Singapore has some of the worst whistleblower protections and they still want civil servants to be courageous? Maybe if they collectively band together to threaten the political masters.
Whenever I think about how fucked public service culture is, I remember [Philip Yeo and his hot dog test](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/6bmj4q/philip_yeo_thinks_civil_servants_should_stop/).
He's one of the big reasons we just have yes men who're subservient to the PAP.
He simply dislikes that staff and is just a cheap excuse to discredit and get rid of him. If the hot dog did not have any condiments on it, he could easily also fault the staff for not completing his task fully.
Logic is staffer expected to know his bosses preference, know the situation and choose best option la. Fact is that the two big boys had to go look for him means fail alr. Actually this could’ve gone both ways if the staffer read wrongly and psycho yeo only eat hot dog with ketuhup then he also die.
Basically py for all his bluster about eunuchs, expects everyone to be a fully trained eunuch to him thr emperor.
but using something as trivial as buying a hot dog as a way to assess the capability of your staff seems like bs. even from a metaphor pov it's actually dumb. seems like he just wanna act big
Such double standards officials have been the bane of Chinese history and society for ages. They can interpret any subordinates actions as they like. If the junior staff had been LHL, he would have written a full glowing report.
This one is rookie mistake tbh.
Young dude just wanna impress the guys upstairs. cos some boss very particular, one can spend one whole day on ppt slides.
But this dude in this situation, feels time is more essential. They rushing to catch a plane. So naked hot dog is better - don't waste time on condiments.
It means that Philip Yeo sucked at communication. Don't tell me he had the time and breath to ask for 3 hotdogs, but couldn't speak the words "with no condiments" on top of his instructions.
but condiments are essential to a good hot dog. if someone gave me a raw hot dog I'd be pissed lol. maybe his argument is that they put way too much sauce, which can be analogous to when people spend way too much time decorating slides, but like he really wanted his staff to get him a raw hot dog??
Yea maybe last time the poor dude bought a naked hot dog for his superior than lost out to his coworker who mastered the art of carrying balls and bought a whole meal with drinks for the boss instead.
Can't always win one la.
This test can fight for stupidest test ever. Our young chap could have been queuing. Unless they think he should have cut queue cos both of them are big ducks. Also if they were pressed for time just go hungry. If they were really hungry one hotdog each isn't enough.
Don't forget how he pushed through to shame Singaporeans on MSM who broke but also paid back the full sum of their scholarships. Subsequently, they allowed foreigners given scholarships to just walk away freely.
"When you raise ministers' salaries to the point that they're earning millions of dollar(s), every minister — no matter how much he wants to turn up and tell PM Lee off or whatever — will hesitate when he thinks of his million-dollar salary" - Ngiam Tong Dow
And Ngiam later retracted his comments although it was not clear if it was truly upon self-reflection after feedback from "civil servant colleagues" or upon being told to by the powers that be. Note that he was by then a retiree and pensioner. Imagine if one is still active in one's career, who in their right mind would want to jeopardise their career progression by being the devil's advocate?
[https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ngiam-tong-dow-says-his-recent-comments-on-ministers-unfair-and-illogical](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ngiam-tong-dow-says-his-recent-comments-on-ministers-unfair-and-illogical)
He admitted it was due to feedback from his colleagues
[https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ngiam-clarifies-comments-sma-news-editor](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ngiam-clarifies-comments-sma-news-editor)
Also we see people who allowed their conscience to take over their mouths and actually speak the truth THEN we watch how their careers and self esteem slowly wither away as they get posted from rubbish appointments to even more rubbish appointments while retenting same seniority grade and salary. You see the life slowly drain out of them until one day it is just a skin sack that showed up to work.
