Yahoo interviews Yeoh Lam Keong Part 2

Article at Yahoo here.

We all consider Yeoh Lam Keong's views seriously because the guy was credible and had the inside track.

Today the government often preach the 'whole of government' approach. It is not easy to achieve and we only got it episodically. In Yeoh's own words.

He also said more cooperation and communication between ministries could help free up land space for public housing, however. Using the space taken up by an airbase for a BTO project, for example, would require the Ministry of Defence to work closely with the Ministry of National Development, which he said does not appear to happen very often.

The values and culture of the civil service must change. More accurately, the service must walk the talk of their bosses. There is no whole of government solution in sight until one super strongman sits on a committee and so everyone had to pull together to achieve the goals he wants. How often can you do that?

Nobody in this world achieves whole of government approach to every problem. Good luck but I wish I am flat wrong here just as every oncologist wishes his patients will not die of cancer.

Actually Yeoh had nothing new to say. His greatest contribution is offer his credibility to these commonplace views. He is more articulate and organized.

If we go behind the words, we discover something politically incorrect which perhaps only LKY would have the candor to admit: We do not believe in a leave nobody behind philosophy. We run a system where we hope that because losing is painful even fatal, everyone will buck up and make sure they do their part. That is why up to a point LKY could not have Toh Chin Chye or any socialist leaning MP as ministers. These guys will subvert him as matter of their deep personal values and conviction.

So many words had be said and written on such issues but at the heart of it is do we believe Singapore can afford a leave nobody behind philosophy? Do we believe that we can all be winners? Do we believe that human nature is basically caring and unselfish such that we do  not need the heavy cost of failure to stop lazy or feckless people from gaming the system or use it like a buffet? In short do we think that we will do better to abandon tough love?

May be we need split the government into two with different roles and responsibilities. Just as we separate spiritual government which is the religions from secular government. This would be a novel approach in view of how advanced economies are saddled with governments which are failing socially. A new separation of powers which divide up the social roles of government from its other responsibilities.