a cardboard collector, a customer relations officer, a full-time father and in December, a humanitarian worker.

As I had shared on Facebook, it has been an enriching journey, to say the least. And through these experiences I have learnt a lot, seen the struggles they face and witnessed first-hand the sacrifices they have made. And through these experiences, I have seen how we can make the lives of our workers better and where we need to make changes.

I urge public servants to also embark on this journey and see how their policies affect the people on the ground. I suggest we set up more committees like the Animal Welfare Legislation Review Committee and the Active Mobility Advisory Panel. Committees made up of people who are on the ground and who perhaps might even have more experience on the issues than our public servants. These are committees, which give the public servants a chance to listen and work with the community, to come up with new policies and even legislation.

And as pointed out by Prof Tommy Koh last week, I quote, "When we appoint people to boards, we can also appoint challengers who are subversive and who have alternative points of view. That's the kind of cultural change we want to see. It makes Singapore stronger, not weaker".

My last suggestion is for public servants to more work more closely with civil society activists. Engage them, do not be afraid of them, these are people who speak up because they care. These are people who put the welfare of others before theirs and we should embrace this spirit rather than fear it, we should support rather than penalise them. We should work together rather than go our separate journeys, when the end destination might be the same. This fear of engaging them is very apparent when I speak to public servants but I urge them to start the dialogue.

There is nothing to fear. I have been and continue to be a civil society activist. I do understand that I look too fierce sometimes, and so as the Prime Minister requested when he introduced me at the last General Elections, I am smiling a lot more now. In fact, I smile so much that it hurts, it really hurts.

Madam, I trust that the public service will continue to evolve, will continue to improve and will always serve in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans.

In the words of Martin Luther King, Junior: "Everybody can be great. Because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve.... You don't have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love."

Sir, I hope that every public servant has a heart full of grace and a soul generated by love. Sir, I support this Budget.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

(Supplementary Question) Louis: Thank you, Madam. Allow me to seek some clarifications about our Public Service and also make some clarifications.

As I mentioned in my speech, the issue is not only about our public servants but I think, more importantly, about the system they work in. As I mentioned, in our pursuit to automate most things, we now have a system without a heart. So, in the example that I shared, the HDB officer had a heart and wanted to help the resident but the computer did not have a heart and the latter demanding payment was computer generated. That is the problem we need to tackle.

My speech was also drafted in consultation with the public servants who are on the ground and who are frustrated. Hence, my first suggestion, which is from them, which is we need to cut some slack for our ground officers, our frontline staff members who will be the first to detect people who have fallen through the cracks, who can alert us. Many I have spoken to feel that when they bring such cases to their superiors, they are scolded for not following the books.  We need to develop a culture where they are not being penalised for being different. Can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify what steps we are talking to develop this culture?

Mr Teo Chee Hean (The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security): First of all, I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng for supporting our public officers in making his clarification. Of course, computers have no heart; public servants do. And I would encourage him to continue to encourage his officers who work so closely with him to serve his residents together with him.

Louis: I try to make it short, Madam. I do share the concerns. I am thankful for our public servants and I do work closely with them. As I mentioned, they are a rare breed who devote their lives towards serving Singapore.

I just want to add a point which is, as we cut budgets, I hope we can consider the impact this has on individual public servants. I want to share a comment that was sent to me and I will read it out. Madam, it is just one minute. The quote is, "You think I do not want to go the extra mile for my country? I got heart but I got time boh? MOF every year cuts budget. We always kena headcount freeze or worst, headcount cut. Work is ever increasing; manpower decreasing, sustainable? Keep me to exercise compassionate and empathy, you think I do not know? Legislate more support for public officers first then we talk." The clarification is as we cut budgets, can we consider the impact this has on the individual public servants?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: We will continue to provide resources as needed and as available to Public Service to support our officers in the work that they do. And I think as a number of Members have pointed out, this is work that is not just for the public officers, and as I said in my reply, every Member of this House, together with public officers, together with members of the public and VWOs, we all have a role to play too.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Finance whether the 2% cut in the budget caps for all Ministries and agencies from FY2017 onwards will result in hiring freezes or headcount reductions in the public service.