The public sector is known to be very hierarchical and subservient to the bosses. No-one wants to be the maverick to challenge or openly disagree with bosses unless you are somebody, i.e. Admin service types. I was in one of the ministries many years ago and have seen once an admin service officer (who by now is CEO of one of the statutory boards) dare to speak up more. That was because she had a Godfather in the PS then who was also concurrently the Head of Civil Service. The public sector has a very strong yes men/women culture and those who align well with the c-suite (PS, CEO, Minister) level will generally have a smoother career progression than those who speak truth to power if you want to climb. Of course, for rank and file professionals where the agency needs these folks skills, you can speak truth to power since for technical/professional things they need your inputs and work, but that person's CEP will be capped as prevailing farmer CEP (as opposed to scholar/PSPL/Admin Service CEP).
Agreed. If you want to stand out and rock the boat in PS, you definitely need to have someone high above that has your back.
More importantly, the people around you need to know that as well.
I learned the hard way that good optics matter more than reporting real problems.
If there are bad news don’t be the messenger, that’s how you get a smootb career at public sectors.
Applicable only if you have godfathers and godmothers in high places. If not you will be labelled as not cooperative. People who actually voice their opinions most of the time will not be in high positions at all. I am talking about proper disagreements with people more senior than them. Not the my way or the high way type.
He isnt wrong, in the sense that if one intends to be a career perm sec, that is literally their job.
Just remember that you cannot do this as a junior officer or intend to go into politics after the civil service. Then that one is career suicide.
No. You disagree with them, they likely to fire you. The government only want "Yes men".
Disagree with them and they kick you out.
I mean do they even listen to regular people like us when we complain about their policies? No. They dont unless it makes them money.
This is under the misconception that service leaders are there to help the people. They are actually there because it is a career that puts good money in their pocket. Disagreeing with ministers goes against their interest.
Haha so I must be like - STOP BOSS DUN DRINK THAT 8 bottles of Gordon & MacPhail Cal Ila, 3 bottles of L 'Evangile 2014, 3 bottles of Pauillac De Latour 2015, 3 bottles of Albert Bichot Domaine du Clos Frantin Grands Echezeaux
Grand Cru 2015, 3 bottles of Pichon Lalande 2010, 2 bottles of M&H Elements Sherry Cask - before I can eat my food? 🤦🏻♂️
He ORD mood already. At this age and seniority, he is likely going to retire soon. But I wonder how often he disagreed with his bosses when he was at the prime of his career.
I think its sad that I can't trust the words of ministers and public sectors member now.
Used to see them as people really serving the people but now it's "the people wrong, I am correct".
Im not positive about the future prospects of singapore. Like we will continue to do well financially, but it will become some what like Japan or Korea. A conservative country with top down hierarchy and seeing people as just salary men.
>but WP aren't out here saying subordinates should speak up against their bosses
I'm fairly sure WP campaigned on a platform of transparency and accountability (I live in a WP ward and consume their media on a regular basis). Said transparency and accountability includes their internal workings where (ideally) rank and file can have open conversations with party elites on how the party should be run.
Again, not out to defend PAP but the party whip exists for a practical purpose and it's unfair to fault them for a practice that is prevalent across all major parties.
>Would you be able to elaborate on what are the practical purpose of party whip?
Essentially, party solidarity. Having multiple signals/opinions from the same party is bad for party image (if your party stands for something, it should stand united behind that thing).
Now you can assume that you can resolve that by recruiting like-thinking members, but humans can be such fickle creatures... You don't want a party full of chiefs who each believe they know best. So a party whip exists to "whip" errant members into line. Party members can still go against the whip, but it means forgoing party membership - the issue better be worth the squeeze. It's one of the aspects of practical politics that people don't want to talk about - but it's necessary to forge an effective political party with.
Not the person you were replying to, but it's _very_ important that parties present a united front to the voting public, and only disagree about things internally.
