.png)
Op-Ed: The Challenge of Governing
- Jarred Lim
- Mar 17
- 7 min read
Singapore is well-known for efficiency across the world, but what do people think? Jarred Lim thinks about the challenges of governing in Singapore.
Introduction
It’s common to hear how good Singapore is, whether from the average Joe or online. Look on YouTube and you will find many netizens, in their own languages, commenting on how they want to migrate to Singapore.
Having grown up in Singapore, what they all say definitely has some truth. Unlike Hong Kongers, we have a somewhat more stable housing market. Unlike in the US, we can mostly walk the streets safely at night. Unlike in Ukraine, you don’t have to worry about rockets and missiles over your head, or at least not now.
But Singaporeans like to complain about how this and that aren’t working. Just look at the MRT failures recently and years ago and Singapore was exploding over train faults. Later, when the Economist Intelligence Unit publishes their cost of living indices, we talk about how difficult it is to survive; imagine having to pay more for a piece of paper than an automobile. (Don’t mention the taxes and maintenance, yet.)
So, Singapore is mostly well-governed, at least to me and most outsiders. Is the outcome good, or not? Why?
Good Government
Unsurprisingly, Singapore tops the Chandler Good Government Index. In 2024, it measured whether countries have invested in their public servants, who play a critical role in good governance. Next, it measures whether countries are future-resilient to address changing currents, challenges and crises. Finally, it measures whether countries are actually improving the well-being of their people.
It is clear how Singapore excels in these three areas. There is a wide range of upskilling programmes, including encouraging public servants to take up stints at private companies and at other ministries to see where issues overlap.
We are always on the lookout for future trends, such as developing AI governance frameworks ahead of AI itself, and considering nuclear energy and a remote grid as energy becomes more expensive and renewable.
Finally, our standards of living have been improving, if measured by conventional indicators like our real GDP per capita and Human Development Index.
But governing can become bad just by one standard: its people. “Bad” is a label and is subjective; it’s a matter of unmanaged and unmatched expectations.
The Pampered Singaporean
Let’s face it, Singaporeans are pampered. We tell ourselves we are a small nation vulnerable to all sorts of threats, as real as they are. Yet, we are mostly sheltered from these storms and fail to recognise how good a position we are in.
This is a problematic paradox. Governments understandably implement good policies that serve their national interests. It’s not necessarily that governments want people to know how good they are. The point is, people may only want more and may fail to recognise trade-offs. Worse, they become short-sighted and only interested in the near term, blind to the perils of the future.
Look at our MRT problems. They have been so efficient for so long. One rare fault and everyone explodes. Yes, it is frustrating to catch a low-frequency bus when you are rushing for an important meeting at work. Worse if it’s raining that day. It’s right to expect high standards, but not to have unreasonable ones. To be human is to err, and faults happen occasionally. To blame the system as it is, and demand that because we pay taxes, these systems should not fail, is inherently flawed.
This is telling of a phenomenon, waiting to explode, just like our complaints and tempers. From the GST hike to higher wages, we simply want more.
Less Government?
In many liberal countries, people want less government. They say the government hinders growth with unnecessary bureaucracy. That is probably true for many countries where governments impede the profit-maximising process with red tape.
In Singapore, bureaucratic processes sometimes fail, like in the NRIC and the JTC fiasco. Overall, regardless, they create accountability through rigorous checks and balances, for instance when spending national reserves and ensuring the legitimacy of issuing medical certificates. Red tape helps maintain consistency, but we dislike them where it occasionally fails, forget them when they operate well—as they should.
It isn’t easy to be a policymaker in Singapore dealing with these demands. Singapore needs to deal with these expectations well. A more participatory system might work, or by explaining policies more clearly to its people. Ideally, it’s not just what people should know but why they should bother with its considerations.
Should the government let their hands off and let people struggle? Without suffering, will Singaporeans know how good a situation they are in?
If we do that, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Having a good government is a necessity but is insufficient. It’s about managing expectations and fostering greater empathy in society.
