Originally posted by Atobe:
The problem - with the Ruling Party a.k.a the (present) Singapore
Government - is that [b]decision making is on a
TOP-DOWN basis.
Any decision that affects a change in direction that affects any
Singapore's 'Structural Policies' will be made from the PM's
Office, who will make its decisions to every issue that is
presented on a plate of Issues of the Day for decisions to be
made.
From the details of the main issues that are thoroughly researched
by the Employed Talents, the Prime Minister has to develop his
'PERSONAL' understanding of the issues presented, based on a
'PERSONAL DATA BANK of EXPERIENCE' from which decisions are
evaluated and made.
Where 'PERSONAL EXPERIENCE' is lacking, more detailed studies will
have to be developed, and until the 'COMFORT LEVEL' is reached for
the issues that are to be decided.
With technologies and opportunities being available in fleeting
periods of the 'competitive cycles' that are open for grabs by
every country that is competing in technological supremacy and
progress, can Singapore continue to depend on such highly
centralised, Top-Down approach of management ?
[/b]
The number one factor for our loss of economic or technological
competitiveness is precisely this top-down system of governing the
country.
No leader is able no matter how brilliant to understand every
aspect of issues and problems affecting the whole country. He must
decentralize and delegate to people who do have the time, energy,
passions to go into such matters.
No wonder we lost out in so many fronts over the past 20 years. Big
projects were lost like disneyland earlier bid for setting up in
Sentosa. We turned away many so-called uncompetitive or pollution
projects when actually proper controls and understanding of
technology hold the key to success.
Now many factories in Jurong are empty. Why? Only the top-down
government kept away new ideas in using these empty
factories.
Many IT and computer projects require mutiple disciplined solutions
to problems. It is not just cost-effectiveness alone. It is total
understanding of our strengths and weakndnesses that will allow us
to make the right decisions.
For example, instead of waiting and giving excuses about cost
benefits look at our empty lands, empty building and see whether we
can introduce certain industries previously not cost-effective to
create jobs with a gestation period to groom them to more upgraded
projects spin off other upstream or downstream benefits.
I think that one convenient excuse is always about cost
effectiveness without in fact knowing enough about the total
cost-benefit equation from a greater perspective.