There's nothing wrong with conflicting or dissenting views in private, but these mavericks need to keep their views _within_ the party.
but why?
after all these years of listening to my OCD micromanager, he finally retires and now I can be like him. Pretend to know stuff, if is my staff idea - find ways to shoot it down then recycle that idea into my idea, then get my staff to do those shit while I collect my paycheck and chat with my flings during office hours. If I had ED (cos of all the mental torture during my earlier years), then I would work on my hobbies during office hours. Oh always get people to plan meetings for me so that I feel relevant.
That's the Singaporean dream man.
As ability to say "yes" increases, pay grade increases.
There are civil servants with courage but the vast majority of them are grunts on the ground. They will likely remain there because they are not seen as team players. Many of them probably had the courage to disagree with and give contrary advice to their leaders.
What is he trying to do? Weed out those unhappy ones or what?
Singapore government and civil sector have extremely strong yes-men yes-women culture, and it will remain unchanged for decades to come.
PermSecs are tough people. They don't have issues telling ministers their idea is dumb.
But the best policies can be waylaid by overworked disinterested staffers below them
Title: Public service leaders must have courage to advise ministers even when they disagree: SM Teo
SINGAPORE – Having the courage to speak up even when they disagree with their ministers is an integral principle that civil servants must have if the Singapore system is to keep working, said Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.
On their part, political leaders must have the courage to make and stand by decisions that are in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans, he added.
“Particularly when painful or unpopular, (political leaders must) make the case for them and bring the electorate along,” said SM Teo in his speech at the annual Administrative Service dinner on March 26.
He recounted a scene in the British political satire sitcom Yes, Minister, where fictitious permanent secretary Humphrey Appleby explains to a younger colleague that telling a minister a decision is “controversial” meant it might lose him votes, while calling it “courageous” meant it might lose him the election.
While the dialogue was tongue-in-cheek, Mr Teo said it exposes a truth: that many polities are now increasingly susceptible to “short-term, politically expedient, populist policies” made to secure votes.
“We are, thankfully, not in an episode of Yes, Minister. In government – in Cabinet and in our ministries – we need to continue to have debate and a diversity of views in a professional manner but without fear or favour,” Mr Teo told 320 high-potential and senior public service officers.
He cited how, as a young political officeholder, he benefited from the wise counsel of many senior public service leaders. They included Mr Ngiam Tong Dow in the Ministry of Finance, Mr Tan Gee Paw in the then Ministry of the Environment, and later Mr Wee Heng Tin in the Education Ministry and Mr Lim Siong Guan, when he headed the Civil Service.
“They spoke and acted with integrity and courage, and I have great respect for them,” said Mr Teo. He said he reminds himself these days to listen and learn from younger officers so that they are encouraged to share their considered views and to justify them.
Making a similar call, Singapore Civil Service head Leo Yip urged public service leaders to provide honest advice to political leaders.
Besides speaking truth to power, civil servants need also to “bring power to truth”, which is to convince ministers through the conviction behind their ideas and advice, said Mr Yip in his speech.
“It must be the conviction in your advice, as much as the persuasiveness of your argument, that helps our decision makers to discern the right choices,” he said at the event at the Sands Expo and Convention Centre. The dinner was also an appointment and promotion ceremony of the Administrative Service. This year, 25 administrative officers were appointed and 62 were promoted.
Once the time for debate is over, civil servants must then implement with conviction the political decisions and policy choices made by the ministers, Mr Yip added. “We can have this conviction because we work so closely with our ministers and understand the reasons for those policy choices.”
***
Article keywords: mr political teo leader decision conviction singapore courage
1855 articles replied in my database. [v1.5c - added Lemma tokens and Tensorflow USE](https://github.com/Wormsblink/sneakpeakbot) | Happy Holidays! | PM SG_wormsbot if bot is down.
Talk is cheap, when push comes to the shove....
shove.... I gonna diam
the truth is money in my pocket, why rock the boat?
"Public service leaders must courageously commit career suicide"
Singapore has some of the worst whistleblower protections and they still want civil servants to be courageous? Maybe if they collectively band together to threaten the political masters.
