Our Hearts

HEART OF PUBLIC SERVICE

OUR INSTITUTIONS

HEART OF PUBLIC SERVICE: Our Institutions

Published by the Public Service Division, Prime Minister’s Office

Public Service Division100 High Street#07-01 The TreasurySingapore 179434www.psd.gov.sg

Designed by The Press Room Printed in Singapore by KHL Printing Co. Pte Ltd

Copyright © 2015 Public Service Division, Prime Minister’s Office

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of Public Service Division.

National Library Board, Singapore Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Heart of Public Service: Our Institutions / Our People. – Singapore: Public Service Division, Prime Minister’s Office, [2015]volumes cmIncludes index.ISBN-13: 978-981-09-4688-3

1. Civil service – Singapore – History. 2. Public administration – Singapore – History. 3. Singapore – Officials and employees – Anecdotes. I. Singapore. Prime Minister’s Office. Public Service Division, issuing body.

JQ1063.A67351.5957 – dc23 OCN917948940

OUR INSTITUTIONSHEART OF PUBLIC SERVICE

OUR INSTITUTIONSHEART OF PUBLIC SERVICE

HEART OF PUBLIC SERVICE4 OUR INSTITUTIONS

5

MESSAGEMr Teo Chee Hean Deputy Prime Minister, Minister in charge of the Civil Service

FOREWORDMr Peter Ong Head, Civil Service

INTRODUCTIONMs Ong Toon Hui Dean, Civil Service College

MILESTONES

ENDNOTES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

INDEX

CHAPTER 1: Upholding the Rule of Law

CHAPTER 2: Housing a Nation, Building a City

CHAPTER 3: Making a Living, Ensuring Growth

CHAPTER 4: Investing in Our People

CHAPTER 5: Securing Singapore: From Vulnerability to Self-Reliance

CHAPTER 6: Establishing Our Place in the World

CHAPTER 7: Keeping the Nation Healthy

CHAPTER 8: Supporting Singaporeans and Ensuring No One is Left Behind

CHAPTER 9: Cultivating a Harmonious Society, Becoming One People

CHAPTER 10: Overcoming Crises, Building Resilience

CHAPTER 11: Building a Public Service Ready for the Future

6

7

8

10

160

172

173

14

26

38

52

68

80

92

106

120

132

146

CONTENTS


The Singapore Public Service has played a key role in Singapore’s nation-building journey, working closely with the political leadership and Singaporeans, to overcome challenges and make Singapore a better home for all Singaporeans.

Heart of Public Service appropriately consists of two inter-linked volumes. ‘Our Institutions’ traces how key Public Service institutions helped Singapore progress from Third World to First in less than 50 years. ‘Our People’ tells 50 stories of public officers – a sampling of the many more who work tirelessly, often behind the scenes, to give life to the policies and programmes that have brought us forward together, and who provide the human touch that has made a difference to the lives of so many Singaporeans.

Indeed, our 141,000 officers in 16 ministries and more than 50 statutory boards are at the Heart of the Singapore Public Service. I have worked with and met many of our public officers over the years – putting their lives on the line to keep us safe and secure, building not just houses but our homes, knocking on doors overseas to open new opportunities for us, helping to move people and goods smoothly, keeping Singapore beautiful and green, bringing a compassionate and healing touch when we are in need, educating our children to be ready for the future.

Our public officers do their best and serve with dedication and passion, guided by the values of Integrity, Service and Excellence. I have seen how our public officers derive satisfaction and happiness from helping Singaporeans to improve their lives, sharing in their happiness. This is the single most important motivation for being a Public Service Officer.

As we mark SG50 this year, let us recognise the contributions of past and present generations of public officers, and thank them for their commitment to our people and country. As we look ahead to SG100, may the ethos and values of the Public Service continue to be the guiding light for future generations of public officers. Let us all work together to scale new heights, serve Singaporeans better, and create an even brighter future for all of us.

Mr Teo Chee HeanDeputy Prime Minister, Minister in charge of the Civil Service 1 September 2015

MESSAGE

7

Our Public Service has always operated in the background as the quiet engine supporting the growth and development of the nation. It is, and will always be, here to serve the people of Singapore. Over the years, we have continually adapted and innovated in the way we operate, whether in policy design, service delivery or public engagement. This nimbleness and dexterity must remain the cornerstone of all that we do, especially in an increasingly volatile external environment.

The journey of the Singapore Public Service is a continuing story. Heart of Public Service presents our 50 years of growing up with the nation, in two volumes – ‘Our Institutions’ and ‘Our People’. Capturing key milestones in our history, the volumes tell the story of how the Public Service and its officers contributed to building up a successful Singapore.

