Connect with us

Current Affairs

Suggestions are not welcomed

Be open to suggestions & feedback, Tan Kin Lian urges organisations.

Published

on

Tan Kin Lian

During the past years, I have submitted many suggestions to Government agencies and commercial organisations in making simple improvements that cost little to implement and can add a lot of value to the public and customers.

However, I get the impression that suggestions are not welcomed.

No response

If I was lucky, I would receive a standard acknowledgement that my letter or e-mail has been received and forwarded to someone to look into. Occasionally, I might get a further contact from a person, but that would be “once in a blue moon”.

Often, I would not even get any acknowledgement at all. I often wondered if my letters or e-mails had been received. If I followed up with one or two reminders, I might get a reply that my original mail went into the “spam” folder. What a convenient excuse.

My general impression was that public officials do not like to receive these suggestions. But this habit seemed to be quite common in commercial organisations as well.

The establishment of service quality units in these organisations does not seem to make any difference. It appears to be mainly “for show”.

Unwilling to engage

What are the reasons for this situation? Why is there an unwillingness to engage the public about improving service?

I can think of two.

First, there is the fear of having to make a decision. If one receives a suggestion, one has to make a decision. It is better for decisions to be made by the boss or superiors.

People in Singapore are very good in carrying out orders given by their bosses, but are not good at making judgement or deciding on what is to be done. They also have the difficulty of communicating with their bosses on new ideas.

Second, there is the fear that good suggestions from the public or customers may reflect badly on the people in the organisations.

“Why have we not thought about it before?” Or maybe, “We have thought about it and decided that it does not work. We should stay with our position and defend it. Otherwise, we will appear to be wrong. As Singaporeans, we cannot be wrong!”

Singaporean trait?

Hey! Is this just a Singaporean trait?

To be fair, I believe that this is quite a common trait in most parts of the world. I am not able to identify any exceptions. Americans would probably be different, due to their open society.

I suspect that Singaporeans are probably quite far down the scale in being receptive and open to other ideas. In other words, we probably fare worse than most other countries.

Blame the education system

This is probably the outcome of our education system. We teach people to excel, to fare better than their classmates, to reach the top and win scholarships. This is the passport to a good career in life.

This has probably developed into a trait. Singaporeans want to win, to excel, to show that they are better than others, and that they can solve a problem on their own. So, suggestions from the public are not welcomed.

Approach top people

After some time, I found that I was not getting any headway at the operating level. I decided to send my suggestions to the top people – ministers and the chief executives. I usually received a reply from them. Maybe it is because they knew me personally, or found my suggestions to be sensible.

Being busy people with many things to take care of, perhaps they could not attend to my suggestions personally. They probably passed the suggestions down the line in their organisations. That would usually be the end of the matter.

Sometimes, I might receive a polite reply after a few weeks that my suggestion had been considered, with a few reasons why it could not be implemented.

Nobody bothered to listen to my views on how the perceived obstacles could have been overcome or to consider my suggestions from a different angle.

Finally, it gets done

Wait a few months or years. You might find that your suggestions have been adopted after all. However, you should not expect any acknowledgement of your contribution. It would appear that the idea came from the people within the organisations. As Singaporeans, they perhaps pride themselves on their ability to get the answers on their own. They do not really need any suggestions from the public. Giving credit to others, it seems, would somehow make them “lose face”.

I am talking not only of my personal experience. Many civic minded citizens have sent suggestions to Government agencies and commercial organisations over the years. They shared their experiences with me, which are similar to my personal experience.

Tips for the future

Let me give a few suggestions on how suggestions from the public and customers can be approached differently. I will use the word “contributor” to refer to the person who made the suggestion.

1. When you receive a suggestion, engage the contributor promptly. Have a conversation with the contributor by telephone or e-mail.

2. Listen to the suggestion. Ask a few questions to get more facts and understand the issue.

3. If necessary, re-write the issue or suggestion, with the relevant facts. The contributor may not have written the suggestion clearly in the first place, due to their limited insight or perspective. They may wish to modify their suggestion in the light of additional information.

4. In gathering facts, avoid making any judgement on the merit or feasibility of the suggestion. Avoid another Singaporean trait – to be judgemental.

5. Give a reply to the suggestion within four weeks. Many suggestions cannot be implemented because the time is not right. Say so, and the contributor will understand.

I hope that the service quality managers of these organisations are paying attention to these suggestions.

I believe that many improvements can be made, if Government agencies and commercial organisations adopt an open and receptive approach towards these suggestions. There is a wealth of ideas that can come from the public and customers.

—————-

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Ng Eng Hen: Dust clouds likely caused armoured vehicle collision during Exercise Wallaby

Dust clouds limiting visibility likely contributed to the collision between two Hunter vehicles during Exercise Wallaby, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen explained in his parliamentary reply. 12 servicemen sustained mild injuries, but safety measures prevented more serious outcomes. A formal investigation is ongoing to ensure further safety improvements.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Low visibility caused by dust clouds was identified as the likely cause of the collision between two Hunter armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) during Exercise Wallaby last month, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said in a written parliamentary response on Tuesday (15 October).

The incident, which occurred in Queensland, Australia, on 24 September 2024, resulted in mild injuries to 12 servicemen.

Dr Ng’s statement was in response to a parliamentary question from Mr Dennis Tan, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Hougang SMC.