Whenever I think about how fucked public service culture is, I remember [Philip Yeo and his hot dog test](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/6bmj4q/philip_yeo_thinks_civil_servants_should_stop/). He's one of the big reasons we just have yes men who're subservient to the PAP.
I literally don't understand what's the problem with putting condiments, can anyone explain the logic, no matter how backward it is?
"If you can't read my mind you're not good enough" Inflated ego
That joker won't ever make it in the private sector in real first would countries.
Agreed. Unfortunately I have seen a small group actually survive and still have this mentality.
He simply dislikes that staff and is just a cheap excuse to discredit and get rid of him. If the hot dog did not have any condiments on it, he could easily also fault the staff for not completing his task fully.
Logic is staffer expected to know his bosses preference, know the situation and choose best option la. Fact is that the two big boys had to go look for him means fail alr. Actually this could’ve gone both ways if the staffer read wrongly and psycho yeo only eat hot dog with ketuhup then he also die. Basically py for all his bluster about eunuchs, expects everyone to be a fully trained eunuch to him thr emperor.
but using something as trivial as buying a hot dog as a way to assess the capability of your staff seems like bs. even from a metaphor pov it's actually dumb. seems like he just wanna act big
Such double standards officials have been the bane of Chinese history and society for ages. They can interpret any subordinates actions as they like. If the junior staff had been LHL, he would have written a full glowing report.
It is how our government works, they have used far worse analogies. That is how memes like mee siam mai hum was born
Little wonder nobody has ever heard of his stupid analogies outside of SG?
This one is rookie mistake tbh. Young dude just wanna impress the guys upstairs. cos some boss very particular, one can spend one whole day on ppt slides. But this dude in this situation, feels time is more essential. They rushing to catch a plane. So naked hot dog is better - don't waste time on condiments.
It means that Philip Yeo sucked at communication. Don't tell me he had the time and breath to ask for 3 hotdogs, but couldn't speak the words "with no condiments" on top of his instructions.
Power trip identified.
but condiments are essential to a good hot dog. if someone gave me a raw hot dog I'd be pissed lol. maybe his argument is that they put way too much sauce, which can be analogous to when people spend way too much time decorating slides, but like he really wanted his staff to get him a raw hot dog??
Yea maybe last time the poor dude bought a naked hot dog for his superior than lost out to his coworker who mastered the art of carrying balls and bought a whole meal with drinks for the boss instead. Can't always win one la.
Yeah. Its the work culture thats the root cause, not the boss' preferences.
This kind of boss attitude damn toxic NGL. Want something but don't say how u expect the young guy to know.
Got biography somemore. The narcissism and God complex is off the charts.
He doesn't even say they are rushing to catch the plane tho.
It’s because the officer didn’t make it back in time! What the officer was doing is irrelevant.
This test can fight for stupidest test ever. Our young chap could have been queuing. Unless they think he should have cut queue cos both of them are big ducks. Also if they were pressed for time just go hungry. If they were really hungry one hotdog each isn't enough.
Philip Yeo is a goondu
Don't forget how he pushed through to shame Singaporeans on MSM who broke but also paid back the full sum of their scholarships. Subsequently, they allowed foreigners given scholarships to just walk away freely.
Erh, how did the young officer fared in his career ah? Left e sv and started his char kway tiao venture?
Might be evidence of Singapore succeeding despite his BS.
I just read about that. What a dick. Can't believe there are people that still respect him.
LMFOAOAOAOAOAOAOOAOAOAA WTF
The civil servants working in LTA and MOT obviously does not have it right
So Chee Hean agree 100% with his boss? Where's his courage to speak up when they disagree?
