The trouble with $2,200 bikes
and $600 chairs
It's not about the rules for government
procurements; it's about the money itself
Han Fook Kwang
Managing Editor
There's been another
ruckus online over government agencies allegedly spending more
money than necessary, this time over the purchase of office chairs
costing almost $600 each.
What's the connection between this and the questions
being raised over the NParks' purchase of Brompton bicycles that is
now the subject of a corruption investigation?
If your answer is that both are about how government
agencies procure goods and services and whether they follow
established policies, you're only partly right.
If that was all, the matter could be resolved quite
simply and quickly - tighten the rules, introduce more if
necessary, and make sure they are followed.
In fact, that was how the story developed; earlier this
month, the Finance Ministry announced new rules to improve the
buying process, including lengthening the bidding period from four
to seven days.
End of story?
Not at all. That would be the wrong story and ending it
this way wouldn't make the problem go away.
To be sure, the issues over rules are important and need
to be put right. But they are not the most critical.
So, what's bugging Singaporeans?
I believe it's really about the money itself, not the
rules or whether they were followed.
It wouldn't matter if there were 10 bidders instead of
just one for the tender to buy foldable bikes.
If NParks ended up paying $2,200 a bike, there would
still be many unhappy with the outcome.
Ditto the $597 Herman Miller chairs bought by the
Attorney-General's Chambers.
From where many Singaporeans come, and I mean that both
physically (the majority from the Housing Board heartlands) and
figuratively (they have lived though hard times when money was
tight), they cannot comprehend why these agencies have to spend so
much to buy these things, when they personally would never do
so.
Here is a clash of two worlds that the Instruction Manual
issued by the Finance Ministry for proper financial procedures
wasn't meant to deal with.
In the world of the rational bureaucrat, it makes perfect
sense to pay $2,200 rather than $300 for a bike if the financial
analysis shows that it's a better deal in the long run because it
lasts longer, wouldn't break down as frequently and has a longer
warranty period.
And how do you price comfort? And the well-being of staff
who will be spending many hours riding those bikes or sitting on
those chairs?
Taking all these things into consideration, it is
entirely possible that the higher-priced purchase would make the
better choice.
But - and this is the crux of the matter - only if you
can afford it.
In the world of the sometimes- not-so-rational public,
when people have to decide whether to buy something for themselves,
it doesn't matter what the calculations turn up if you can't afford
a $600 chair.
That's the end of the story, even if it's the most
comfortable chair in the world.
And even if you can afford it, you may still think it's
too much to pay and that you would rather spend the money on your
son's education or save it for a rainy day.
This other world isn't run along cost-benefit analyses -
how do you put a price on education or the prospect of having to
cope with inclement weather?
Instead it is shaped by one's life experience, and the
influence of people around you, all of which determines the values
you believe in - whether it's extravagance versus thrift, or
caution versus impulsiveness or whatever.
They help most people decide, almost in an instinctive
way, whether a thing is right or wrong.
That's too much to pay! We sometimes say that, and we
don't require a cost-benefit analysis to tell us.
Can the public sector act in the same way, and develop
these instincts to guide and inform its decision-making? Can these
values sit together with rational decision- making, which is also
needed because there are choices to be made which will require fine
calculations and analysis?
One is about hard numbers and mathematical calculations,
the other is about judgment, what's right or wrong, and what is or
not acceptable to the public.
Doing both will require leadership of a different order.
But that's what leaders are for: To say this or that is simply not
acceptable - whether it's a $600 chair or a $2,200 bike - because
it's too extravagant and won't pass the values test.
Of course, it may also mean going ahead with the
purchase, public unhappiness notwithstanding, because of the
benefits it will bring, both tangible and intangible. That's what
leadership demands as well.
And they will say this no matter what the cost-benefit
analysis shows because that's what their judgment is.
It will require clear-headed and strong leadership that
knows what's right and wrong.
But how does it decide in each instance?
This isn't easy and there are no simple answers. How does
an organisation develop a culture and a value system to do the
right thing, that is also in tune with the times and the
aspirations of the majority of the people?
How does a leadership imbue its staff with these values
so the ethos of the service is the right one for the age?
Part of the problem in Singapore is the dramatic
transformation that has taken place in such a short span of time,
and the different speeds at which different parts of the society
have moved with these changes.
It was simpler in the early years of Independence, when
the leadership and the people were shaped by the same experience
and there was better understanding all round of what needed to be
done and agreement on what was right or wrong.
People respected the frugal lives led by the leaders and
the spartan offices they worked in because that was how the
majority of Singaporeans lived and worked. That was part of the
ethos then.
What is it now?
Is there a widening gap in expectations between the
general public and the public sector leadership? There is also the
question of whether there is a gap in expectations between what the
public expects of public servants, and what public servants want
for themselves.
To put it bluntly, is the public content with $200 Aleoca
folding bicycles for themselves and for public servants, while
public servants want $2,200 Brompton bicycles to do their jobs
on?
If so, Singapore is facing a serious problem. Because
unless there is a common understanding on what is right or wrong,
there will be endless quarrels, and not just over the correct price
to pay for something.
If we want to understand what was at the root of public
unhappiness regarding those recent government purchases, we have to
ask these deeper questions, and not just fix the mechanics of the
buying process.
Indeed this issue is also relevant to the recently
announced move by the Government to try to forge a national
consensus on Singapore's future.
It is possible to do this only if there is agreement
today on the right ethos and values of those institutions that are
critical in shaping Singapore's future.
If we cannot agree on the Singapore story today, how can
we decide what future story is best?
There are many places to start this discussion, but I
believe we can do worse than begin with foldable bikes and office
chairs.
think, The Sunday Times, August 26 2012, Pg 38