‘Our Institutions’ recounts the Public Service’s efforts in growing the economy and creating jobs; developing the key social pillars of education, healthcare and housing; building basic infrastructure such as roads, hospitals, schools and flats; transforming Singapore into a City in a Garden. It also discusses how we built up our defence and security capabilities and strengthened foreign relations.

‘Our People’ is a testament to the men and women of the Public Service who serve with dedication and distinction in the roles they are called to play. Their stories bring to life significant historic moments and give a glimpse of their personal pride in serving the nation.

The Public Service dedicates Heart of Public Service to our founding Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who passed away this year. Mr Lee was singularly instrumental in creating the Public Service ethos that we have today – clean, efficient, effective and, indeed, exceptional.

We will continue this unending journey of building a first class Public Service, worthy of Singapore.

Mr Peter OngHead, Civil Service 1 September 2015

FOREWORD


The most important thing [was] to bel ieve that you can bui ld a country here, there’s a future and we can make it happen… If you don’t bel ieve that, you can’t start. In fact, you wil l fal l apart and… fortunately not only did the leaders bel ieve that but they were able to convince Singaporeans of that and as we were able to make progress, we got into a virtuous circle which brought us here 50 years later. I think that was the master solution. The policies are important, economics, free trade, armed forces – bui lding up the SAF, diplomacy, gett ing our place in the world, educating our people, housing, healthcare, al l those are important and you must get good people looking after al l of them but f irst you must have that convic-t ion that here there shal l be a nation.

– Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister, at the SG50+ Conference, 2 July 2015 1

This volume traces the development of the public institut ions that were establ ished to address Singapore’s most pressing needs as an independent nation. Today, these institut ions have come to characterise the Singapore story in many ways.

Over the past 50 years, Singapore has faced many existential chal lenges. We had to el iminate corruption from public l i fe and establ ish working institut ions of law and order, including our Constitut ion, Judiciary, legal environment, and a competent Public Service. We had to overcome deteriorating urban condit ions to lay the foundations for a modern city. We had to house, school, support and care for our people, and f ind a means to make a l iving despite being cut off from our economic hinterland. Left small and vulnerable, we had to defend our shores from threats both within and without, and f ight for our voice to be heard in the world as a sovereign state. Throughout our struggles to survive and thrive, we had to unite our diverse people as one nation, with a shared destiny and common purpose. Although we have been tested t ime and again, we have pul led together and overcome these chal lenges through the dedication, professional ism and leadership of our pioneering public off icers.

From those desperate early days, our Public Service has grown in sophistication and confidence, becoming one of the most highly regarded, innovative and trusted in the world. Today, the Public Service continues to str ive for improvements in a cosmopolitan city international ly respected as a fair and prosperous nation that is safe, secure and well-governed.

INTRODUCTION

9

From the outset, our leaders and forebears in the Public Service bel ieved Singapore needed to be exceptional. This spir it has endured in our institut ions. We have not al lowed our inherent constraints to l imit us. Our institut ions have demonstrated resourcefulness, ambit ion, pragmatism, and are guided by what is in the long term interest of the nation. As needs change, these institut ions have adapted dynamical ly and innovated quickly, learning from the best in the world to f ind solutions that f i t Singapore’s unique context. These values, underpinned by strong, capable and honest leadership, have helped us nurture a f irst class Public Service, ready to serve and worthy of Singapore.

The remarkable aspect of Singapore’s accomplishments is not found only in the gleaming sky-l ines, safe streets, green parks and international accolades. Our true achievement has been in the core principles, systems, spir it and culture that have made the Singapore story possible.

I hope this book conveys the purpose, energy, ingenuity and spir it of the Singapore institut ions that are both our legacy and our responsibi l i ty, as we progress together as one nation and str ive for greater heights.

Ms Ong Toon HuiDean, Civil Service College 1 September 2015


housing a nat ion, bu ild ing a c ity

Citizens balloting for flats at Jalan Balam in 1965. The Home Ownership for the People scheme has given every Singaporean a roof over their heads – as well as a stake in the country. Today, over 80% of our households live in public housing that they own.

upholding the r ule of law

Singapore’s Statutes form the basis of our legal system and government framework today. Adherence to the rule of law has been an important factor in Singapore’s stability and success over the past 50 years.

MILESTONES

11

securing s ingapore

National Servicemen marching proudly at their Passing-out Parade in Taman Jurong Camp, 1968. Over the past five decades, we have steadily strengthened our ability to defend our homeland and our loved ones, ensuring peace and security for Singapore in an unpredictable world.

making a l iv ing, ensuring growth

A factory in Jurong, one of many set up in the 1970s to employ Singaporeans in new skilled jobs. Thanks to farsighted and broad-based economic policies that help keep our products, services and skills relevant to changing global markets, Singapore’s per capita GDP is now among the highest in the world.


establ ish ing our place in the world

The Singapore flag flies at Madras Airport during Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s visit to India in September 1970. Singapore has built a reputation as a responsible international citizen, with strong ties to friendly nations around the world and a credible voice on the world stage. The Singaporean passport is widely recognised, allowing our citizens unfettered access to many countries.

invest ing in our people

Singapore’s education system has been highly successful in preparing our people for successful lives in the workforce. Building on this foundation, our schools today seek to nurture a broader and more diverse range of abilities, and to inculcate a spirit of lifelong learning.