Mr Tan asked for details on the accident, specifically its cause and whether any lessons could be applied to enhance training and operational safety within the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

The collision took place during a night-time movement of Hunter AFVs at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area.

The vehicles were returning to base when one rear-ended another. Dr Ng explained that the dust clouds generated by the AFVs’ movement significantly impaired visibility, might likely contributing to the accident.

The 12 affected servicemen sustained mild injuries and were promptly taken to the nearest medical facility.

None of the injuries required hospitalisation, and all 12 servicemen were able to rejoin their units for training the next day.

According to the minister, adherence to safety protocols—such as wearing seat belts and protective gear—played a crucial role in limiting the injuries to mild ones.

Following the incident, a safety pause was immediately implemented, with all drivers being reminded to maintain proper safety distances, especially when visibility was compromised.

Troops were also reminded to adhere strictly to safety protocols, including the proper use of safety equipment, Dr Ng added.

The safety lessons from the incident were shared not only with the affected units but also with other participating groups in the exercise, as well as units back in Singapore, through dedicated safety briefings.

Mr Tan also asked about the broader implications of the incident. In his response, Dr Ng said that a formal investigation had been launched in accordance with SAF’s safety incident protocol.

The investigation aims to assess the circumstances more thoroughly and identify any further measures that could be taken to enhance safety.

Dr Ng shared that recommendations arising from the investigation will be implemented where necessary.

Exercise Wallaby is SAF’s largest unilateral overseas exercise, and the 2024 edition began on 8 September, running until 3 November.

The exercise involves approximately 6,200 personnel, including 500 operationally ready national servicemen.

The exercise has been conducted at Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Queensland since 1990, and it is a key part of SAF’s overseas training program.

The Hunter AFV, one of the vehicles involved in the collision, is a state-of-the-art platform jointly developed by the Defence Science and Technology Agency, the Singapore Army, and ST Engineering.

It replaced the SAF’s aging fleet of Ultra M113 AFVs in 2019, which had been in service since the 1970s. The Hunter is equipped with advanced features, including a 30mm cannon, a 76mm smoke grenade launcher, and an automatic target detection and

tracking system designed to enhance operational effectiveness. It is also capable of traveling at increased speeds and covering longer distances, making it a versatile asset for the SAF.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Government to “carefully consider” Lee Hsien Yang’s demolition application for 38 Oxley Road

The Singapore Government will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY)’s application to demolish the house at 38 Oxley Road. LHY announced his intent on Tuesday morning following the recent death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, reaffirming his commitment to honour his parents’ wish for the house’s demolition.

Published

on

The Singapore Government has indicated that it will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s (LHY) application to demolish the family home at 38 Oxley Road.

LHY, the youngest son of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, the late Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), announced his intention to apply for the demolition in a Facebook post on 15 October 2024, following the death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, on 9 October.

The announcement marks a significant development in the ongoing saga over the fate of the historically significant property, which has been at the heart of a family dispute since LKY’s passing in 2015.

In his will, executed in December 2013, LKY expressed his desire for the house to be demolished “immediately after” Dr Lee moved out of the property. Dr Lee, a prominent neurologist, had been the last remaining resident of the house.

LHY reaffirmed his commitment to carrying out his father’s wishes, stating, “After my sister’s passing, I am the only living executor of my father’s estate. It is my duty to carry out his wishes to the fullest extent of the law.”

He added that he would seek to build a small private dwelling on the site, which would be “held within the family in perpetuity”.

LHY also referenced his brother, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (LHL) remarks in Parliament in 2015, when he was Prime Minister, stating that upon Dr Lee’s passing, the decision to demolish the house would rest with the “Government of the day.”

In response to media queries regarding LHY’s announcement, a spokesperson for the Ministry of National Development (MND) acknowledged the intended application and emphasised that the Government would “carefully consider issues related to the property in due course”.

The spokesperson also highlighted that any decision would need to balance LKY’s wishes, public interest, and the historical value of the house.

The house at 38 Oxley Road, where key decisions about Singapore’s path to independence were made, has been a focal point of public and political discussion.

The future of the house became contentious in 2017 when LHY and Dr Lee publicly accused their elder brother, LHL, of trying to preserve the house against their father’s wishes for political reasons.

LHL denied the accusations, issuing a Ministerial Statement in Parliament, where he also raised concerns over the preparation of their father’s final will. He clarified that he had recused himself from all decisions regarding the property and affirmed that any government action would be impartial.

In 2018, a “secret” ministerial committee, which was formed in 2016 to study the future of 38 Oxley Road, proposed three options: preserving the property and designating it as a national monument, partially demolishing the house while retaining the historically significant basement dining room, or allowing complete demolition for redevelopment. LHL accepted the committee’s conclusions but stated that no immediate decision was necessary, as Dr Lee was still living in the house.

In a statement conveyed by LHY on behalf of Dr Lee after her passing, she reiterated her strong support for her father’s wish to demolish the house. “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo, had an unwavering and deeply felt wish for their house at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished upon the last parent’s death,” the statement read.

She added, “He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Despite selling the house to LHY at market value in 2015, LHL’s stance regarding the house’s preservation became a public issue, especially after the family disclosed that the Government had raised concerns about reinstating the demolition clause in the 2013 will. The ministerial committee had reviewed the matter, but a final decision was deferred until now.

The fate of 38 Oxley Road remains to be seen, but the Government’s decision will likely have lasting implications for the legacy of the Lee family and the conservation of Singapore’s historical landmarks.

Continue Reading

Trending