Mr Heng Swee Keat (MOF): The 2% downward adjustment is applied on the budget caps of Ministries and Organs of State to reinforce the importance of spending prudently and effectively. Ministries and Organs of State are provided with (i) budget caps for ongoing functions under the block budget, and (ii) budget for specific projects on top of the block budget. The budget adjustment applies to the budget caps.

Even with the budget adjustment, the total budget of Ministries and Organs of States will continue to grow partly due to the budget for specific projects funded on top of the block budget. Some savings from the budget adjustment will be channelled to projects that enhance service delivery to citizens and businesses.

Agencies can decide for themselves how best to meet their objectives under the adjusted budget. MOF does not prescribe specific measures such as cutting particular programmes, hiring freezes or headcount reductions, because each agency faces a different operating context.

Agencies are expected to prioritise and deliver their programmes and projects in the most effective manner. To manage the budget adjustment, some agencies may expand certain programmes while phasing out programmes which are no longer relevant. Other agencies may maintain the same programmes but use less resources.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the No Wrong Door (NWD) policy introduced in 2004 and the First Responder Protocol (FRP) introduced in 2012 are practised by every Government agency; and (b) how do these two policies ensure public service officers are empowered to fully resolve the public's issues instead of finding the quickest solution to pass the issue on to another agency.

Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): The Public Service strives to adopt a customer-centric approach in dealing with feedback and requests from members of the public. The No Wrong Door (NWD) policy and the First Responder Protocol (FRP) were introduced as part of many efforts to ensure that feedback from the public are addressed quickly and effectively. Under NWD, the agency that receives feedback on an issue not under its purview should identify the agency responsible and ensure that the agency will take up the case, before putting that agency in touch with the person who provided the feedback. If the issue has no clear owner, the agency that receives the feedback will apply FRP and identify an agency with some domain expertise. This latter agency, also known as the First Responder, will promptly resolve the inter-agency request, while the back-end policy and operational issues are being sorted out.

Public officers at the frontline are trained on these protocols. The Civil Service College conducts regular case simulation workshops for frontline teams, to familiarise officers with the procedures and standards. Many large agencies include these requirements as part of their service training programmes, and have also developed innovations to enhance seamlessness. For example, the CPF Board has an internal virtual assistant to help officers provide accurate answers to members' CPF queries and identify the right contacts to help them. Agencies are audited on a regular basis on their compliance with the procedures and service standards.

The Municipal Services Office (MSO), established in 2014 to coordinate municipal issues that span across multiple agencies, is an example of how the Public Service has moved from "No Wrong Door" to "Just One Door". Its OneService app allows members of the public to provide feedback on all municipal issues without having to know which agency is in charge. This is made possible by a backend routing system that allows seamless case referral between agencies based on parameters such as land, issue and asset ownership.

MSO has also worked with partner agencies to establish First Responders in different domains. For example, MSO has brought PUB and the Town Councils together to determine who should serve as the First Responder in different types of water-related issues, so that residents no longer have to face multiple site inspections from both PUB and their Town Council. Other First Responders include LTA for the maintenance of connectivity-related infrastructure like park connectors, footpaths, and footbridges, NParks for public greenery maintenance, AVA for animal-related issues, and NEA for public cleanliness. There are also escalation mechanisms to ensure complex cases or cases with unclear ownership are escalated to the appropriate authorities for prompt action. Collectively, these mechanisms strengthen agencies’ practice of NWD and FRP in the delivery of municipal services.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered the following speech at Debate on Annual Budget Statement 2018:

Louis: Sir, I am thankful for a Budget which is forward-looking and focuses not only on the dollars and cents but, very importantly, also on the heartware of this nation, about caring for others, about looking after those who have helped to build Singapore.

This year, I have 18 specific recommendations for the Government and have filed 18 cuts. These recommendations, however, are not mine but that of members of the public and civil society organisations. Together, we have brainstormed, edited and edited and edited and crystalised these 18 recommendations.

My heartfelt thanks to members of the public and groups such as Architects of Life, Autoimmune Illness Support Group Singapore, Singapore Youth for Climate Action, AWARE and TWC2. I thank them wholeheartedly for being a part of this.

Sir, in my speech last year I spoke about the public service. The public service is the heart of our entire system; they play a crucial role. The success of this Budget and Singapore relies heavily on them and this year, I will again focus my speech on how we can strengthen our public service.