13

keeping our nation healthy

Temperature screening at Changi Airport during the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic. As one, our nation pulled together to combat the deadly epidemic – one of the worst crises to confront Singapore in recent years. Today, Singapore is stronger, more prepared, and more resilient than ever.

cult ivat ing a harmonious society, becoming one people

Young people celebrating Racial Harmony Day in present-day Singapore. Singapore’s rich, multicultural heritage is a source of strength and inspiration. Regardless of race, language or religion, we stand together as one nation.

UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW

15 CHAPTER 1 – UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW

University of Malaya begins offering classes that would lead to the Bachelor of Laws degree.

Establishment of the Legal Aid Bureau; Singapore becomes first Southeast Asian country to have a legal aid scheme.

1957

1958

The rule of law – backed by good governance, a clean, credible judiciary and sound legal institutions – underpins the survival and success of independent Singapore.

he year was 1967. The rule of law was “reasonably estab-lished”1 in the city-state of Singapore, which had just become

independent two years earlier. “No one doubts that anyone will be executed at the whim and fancy of somebody else,”2 the Prime Minister said with quiet satisfaction.

And yet, he cautioned, “mediocrity on the government side, talent in private practice”3 could yet lead to unjust outcomes. Criminals might get away as their lawyers try to “turn up the law books”4 and “take every technical point in favour of their client”.5 He urged the legal profession to hold itself to high standards and norms and to have a “social conscience”.6 Rather than cling to forms and techni-calities, the legal system had to serve the cause of justice and the public good.

Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s speech to the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society in 1967 drew together many themes that have marked Singapore’s journey to establish and uphold the rule of law as an independent country. The central principle: that the rule of law is vital, not only as an ideal, but as a foundation upon which a nation and its institutions might be built and governed.

ESTABLISHING THE RULE OF LAW AND A CORRUPTION-FREE GOVERNMENT

Singapore in the 1950s and 1960s had been plagued by crime, disorder and subversion. Communists infiltrated trade and student unions and sought to disrupt social and economic life. Secret societies were bold and active; in July 1963, secret society detainees on Pulau Senang rioted and killed three officials. The wealthy and prominent faced kidnapping and extortion. In July 1964, a communal riot left 23 people dead, 460 injured, 945 placed under preventive detention and saw 3,500 arrested.7

T


Establishment of the Legal Service Commission.

The Prevention of Corruption Act is passed to better empower the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) to investigate and deter corruption; Industrial Arbitration

Court is established.

1959

1960 CPIB

As then Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong observed later, “the criminal process was no match for violence, threats and intimi-dation of witnesses”.8 In 1962, Mr Lee famously suggested in a speech before the University of Singapore Law Society that the phrase “law and order” was more appropriately rendered “order and law”:

In a settled and established society, law appears to be a pre-cursor of order. Good laws lead to good order, that is the form that you will learn. But the hard realities of keeping the peace between man and man and between authority and the indi-vidual can be more accurately described if the phrase were inverted to “order and law”, for without order the operation of law is impossible.9

In order to thrive, Singapore first had to create the societal condi-tions in which the rule of law would prevail. People needed to live in a society that respected and observed the authority of the law, instead of being subject to the arbitrary decisions of individuals or officials.

One of the most important steps towards this was the elimination of corruption, which had been rife in Singapore’s history. An 1886 report on the Straits Settlements found a high incidence of police bribe- taking and involvement in protection rackets. This culture of kickbacks had taken hold in an environment where salaries were too low for junior civil servants to live on, and anti-corruption measures were weak and ineffective. The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), established by the colonial authorities in 1952 to fight corruption, was hardly equipped to do the job. It only had five officers when it was set up, and only eight in 1959 when the People’s Action Party came to power promising to make the fight against corruption a priority.10

Unable to raise salaries to make graft less attractive, the fledgling government passed the Prevention of Corruption Act in 1960, granting CPIB more powers to investigate and deter corruption. CPIB officers could investigate not only the accounts of suspects, but also their spouses, children and agents. Penalties for corruption were increased – for instance, those convicted would have to pay in fines the amount they had taken as bribes. Persons were liable to be convicted if they simply showed the intention to commit an offence – they did not have to actually receive a bribe. CPIB’s strength also increased over time: it grew from 8 officers in 1959, to 40 in 1968.11

It is a cornerstone of the rule of law that no person should be above the law. CPIB’s targets have included important public figures: then Minister of State for Environment Wee Toon Boon was imprisoned in 1975 for intervening in the work of civil servants on behalf of a developer from whom he had taken bribes; then Minister for National Development Teh Cheang Wan was investigated in 1986 for allegedly taking bribes from


a developer; Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Public Utilities Board Choy Hon Tim got into trouble in 1995 for accepting a share of a contractor’s profits in exchange for ensuring that the company’s projects would run smoothly.13 More recently, in 2013, former Singapore Civil Defence Force Commissioner Peter Lim was convicted for having furthered the business interests of a firm in exchange for sexual gratifica-tion from an employee of the firm.