Where Should We Start?
The Government has made nurturing an active civil society a priority, epitomised by the ForwardSG movement. This sounds ironic; an active society nudged by the state?
Regardless, there are good grounds for the ForwardSG movement. For one, a participatory democracy is more robust. Citizens get a greater say in the developmental trajectory of the country. Though not all interests will be fulfilled, the process of consensus-building is arguably what’s more important and effective towards making the policymaking process robust and a nation stronger.
Second, such an intentional strategy engages Singaporeans with policymaking. Together with politicians and expert technocrats, Singaporeans are shown the difficulties and considerations to sustain the modern Singapore. Ideally, people should become more understanding of the policymaking process, specifically the practical realities we are faced with, and the near impossibility of toying around with alternative approaches that might have failed abroad.
Understanding, however, does not imply empathy. Empathy is what is lacking now. The paradox is clearer here—as much as the state can try to nurture understanding, it is limited to tolerance. With good government, we get the most optimal policy choice, albeit with some trade-offs and some having to make sacrifices. However, when other cogs of the system fail, everyone loses it. The pampered Singaporean loses their grace.
Empathy is more nuanced and is context-dependent. It is more than tolerance, requiring a value judgment about issues. Empathy can be nurtured, though I think that is easier said than done.
One area we could think about is metrics. We often compare ourselves to these benchmarks, such as “double-digit growth”, “lowest Gini coefficient in n years”, and “top spot in [metric].” These are valid judgments, but they require us to think about where we are. It creates the idea that we need to meet, if not exceed, these standards. If we don’t, we aren’t exemplifying the Singaporean brand of efficiency.
Of course, these metrics seem inevitable; people still need a sense of whether Singapore is doing better. For instance, for social issues, we don’t want to stagnate on archaic norms like poor social mobility and hierarchies. They give people a sense of comfort that we are improving.
My main point is that empathy can come from knowing that these standards are not everything. Much has been said about the stress of meeting these standards. I think standards remain essential to know whether we are developing as a society. It is how we approach these standards that could be addressed.
Purpose, Not Metrics
Reporting of social progress should attempt to ditch the benchmarks. (Positive) change itself is something to be celebrated. We should focus less on meeting these benchmarks, but on whether we are achieving the original objectives, simply whether we are moving towards the ideal society we want to live in. If it’s about inequality, is inequality falling? If it’s about economic growth in a climate of instability, are we doing enough to give people a sense of security? If it’s about climate, are we doing enough to prevent or, better, reverse apocalypse?
To emphasise, it’s about neither the lowest Gini coefficient, the greatest growth in a decade, nor the first carbon credit agreement signed.
If we don’t meet our original objectives, then reporting should focus on how society can care for those around us, not help or, worse, remember about them. We shouldn’t give aid just because someone else needs it but because we can give aid.
So if we aren’t doing enough to address inequality, we aren’t doing it to meet an ideal index, nor because others need to be pulled out of inequality. It’s because we, as a society, shouldn’t live in an unequal society.
Similarly, if we want strong economic growth, it’s not because we want to do comparatively better than previous years or other countries. We put effort into economic growth because we live in constant uncertainty, and economic growth is one essential way to inject confidence in our economy.
What Now?
Before I end, I want to reiterate that good government remains necessary. A population can form a society, but when there are diverging interests, an institution can help manage these interests for societies to better interact with one another.
As for its people, empathy to address these differences is needed. Empathy can be nurtured in a society, but insufficiently through educational campaigns only. Changing how we talk about issues can be a starting point, for how we talk about them can influence how we think about them.
Let’s be a more empathetic society. Let us move beyond being the first, but being who we are: a Singapore with our kampung spirit.
About the Author: Jarred is a first-year student at the National University of Singapore and is interested in the intersection of politics and economics. Besides writing, he enjoys finding a nice cup of kopi o gao.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article are the writer’s own and are not representative of MAJU’s views. While we make every effort to ensure that the information shared is accurate, we welcome any comments, suggestions, or corrections of errors.
Comentarios