In the past year, I have reached out to public servants through closed door dialogue sessions to better understand their concerns, the difficulties they face and their aspirations. I am grateful that they have shared their views with me very honestly and candidly.

Almost without fail, I will be asked two questions: The first is "Will I get into trouble if I speak up and share my thoughts with you?" And for those we meet, there is a general consensus that people will get into trouble if they speak up in the public service. They fear that they will be labelled as troublemakers, that their bosses will get angry, they fear that it will affect their appraisal and their promotion.

This fear is troubling, extremely troubling. In fact, Sir, after I delivered my Budget speech about the public service last year, there were Facebook comments and I received messages telling me to be careful, I will get into trouble for speaking up too much. My sister was also passing me messages from her friends, telling me to be careful.

I made it a point to publicly say that I did not get into trouble for speaking up, that this fear is mythical. Having said that, this fear of speaking up, whether we want to acknowledge it or accept it, is very real.

A panel of academics and former senior civil servants echoed the same sentiments at a forum last year, "that Singapore needs more people to speak up and challenge authority. They lamented the reluctance of civil servants to pose contrarian views when facing political office-holders".

But Prime Minister's wish for Singapore is that we "be blessed with a 'divine discontent' ─ always not quite satisfied with what we have, always driven to do better".

We do have this "divine discontent" but what we need to work on is ensuring we are able to hear it and that people are not afraid to speak up, that they do not accept the status quo and that they will fight for changes that will lead to an even better Singapore.

This fear of showing this "divine discontent" was also present in my meetings with the public servants. I remember one sharing his views during the meeting, which was contrary to mine and halfway through he stopped and said, "Actually, I’m feeling quite afraid of opposing your views, as you are an MP. And I realise that subconsciously I started my sentence by saying 'With all due respect, Sir', in hope that you will be less offended with what I was about to say".

This culture of being afraid, of keeping quiet, of not rocking the boat is detrimental to the public service, to any organisation and most of all detrimental to Singapore. This culture results in the loss of good ideas, of better ways of doing things and the loss of good public servants.

As Prime Minister has so rightly said, "I try not to surround myself with "yes, Sir" men. That is important because if all you have are people who say "three bags full, Sir", then soon you start to believe them and that is disastrous. You need people who have their own views, whose views you respect, whom you can have a productive disagreement with, and work on ideas which you might not have come up with, or who improve on ideas you had".

We need to make sure we do not have a public service filled with "yes, Sir" men and women. To demolish this culture, we need to break our entrenched processes and bureaucracy. The same entrenched processes and bureaucracy Minister Ong Ye Kung spoke about at the Public Service Conference in 2017. We urgently need to cut the extremely long red tape that may be frustrating not just for members of the public but also our public servants.

One suggestion from the public servants is a revamp of the appraisal system, which they feel prevents them from speaking up. I suggest that we redesign the public service appraisal system by studying the 360 appraisal review used by the private sector in MNCs like Google and Alibaba.

This will allow employees to review and grade their direct managers, resulting in a holistic 360 review, instead of just a one-way top-down appraisal system.

We do have some 360 appraisals currently but I understand that this is not regular and does not seem to include all public servants. Deputy Prime Minister Teo had said that "leaders receive 360 degree feedback on their leadership qualities when they attend milestone leadership development programmes".

Again, many public servants I have spoken to fear a bad appraisal if they speak up, oppose their bosses' views and challenge the status quo. Hence, they do not speak up although their suggestions may in fact improve the lives of their fellow countrymen. This current appraisal system does not incentivise risk-taking and innovation, and I suggest we change it. Urgently.

And so that is first question I am asked, "Will I get into trouble if I speak up and share my thoughts with you".

The second question is, "Even if I meet you and share my thoughts, nothing will change so what’s the point".

The second question to be honest is much more troubling than the first. It shows that these public servants have given up. They are thinking: why care? Why try, then get frustrated and then get upset for nothing?

We are in danger of becoming what Calvin, in the comic book Calvin and Hobbes, said, "If you care, you just get disappointed all the time. If you don’t care, nothing matters, so you are never upset".

We need to make sure that, one, we make it easier for public servants to voice their concerns and, two, make sure that we follow up on the concerns they raise. We need to ensure they feel empowered.