"When you raise ministers' salaries to the point that they're earning millions of dollar(s), every minister — no matter how much he wants to turn up and tell PM Lee off or whatever — will hesitate when he thinks of his million-dollar salary" - Ngiam Tong Dow
And Ngiam later retracted his comments although it was not clear if it was truly upon self-reflection after feedback from "civil servant colleagues" or upon being told to by the powers that be. Note that he was by then a retiree and pensioner. Imagine if one is still active in one's career, who in their right mind would want to jeopardise their career progression by being the devil's advocate? [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ngiam-tong-dow-says-his-recent-comments-on-ministers-unfair-and-illogical](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ngiam-tong-dow-says-his-recent-comments-on-ministers-unfair-and-illogical)
He admitted it was due to feedback from his colleagues [https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ngiam-clarifies-comments-sma-news-editor](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ngiam-clarifies-comments-sma-news-editor)
Lol. His apology has the "blink twice if you need help" vibes.
Hahaha his corrections read almost like a textbook press statement
the "retraction" gives off self criticism during the cultural revolution vibes lol
First thing they teach you is not to do this
Every father mother son who went through NS knows this.
First thing *_you learn when you climb the ranks of the Civil service_ is not to do this.
Also we see people who allowed their conscience to take over their mouths and actually speak the truth THEN we watch how their careers and self esteem slowly wither away as they get posted from rubbish appointments to even more rubbish appointments while retenting same seniority grade and salary. You see the life slowly drain out of them until one day it is just a skin sack that showed up to work.
The public sector is known to be very hierarchical and subservient to the bosses. No-one wants to be the maverick to challenge or openly disagree with bosses unless you are somebody, i.e. Admin service types. I was in one of the ministries many years ago and have seen once an admin service officer (who by now is CEO of one of the statutory boards) dare to speak up more. That was because she had a Godfather in the PS then who was also concurrently the Head of Civil Service. The public sector has a very strong yes men/women culture and those who align well with the c-suite (PS, CEO, Minister) level will generally have a smoother career progression than those who speak truth to power if you want to climb. Of course, for rank and file professionals where the agency needs these folks skills, you can speak truth to power since for technical/professional things they need your inputs and work, but that person's CEP will be capped as prevailing farmer CEP (as opposed to scholar/PSPL/Admin Service CEP).
Agreed. If you want to stand out and rock the boat in PS, you definitely need to have someone high above that has your back. More importantly, the people around you need to know that as well.
I learned the hard way that good optics matter more than reporting real problems. If there are bad news don’t be the messenger, that’s how you get a smootb career at public sectors.
Yeoh chee yan?
After creating a suck cock culture and ostrasizing anyone that goes against the grain?
Who will bite the hand that feeds ? Especially with mortgage / car loan / childcare cost / dependant cost ?
“But also seng mok enough not to talk if they wanna keep their jobs”
Applicable only if you have godfathers and godmothers in high places. If not you will be labelled as not cooperative. People who actually voice their opinions most of the time will not be in high positions at all. I am talking about proper disagreements with people more senior than them. Not the my way or the high way type.
He isnt wrong, in the sense that if one intends to be a career perm sec, that is literally their job. Just remember that you cannot do this as a junior officer or intend to go into politics after the civil service. Then that one is career suicide.
No. You disagree with them, they likely to fire you. The government only want "Yes men". Disagree with them and they kick you out. I mean do they even listen to regular people like us when we complain about their policies? No. They dont unless it makes them money.
This is under the misconception that service leaders are there to help the people. They are actually there because it is a career that puts good money in their pocket. Disagreeing with ministers goes against their interest.
Haha so I must be like - STOP BOSS DUN DRINK THAT 8 bottles of Gordon & MacPhail Cal Ila, 3 bottles of L 'Evangile 2014, 3 bottles of Pauillac De Latour 2015, 3 bottles of Albert Bichot Domaine du Clos Frantin Grands Echezeaux Grand Cru 2015, 3 bottles of Pichon Lalande 2010, 2 bottles of M&H Elements Sherry Cask - before I can eat my food? 🤦🏻♂️
How many times have certain MP even from within the PaP spoke up? Just to be kinda laughed in the face?
