Good Bye Mr. Ngiam - You Tried Your Best to Warn Them

 

Mr. Ngiam Tong Dow, one of Singapore’s most prominent civil servants died yesterday (20 August 2020) at the age of 83. Mr. Ngiam, who had been ill for around four years, was what we called a “pioneer” in the civil service and he spent 40-years at the heart of our governmental decision-making process as a senior civil servant. He worked closely with our founding Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew and his successor Goh Chok Tong.

While Mr. Ngiam had an undoubtedly distinguished career in the civil service, what Mr. Ngiam will be remembered for is the fact that he spoke his mind in the public sphere and with the exception of one key issue, remained untouched by the government. He produced powerful soundbites against certain policies and was published in the main stream media. You could say that he was Singapore’s most prominent “loving critic,” though the phrase “most credible critic” might be more appropriate. A collection of Mr. Ngiam’s most prominent criticisms can be found in the following link:

 https://mothership.sg/2013/10/10-sayings-ex-top-civil-servant-ngiam-tong-dow-lays-smack/

What makes Mr. Ngiam’s criticisms of government policy so prominent was the fact that they were all made years ago and while his views were aired in public, nobody in position to do anything actually took his criticisms seriously. The only time it appeared as if someone had taken Mr. Ngiam’s works to heart was when he said, “When you raise ministers’ salaries to the point that they are earning millions of dollar ; every minister – no matter how much he wants to turn up and tell Hsien Loong off or whatever – will hesitate when he thinks of his million-dollar salary. Even if he wants to do it, his wife will stop him.” This sound bite was regarded as controversial and a month later, Mr. Ngiam had to state that his recent comments on ministers were “Unfair and illogical.” A copy of Mr. Ngiam’s retraction can be found at:

 https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ngiam-tong-dow-says-his-recent-comments-on-ministers-unfair-and-illogical

Nobody denies that the government of the day has the right to take advice from whoever it chooses to. In a democratic system (something which Singapore claims to be), governments merely need to ensure that they do two things – firstly to ensure that whatever they do, they do it in manner which pleases their voters enough for them to come out and renew their mandate when they have to call an election and secondly, they need to ensure that they don’t get involved in anything criminal. Other than that, a government can do pretty much what it wants to do within its mandated term in office. In most countries that follow the Westminster system, there are two further external checks, namely another party waiting to take over the government and a press that has the right and moral obligation to report on the government’s actions.

However, in the case of Singapore, these checks do not exist. Opposition parties are so insignificant that they fight elections for the right to be opposition rather than to form a government. The press effectively takes instructions from the government. As such Singapore’s governments can do pretty much what they want as long as they hold an election every five years (which involves dolling out lots of goodies) and don’t get caught doing anything criminal (even if laws can be made to make legal what was once illegal).

Singapore has been lucky in the sense that its governments have remained fairly stable, competent and honest. Unlike Malaysia, our Prime Minister has not been found with an unbelievable amount of cash in his personal bank account and as the government consistently reminds us, our GDP per capita is high and even in a crisis, the government has “reserves” to help us out.

While things may be relatively good, especially when compared to our neighbours, Singapore is facing problems that an “All Wise” and “All Knowing” government has failed to solve and it has remained oblivious to the fact that it is neither “All Wise” and “All Knowing.” What should be more worrying is that the government seems more intolerant of dissent than it was in the 1960s.

Mr. Ngiam was not a rebel. By the time he started giving his famous soundbites, he was comfortably retired and no threat to anyone. Nobody could question his loyalty to the PAP led governments that have served Singapore. 

So, while the government had every right to ignore Mr. Ngiam, one would have imagined that a government that has a reputation for being “wise” and having “foresight,” would have taken Mr. Ngiam’s public criticisms seriously enough to at least make an attempt to pretend to reconsider or discuss Mr. Ngiam’s views.

Furthermore, the only time that Mr. Ngiam has had to make a public retraction was when he made a comment about ministerial salaries and said that he was being unfair and illogical. While the government can deny that it never talked to Mr. Ngiam behind closed doors about his comments on ministerial pay (let’s not forget that Mr. Ngiam was a beneficiary of high government pay), it is too much of a coincidence for many that the one-time Mr. Ngiam had to backtrack was on the topic of ministerial pay. 

As far as the more liberal parts of society are concerned, Mr. Ngiam died a hero. For the ruling elite, they should use his death to celebrate a life of service and also to contemplate the intolerance for disagreement. Mr. Ngiam played a key role in our success story and he had ideas that resonated with many. If you look at the issues that hurt the government in the last election, you’ll realise that these were issues that Mr. Ngiam had brought to their attention.

If the PAP sees itself as an “All Wise” and “All Knowing” ruling entity, it needs to be wise and knowing enough to listen when one of their most celebrated, competent and loyal servants starts disagreeing with them in public.