Some public servants I met also told me directly that it is almost impossible to feel motivated to do more because mediocrity is rewarded. Status quo is a prized possession. They want to make a difference, which is why they joined the public service, but they do not feel empowered to do so.

Through these meetings, I also learnt that each Ministry or Statutory Board functions differently. Some public servants shared that they have regular dialogues with their CEO and Permanent Secretaries. They have pigeonhole sessions where they can share their views openly.

Moving forward, we should continue this open and transparent practice of having all-hands staff meetings frequently, where all levels of public servants have direct communication channels with senior management. This should also be made available to all public servants, not just in some Ministries or Statutory Boards. I also suggest that we have an internal Quality Service Manager (QSM) within Ministries and Statutory Boards.

We are all aware of the existing roles QSMs play. They focus on external feedback from members of the public. I suggest we put in place internal QSMs to follow up on feedback given by public servants and similar to how we handle public feedback, they ensure that the feedback is looked into and the loop is closed.

They will help give our public servants a voice and ensure that their views, feedback and suggestions are looked into so that the public service is strengthened.

Sir, whatever I have shared here is what I have heard directly from the public servants themselves and is perhaps not new. These sentiments are already in the public domain and let me share parts of what Joanne Poh wrote a few weeks ago, in a post entitled "Civil Service: The Ins and Outs of the Iron Rice Bowl", where she provided advice on whether a career in the civil service is for you.

She said, "While there are many perks of working in the civil service, be prepared to work in an environment that some find stifling. There tends to be a very strict top-down hierarchy where things are done 100% by-the-book, so if you’re a young upstart who’s dreaming of doing great things, be prepared to know your place, shut up and just do what your bosses tell you to.

Some people are happy just to be quiet and do as they’re told in exchange for a stable job with good pay and perks. But if you’re the type who wants to be a superhero and change the world, you won’t find the outlet you seek in the service. It’s ironic that MPs are calling for civil servants to be 'less rigid' and to 'think outside the box'. Recently, MP Dr Lee Bee Wah in an interview even suggested that civil servants give 'cut and paste' answers. Ask any young civil servant and they’ll tell you that their superiors frown upon those who speak up or try to introduce fresh ideas".

Sir, we urgently need to change this perception, change this system, recognise that we need to empower our public servants and ensure that the public service attracts superheroes and people who want to change the world.

We have called for the public service to innovate. And Minister Ong told public servants that, "The main obstacle is ourselves".

It is indeed. We and by we, I mean us in this House and the senior management in the public service need to make sure that our public servants work in a system where everyone can speak up and where everyone can be heard.

Sir, let me end with a quote as always. In the words of Napoleon, "The world suffers a lot, not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people".

Our public servants are good people. As I shared in my Budget speech last year, "These are a rare breed who devote their lives towards serving Singapore".

But we now need to make sure that they do not work in a system where they feel they need to be silent, where they feel they need to be "yes, Sir" men or women and where they feel that nothing will change even if they speak up. Sir, I support this Budget.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on Improvements to the Public Service at Committee of Supply 2018.

Louis: Sir, in my Budget speech, I spoke about how we can improve our Public Service and made suggestions. Can PMO consider implementing a 360 appraisal review system for all public servants? Can PMO consider putting in place internal QSMs to look into and ensure that feedback from public servants are looked into? Can PMO also ensure that all public servants have direct communication channels with the top management through regular and frequent all-hands meetings and through pigeon-hole sessions?

We should also better recognise public servant contributions and skills beyond their formal academic qualifications. And we need to ensure they work in an environment where they can develop and apply rules in a more flexible way, so as to better serve Singaporeans.

Sir, no system is perfect. We can always improve. I thank Minister Heng for sharing that public servants working under him have no fear of speaking up. I hope that this is the same for all Ministries and Statutory Boards and I would be glad to be proven wrong in saying that public servants fear speaking up.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (The Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills)): This brings me to Mr Louis Ng’s question. In fact, during the Budget debate, Mr Ng expressed concern that there is a culture of compliance, public officers dare not speak up for fear of getting into trouble, and they gave up trying to improve things because such efforts would be in vain and, therefore, some of them say "Let's stop caring".

Mr Ng may not be aware, but the Public Service is undergoing a major transformation. An exercise has started in 2012 in order to serve the public better and be ready for the future. And it is self-initiated, demonstrating the longstanding ethos of serving with heart and commitment, and always striving to do better for Singapore.