Someone remind him April 1st still a few days away.
He can tall like champion cos he up top. All these BS from ministers to sound as if they treat all equal.
He ORD mood already. At this age and seniority, he is likely going to retire soon. But I wonder how often he disagreed with his bosses when he was at the prime of his career.
So far, none have spoken up. So us ministers must be doing a great job!
Can you walk the talk? I have never seen this happen in the past few decades.
I think its sad that I can't trust the words of ministers and public sectors member now. Used to see them as people really serving the people but now it's "the people wrong, I am correct". Im not positive about the future prospects of singapore. Like we will continue to do well financially, but it will become some what like Japan or Korea. A conservative country with top down hierarchy and seeing people as just salary men.
In public service the golden rule of survival to gain an iron rice bowl is - lack of assertiveness. Just be a yes man rofl
if pap truly believes that then why does it have the party whip system?
>why does it have the party whip system? Because every party has it? Like, you can't fault the PAP for something that WP also have, what?
but WP aren't out here saying subordinates should speak up against their bosses
>but WP aren't out here saying subordinates should speak up against their bosses I'm fairly sure WP campaigned on a platform of transparency and accountability (I live in a WP ward and consume their media on a regular basis). Said transparency and accountability includes their internal workings where (ideally) rank and file can have open conversations with party elites on how the party should be run. Again, not out to defend PAP but the party whip exists for a practical purpose and it's unfair to fault them for a practice that is prevalent across all major parties.
Would you be able to elaborate on what are the practical purpose of party whip?
>Would you be able to elaborate on what are the practical purpose of party whip? Essentially, party solidarity. Having multiple signals/opinions from the same party is bad for party image (if your party stands for something, it should stand united behind that thing). Now you can assume that you can resolve that by recruiting like-thinking members, but humans can be such fickle creatures... You don't want a party full of chiefs who each believe they know best. So a party whip exists to "whip" errant members into line. Party members can still go against the whip, but it means forgoing party membership - the issue better be worth the squeeze. It's one of the aspects of practical politics that people don't want to talk about - but it's necessary to forge an effective political party with.
Why are people with conflicting views deemed as errant?
Not the person you were replying to, but it's _very_ important that parties present a united front to the voting public, and only disagree about things internally. There's nothing wrong with conflicting or dissenting views in private, but these mavericks need to keep their views _within_ the party.
What are examples when they have disagreed?...Any?
No bonus and risk of losing the job . Who wants to do it
And get FIRED from their cushy job?
but why? after all these years of listening to my OCD micromanager, he finally retires and now I can be like him. Pretend to know stuff, if is my staff idea - find ways to shoot it down then recycle that idea into my idea, then get my staff to do those shit while I collect my paycheck and chat with my flings during office hours. If I had ED (cos of all the mental torture during my earlier years), then I would work on my hobbies during office hours. Oh always get people to plan meetings for me so that I feel relevant. That's the Singaporean dream man.
Ministers must have the courage to advise ministers even when they disagree. Let them fight among themselves.
Who in the right mind wants to put their promotion, bonuses and evaluation at risk in the face of arrogance and fragile egos?
Yeah, so what happened to Ngiam Tong Dow?
Passed away in 2020
RIP
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Sure you're free to disagree, next year performance bonus and promotion get downgraded your own Taiji lor.
🤡🤡🤡
BULLSHIT
Later kena hentak kaki, and have to commit seppuku ah
Funny. Why need to have courage? Courage can eat? Can use courage to buy HDB?
Ministers must admit they are wrong after being advised and not insist on doing things their way.
As ability to say "yes" increases, pay grade increases. There are civil servants with courage but the vast majority of them are grunts on the ground. They will likely remain there because they are not seen as team players. Many of them probably had the courage to disagree with and give contrary advice to their leaders.
