Why Government Services Fails Sometimes? A Singaporean Perspective-March 2012
There has been enough negative press about the state of services provided by our government, governmental agencies or government related companies. It ranges from train, bus services and road congestion in the transportation sector to cost of public housing both in the new and re-sale market in the property segment. Cost of tertiary education and basis of allocation of these highly competitive seats as well as entry criteria into primary schools have also invited comments of all shape and size. Even the environment ministry was not spared for the increase incidence of flooding as well as cost of rental of hawker stalls contributing to escalating cost of hawker food which is quite a staple for most Singaporean.
After thinking hard about the surficial causes instead of the root causes being a practical person with limited resources of an arm chair hobbyist commentator, citizenry is not totally innocent for all these as they have only elected the current government into office in the 2011 general elections including the recent presidential elections where the president was elected to add injury to the whole matter. Did the nation’s consensus and consciousness failed terribly in voting in a stupid and incompetent government and if so, we must live with the consequences until the next election and perhaps beyond as some policies of the current government will outlast their term of office. I can almost hear war drums of the vast majority descending upon me that the election was only fair within the sandbox drawn by the long suffering oops I mean long serving incumbent party and personas of People’s Action Party (PAP) which has been the ruling party since time immemorial since Singapore gain independence. Policies such as electoral boundary, group representation which can distort the electoral results in conveying the will of the citizenry but let’s grow up as no election rules will result in simple majority prevails. However, if we were to use the percentage of parliamentary electoral seats against the percentage of individual votes, the gap seems fairly wide. Perhaps some study should be made about this in Singapore and published as an academic paper from the birth of our nation to the last election in 2011 and see how the empirical information paints the situation.
Causes of Failure
There are very good reasons why government services fail sometimes we must recognise some of these premises before we can be part of the solution for the greater good of society. Being a capitalist at heart and one the believes in minimal government, I have seen fairly concerned and critical about the growth of government, this discourse seems out of place as there is a large element in defence of the government. I have not changed my surname nor DNA.
Firstly is the issue of transparency. Except for a few areas like defence relating to external and homeland security, diplomatic relations and perhaps justified covert operations if any. We sometimes forget about the tremendous constraints, cost associated with making transparency in its various shades of hues from opaque, frosted, tinted to switchable variety On one end of the continuum, where and what I decide to have lunch, is a totally private matter. I do not need to publish my rationale for doing so and whether there were interested party involved in the decision. In all likelihood, there might be an interested party like going down to a café owned by my aunt. On the other end of the continuum, in government decision making, there is a presumption it is rationale, free of conflict of interest and if there are, it is properly declared, and can withstand the naked scrutiny of oversight bodies or the public. Transparency is not binary in practice and it ranges from privacy of private individuals which the government must protect in some areas to private companies for which it need only transparency to a small pool of private shareholders to public listed companies accountable to larger audience of shareholders for which anyone can become a shareholder by paying the requisite market price. When private companies go public, they normally suffer the shocking underwear syndrome and see them retching from their mouths that they now need to declare what type and colour of underwear. For the more liberal male captains of these companies that might harbour or like to wear swanky G strings meant for the fairer sex. Metaphorically speaking.
Universal access is the second plague that I sometimes nickname it the 7Eleven solution. A private business have great latitude in deciding what product and services, when, where and who it decides to do business with. For government services, there is a presumption of universal access for all within bounds of stated level of service like operating hours, grade of service etc. For example, we expect police service to be available to us anytime we need and at the force level that mirrors and exceeds the threat we face on hand. However, when we engage the services of a private security company, the expectation is only for the stated hours and for so many people armed in a certain manner. The private security company could plan their resources based on expected volume of business with some expectation that utilization will not be 100% as demand might not be a linear or so closely correlated to the supply. If demand exceeds supply, the private company can call a stock out situation and not provide the service. Of course there would be many stock out cost to be considered in addition to the short term lost in profit opportunity like longer term customer satisfaction and of repeat customers. However, for the police service, if it fails to respond to any call for service, it risks a major public affairs situation as well as potential political collateral damage to incumbent elected officials. To be fair, the police can only plan their resources based on past records as well as future projections. The journalistic maxim of 1 life too many can result in an over staffed and resourced government services.
One of the commonly cited rationales that some services like certain segment of public transport cannot be privatized because of the need to provide universal access in terms of hours of operations and route to cover unprofitable hours and routes to provide universal access. My challenge is to re-examine the operations of the 7Eleven franchisor/ franchisee model whereby shops are kept open 24 hours a days all year round including new year holidays. This business model has been so successful that its operations is almost global and have even attracted copycat franchisor operating similar models in some countries. Perhaps the Singapore Land Transport Authority (LTA) that is both regulator and licensor of transportation services both private and public should re-consider their current practice of licensing public transport to a handful of companies to operate rail and bus to consider the public suggestion of allowing a larger pool of private small bus operators to be a part of the public transportation services like in Hong Kong which has quite similar population density and size as Singapore. Big buses and rail transportation is not likely to be a good answer to off peak hours as well as less densely populated areas and could actually represent a larger carbon footprint than private cars. Work on the licensing and oversight practical to small private operators and this could well be part of the solution to our current transportation woes than multi-billion dollar funding for more buses, bus lanes and bus stops.
The third item comprehensive planning to me is one of the greater joke. While failing to plan is planning to fail but planning like crystal ball gazing is comprehensive to the extent that is takes into consideration currently known variables and certain reasonable assumptions. Legislators and judges act as if current wisdom as embodied in the constitution/statutes and case law respectively are evergreen. I used to work in healthcare once and know of the need for the health ministry to license clinics and hospitals to ensure that they comply with certain requirements to ensure that they can provide their services safely and this is a very good idea. If a qualified doctor decides to operate a doctor on wheels service providing care to patients only on a house call basis without a physical address, I wonder how his so called clinic can be licensed. It makes sense in land scarce Singapore where rental cost is high and is passed onto patients indirectly. Here I go again getting LTA in the picture as it might be illegal to use a vehicle as a clinic as it is only meant for transportation purposes.
Smart Government
The basis for deciding whether a particular goods or service should be the exclusive enclave of the government or best left to the private sector is a very academic one and I would not want to repeat the wisdom of many before me here. There should be an oversight committee tasked and empowered by the people for the people to make recommendations to parliament. This is to ensure that in areas where the government should be playing a role and is not doing so be brought to task. It would also be empowered to investigate governmental involvement in the economy through various government owned subsidiaries, joint ventures or related companies. If the government needs to invest excess funds in the economy of Singapore, there should be a proper blind trust that does this for the government free of executive over lord or interferences.
Peter Lye aka lkypeter
Safe Harbor
Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.