The Head of Civil Service has called on public officers to have a "constructive discontent", dissatisfied with the status quo and wanting to do better. I have urged the service to be bold – "think big, start small, act fast".

This deep change cannot happen if the Public Service does not welcome ideas from its own officers. As Mr Ng has acknowledged, many Permanent Secretaries and CEOs engage staff directly to hear them out. And I agree with him – there ought to be across-the-board practice. In fact, all agencies today conduct regular employee engagement surveys, and many carry out other organisational development initiatives. One of which is regular 360 degree feedback, to better develop our Public Service leaders.

We have also put in place a system such as the Public Sector Transformation Award to recognise officers who display constructive discontent, and make the effort to effect transformative change. We have also recently incorporated into the bonus system a mechanism for agencies to specifically recognise officers for their innovation and enterprise.

Notwithstanding all these efforts, like all big and complex organisations, when there is change, there will be those driving it, those supporting it, those worried about it, those wanting change in a totally different direction and some resisting it. It is not just the Public Service; this happens in every organisation.

We are determined to succeed in this exercise, and overcome the challenges and obstacles. The main obstacle is ourselves – Mr Ng and Mr Kok Heng Leun quoted me on this in their speeches during the Budget debate – thank you for that. But the next question is: if you accept that the biggest obstacle is ourselves, the next question is: who does "ourselves" refer to? And the answer really is: it starts with me.

And so for me as the Minister, I constantly have to ask myself: am giving policy directions that are bold enough, clear enough and empowering enough for my staff? For a Permanent Secretary or CEO, he will ask if he has built an effective organisation with the forward-looking culture, that can embrace change. For a Director, he will ask if within his area of responsibility, he has sufficiently made improvements, make Public Service more effective, service the public better and empowered, motivated and rallied his troops, the people reporting to him. And for an individual officer, he will ask whether he has acquired the skills to do the job better and serve the public better.

If the starting point is that everyone else is an obstacle except yourself, then I say you need to care more about doing your work and doing your part, recognising that there are pros and cons to every proposed change, and that effecting change involves patience, persistence and a hard slog.

Mr Louis Ng, although he is not a Public Service officer, as a Member of Parliament (MP) and a public figure, you can do your part too. If some civil servants tell you they dare not speak up, you can assure them that from your own experience you have always spoken up and never got into trouble.

If they feel the system does not allow them to make a difference, ask them what it is that they want to change. If it is a philosophical shift in Government policy, like selling land to pay for healthcare costs, then you have to explain to them this is not the policy of this current Government. If it is something that makes things better but their immediate supervisor is not supportive, then inform their Permanent Secretary or the Head of Civil Service, or have a word with me, and I will see to it.

Where the Public Service has fallen short, it will address the problem. But when generalisations that tar the entire service with the same brush are made in public, and worse, further spread through media, it does not do justice to our officers. It discourages and undermines improvement efforts. So, I say to Mr Louis Ng, be part of the change, work with and encourage the Public Service as it strives to transform itself to build a better future Singapore.

Assoc Prof Dr Muhd Faishal Ibrahim, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Patrick Tay asked a very pertinent question – how the Public Service can look beyond paper qualifications, to recognise skills and competencies. And I believe Dr Teo Ho Pin asked that question too.

This has important relevance to the SkillsFuture movement. We want to encourage Singaporeans to uncover their passions and aptitudes in a diverse range of skills, and master them through lifelong learning. We want a meritocracy of deep skills, not one of past academic results. The behaviour of employers play a big part to engender this culture.

Hence, the appraisal system in the Public Service is based on performance, and demonstration of skills and competencies. A public officer is recognised based on his contribution and delivery of results, with past academic results having no bearing.

Louis: Sir, I thank Minister Ong for responding to my Budget speech. Can I ask if the 360 review will be made available to all public servants and how regularly this will be done? Can Minister also respond to the idea of an internal QSM? I do thank Minister Ong also for sharing that all public officers can speak up without fear of getting into trouble. And I am keen to be part of the solution which is why I spent the past year meeting, listening to and working with public officers and now share their concerns with everyone. I will take Minister Ong's advice and will be more careful about generalisations of public officers.