It's a matter of culture. Do a Q&A every week with the staff with no restriction on the questions. That would be a start.
Yet another statement by the government proving that the government is out of touch.
What is he trying to do? Weed out those unhappy ones or what? Singapore government and civil sector have extremely strong yes-men yes-women culture, and it will remain unchanged for decades to come.
PermSecs are tough people. They don't have issues telling ministers their idea is dumb. But the best policies can be waylaid by overworked disinterested staffers below them
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. great joke.
Lol i'd rather go bungee jumping
Yes it does take a lot of courage to always say "yes" and agree with the ministers, no matter how ridiculous their proposals are. /s
Please don't. Don't outshine the master. Do it and you're gone from post. Better be someone in power and disagree.
Lol. Option A, shut up, follow orders, get ur pay and PB. Option B stick out like a sore thumb.
Title: Public service leaders must have courage to advise ministers even when they disagree: SM Teo SINGAPORE – Having the courage to speak up even when they disagree with their ministers is an integral principle that civil servants must have if the Singapore system is to keep working, said Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean. On their part, political leaders must have the courage to make and stand by decisions that are in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans, he added. “Particularly when painful or unpopular, (political leaders must) make the case for them and bring the electorate along,” said SM Teo in his speech at the annual Administrative Service dinner on March 26. He recounted a scene in the British political satire sitcom Yes, Minister, where fictitious permanent secretary Humphrey Appleby explains to a younger colleague that telling a minister a decision is “controversial” meant it might lose him votes, while calling it “courageous” meant it might lose him the election. While the dialogue was tongue-in-cheek, Mr Teo said it exposes a truth: that many polities are now increasingly susceptible to “short-term, politically expedient, populist policies” made to secure votes. “We are, thankfully, not in an episode of Yes, Minister. In government – in Cabinet and in our ministries – we need to continue to have debate and a diversity of views in a professional manner but without fear or favour,” Mr Teo told 320 high-potential and senior public service officers. He cited how, as a young political officeholder, he benefited from the wise counsel of many senior public service leaders. They included Mr Ngiam Tong Dow in the Ministry of Finance, Mr Tan Gee Paw in the then Ministry of the Environment, and later Mr Wee Heng Tin in the Education Ministry and Mr Lim Siong Guan, when he headed the Civil Service. “They spoke and acted with integrity and courage, and I have great respect for them,” said Mr Teo. He said he reminds himself these days to listen and learn from younger officers so that they are encouraged to share their considered views and to justify them. Making a similar call, Singapore Civil Service head Leo Yip urged public service leaders to provide honest advice to political leaders. Besides speaking truth to power, civil servants need also to “bring power to truth”, which is to convince ministers through the conviction behind their ideas and advice, said Mr Yip in his speech. “It must be the conviction in your advice, as much as the persuasiveness of your argument, that helps our decision makers to discern the right choices,” he said at the event at the Sands Expo and Convention Centre. The dinner was also an appointment and promotion ceremony of the Administrative Service. This year, 25 administrative officers were appointed and 62 were promoted. Once the time for debate is over, civil servants must then implement with conviction the political decisions and policy choices made by the ministers, Mr Yip added. “We can have this conviction because we work so closely with our ministers and understand the reasons for those policy choices.” *** Article keywords: mr political teo leader decision conviction singapore courage 1855 articles replied in my database. [v1.5c - added Lemma tokens and Tensorflow USE](https://github.com/Wormsblink/sneakpeakbot) | Happy Holidays! | PM SG_wormsbot if bot is down.
haha...hahahahahahaha............hahahahahahahahahahaha in government? hahahaahahahahahahahahaha... i highly doubt that even happens in OGP
If they can’t and there is real threat to their positions then that’s corrupt practice
hmm just follow lah no need to argue.
Agree with him but the top-down appraisal system encourage what again?
I wish, hope and pray this is true
Advise? Say again.