Thursday, December 31, 2009

Blind trust - there must be a reason?

Many practices are outmoded after some time, for example, immigration requirements, security checks, audit checks, registration in hotels. Some of these practices were introduced several decades ago and were needed then. But, the world has since changed.

Nobody wants to take the responsibility to review and update these outmoded practices. The burden of these practices usually fall on the shoulders of  the customers or ordinary people who have no choice but to comply with the rules.

Some people will defend these practices as follows: "There must be a reason to continue these practices. It must be serving a purpose". Has it occurred to these people that the most likely reason is that nobody cares. If the long suffering people do not speak up, who really bothers?

Some people said that there is no point in speaking up in Singapore as our views are likely to be ignored. While this is true, and is a sad state of affairs, I encourage people to continue to speak up. One day, the voices will be heard.

Most importantly, we have to avoid giving excuses on behalf of the people who are supposed to review the outmoded practices. If the reasons are still valid, let them come out and explain the reasons on their own. This will encourage accountability.

Tan Kin Lian

8 comments:

Concerned said...

In Singapore, the top policticans have a tight grip on the administrations of the civil service. Since, no senior polictican in the Govt said anything to change past practices, the other civil servants do not want to stick their neck out. Just collect their pay at the end of every month is the savest route to take and no need to crack their heads on what changes need to be made. This also reduce their workload and those of their subordinates. Afterall, the one who suffers is not them but other uses of public service. Horray!!!

Anonymous said...

The helpless can just hope. Is a slow process where eventually it will timeout.

C H Yak said...

Yes, I agree. We are still stuck with many stupid and obsolete rules and regulations. The Govt. should repeal them.

And I cannot see why civil servants and Authorities should continually be protected for taking public responsibilites by statues.

If public servants as individuals are protected for their actions, their Authorities should not be.

Anonymous said...

We reap what we sow.

After 40++ years in power, the whole apparatus is geared towards maintaining the status quo. Any change is aimed at supporting the environment to preserve their positions.

The populace has also been socially engineered to be worker ants, just focus on being good employees, don't rock the boat, and make your boss/authorities happy. Actually, worse than worker ants, coz we all have "you die, your business", "not my problem" mentality. At least ants will rally around to tackle common problems.

Anonymous said...

Before my retirement, I was workimg as a Financial Controller for a MNC. I was puzzled at a company report that take a week to compile. I check around that no one read the report in Singapore and it was meant for the headoffice. But no one knows who requested the report and who in the HQ read it but it was a report instituted many years back by someone.
I instructed my staff to stop preparing the report and there was no response from anyone in Singapore or HQ for not receiving the report or notice that the report is missing!
So if one takes initiative, there is a lot of deadwood one can get rid off.

Anonymous said...

Certain types of housekeeping is tedious and therefore ignored, or strategically prioritised.

If the action results in show casing your abilities then go for it. Otherwise leave alone.. it may return to haunt you.

Anonymous said...

Accountability should start from the men on top especially those who wear white.

SAF has always taught their officers to "lead by example". They should now change it to "lead by GOOD example".

Anonymous said...

Just another example of outdated rule/ regulation/practice viz the 1% commission payable to housing agents. Say 40 years ago, private landed house cost maybe 30 thousand, so 1% is just $300/-. Now it cost $2 million. The 1% commission is still unchanged.When certain matters do not fall specifically/clearly with one Authority, likely the matter will not get any attention at all.

Blog Archive