Mr Ong Ye Kung:The 360 degree feedback, today it has been implemented quite broadly across senior officers. Public Service Division, in the next two, three years, will extend it to all senior officers. But 360 is largely a developmental tool − 360 feedback appraisal. So, I do not think it is useful to extend it to all public officers but, certainly, to senior officers who are leaders, who have to work with people around them − up, sideways, down − this is useful for them.

But the issue is not really 360 feedback as a mechanism but to make sure that Public Service and also the individual agencies have a culture of wanting to do better, embracing change, prepare to be innovative and to have people who do this in the right spirit. That when there is big change, they try to support it or if they cannot support it, they get out of their way or if they have totally different ideas be able to voice them up, debate, come to a resolution and then support the direction forward. I think this is really about building that right organisation culture.

So, likewise, it is not really about whether you have internal QSM or not but whether the organisation believes in engaging its people and I do think − I agree with Mr Louis Ng –that all public agencies ought to engage their people. All public agencies today do conduct staff engagement surveys periodically. And in that process you do have to engage your people. So, this is very much encouraged.

Finally, I thank Mr Louis Ng for acknowledging that making sweeping generalisation statements on Public Service is not helpful. So, let us work together and let us all be part of the change and be part of the transformation.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on Internal Quality Service Managers (QSMs) for Public Agencies at Committee of Supply 2019.

Louis: Sir, last year, I also spoke up last year about the need to provide platforms for public servants to provide feedback to upper management. Further, we need to close the feedback loop so that public servants know that their views are valued and can make a difference in strengthening the Public Service. 

I suggested implementing internal Quality Service Managers within Ministries and Statutory Boards. Minister Ong responded that all public agencies do conduct staff engagement surveys periodically. 

I still meet some public servants who say that they have provided feedback but have no idea if anyone is looking into it and have not received the reply with regard to the feedback that was provided. 

Will the Minister consider adopting common principles and guidelines for the conduct of staff engagement surveys across the Public Service? Will the Minister also consider requiring public agencies to track the feedback received and actions taken in response to the feedback? 

Mr Chan Chun Sing (The Minister for Trade and Industry): Our Public Service cares for our people. Mr Louis Ng asked about staff engagement. PSD currently works with Public Sector agencies to administer a common staff engagement survey across public agencies. The survey enables agency leaders to better understand the areas that the agency is doing well in and what it can do better to help officers. Leaders are expected to respond to the feedback and take appropriate action.

Louis: Secondly, I think in response to my cut as well, he said that Leaders should respond to that feedback provided. But my cut really was about how are we going to ensure that they do and whether we can have internal Quality Service Managers (QSM) to take that role instead to take that feedback given is actually looked into and the loop is closed?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Member's second question is about how do the leaders follow up on their respective agencies when they get the feedback? Well, there are few ways. First, when they get the feedback, I expect them to take actions on their own. And of course all the respective agencies' feedback comes to me and if necessary, I will have a discussion with the respective Permanent Secretaries or the Chief Executives of the various agencies. They know that we take this seriously, they know that I expect them to take this seriously, and if need be, I will let them know.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Government will consider having internal Quality Service Managers within Ministries and statutory boards to follow-up on feedback given by public servants; and (b) if not, how does the Government close the loop for feedback provided by public servants.

Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Public Service proactively seeks feedback from public officers in a number of ways, including through employee engagement surveys, regular pulse surveys, and engagement sessions such as townhalls, dialogues and focus group discussions. We will take in the feedback and make improvements, or launch new interventions to address the aspirations as well as concerns of our officers. We will also communicate these through various internal communications channels both at the whole of public service, as well as at the agency levels.

 Public officers can, and also do, send in feedback to agencies through their human resource divisions or existing quality service contact channels. This includes sending feedback to the quality service manager of the Public Service Division (PSD). The agencies and PSD will follow up to address and clarify their queries, or look into issues or cases surfaced by public officers. For the feedback or queries sent to PSD, we will close the loop with the officers directly, or work with their agencies to provide the responses. There are also internal processes in place at both the agency and whole of public service levels, for officers to report wrongful practices or raise workplace concerns, as well as structured processes to look into these concerns and address them.

 The Public Service continues to look into new ways to engage and obtain feedback from officers, as part of our efforts to maintain a culture of transparency and constant improvement in the service.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)