Singapore’s fight against corruption has since been credible, effective, relentless,14 pursued without fear or favour. A clean government and trustworthy Public Service have come to be the hallmark of the Singaporean system, allowing the development of credible and effective public institutions in every sphere of our national life.

CREATING A CONSTITUTION AND JUDICIARY FOR AN INDEPENDENT SINGAPORE

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It establishes the three branches of government and defines the terms of citizenship. It also lays out safeguards for our national sovereignty, security and finances, and protects the fundamental liberties of individuals. Ultimately, all laws passed by Parliament must be in accordance with the Constitution.

When Singapore was ejected from Malaysia to become an independ-ent nation on 9 August 1965, we did not yet have a Constitution; there simply had not been time to draft one from scratch. Instead, in December 1965, Parliament fashioned a Constitution for the new republic out of three existing documents: the 1963 Constitution of the State of Singapore, the 1965 Republic of Singapore Independence Act and excerpts from the 1957 Federal Constitution of Malaysia.15 The resulting document was, as former Chief Minister David Marshall reckoned, “the untidiest constitution that any country has started life with”.16

ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION IN S INGAPORECPIB has sought to root out corruption wherever it ex-ists, and not just in high-profile cases. In 1968, CPIB took down the largest of Singapore’s illegal chap ji kee gambling syndicates – the operation netted 67 corrupt police officers whose actions had allowed the syn-dicate to flourish. In the 1990s, it went after corrupt officers who had been bribed or cultivated into protect-ing a notorious loan shark, and who had been helping pirate video compact disc vendors evade arrest. CPIB’s efforts to ensure honesty and integrity throughout Singapore means that it also fights corruption outside the Public Service. Most notably, in 1994, CPIB took action against bettors, referees and players for their roles in fixing football matches.12

facing page Rising communal tensions in 1964 led to riots that left 23 people dead, 460 injured, 945 placed under preventive detention and saw 3,500 arrested.

above Investigators and staff of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. The dedicated and lean outfit operated out of Stamford Road, scoring early successes against gambling syndicates that had officers on their payroll.


The Constitution is fashioned out of the 1963 Constitution of the State of Singapore, the 1965 Republic of Singapore Independence Act and excerpts from the 1957 Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

The Legal Profession Act establishes what are today the Law Society and the Singapore Institute for Legal Education.

1965

1967

As our founding document and institution, Singapore’s Constitution is inextricably tied to our nation-building efforts. A small country vulnerable to the vagaries of global events needs a government with the mandate to respond flexibly and swiftly to any exigencies. As such, our Parliamentary Elections Act provides for a first-past-the-post electoral system that grants governments decisive majorities in Parliament. In the same vein, Article 13 of the Malaysian Constitution, which guarantees the right to private property, was not imported into our Constitution. This was significant in the 1960s, since land essential to Singapore’s development was concentrated in the hands of a small number of private landowners at the time.

Singapore’s early years had been marred by communal strife. Our Constitution promotes multicultural harmony and discourages communalism, underlining the importance of building a cohesive society out of our various ethnic and religious groups. As Minister for Law K. Shanmugam explained to the New York State Bar Association in 2009, Singapore society at the nation’s birth was “disparate, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, [and] poor”.

Singapore’s Constitution is inextricably tied to our nation-building efforts. A small country vulnerable to the vagaries of global events needs a government with the mandate to respond flexibly and swiftly to any exigencies.

above Declared open in 1939, the venerable Old Supreme Court Building served as the courthouse of the Supreme Court until 2005.


Constitution (Amendment) Act and Supreme Court of Judicature Act establish the Supreme Court of Singapore. Wee Chong Jin becomes Chief Justice.

Article 94 of the Constitution is amended to allow the appointment of supernumerary judges.

1969

1971

Opening of the Subordinate Courts Building along Havelock Road.

1975

Amendment to the Constitution allows appointment of judicial commissioners.

1979

Mr Shanmugam added:

A basis had to be established on which people could interact with each other. That basis had to be secular and Rule based. It had to assure equality regardless of race, language or reli-gion. … Singapore was and is based on an ideal: that people of different backgrounds can come together and create a nation, and be assured of equal opportunities, even though one race, the Chinese, formed the vast majority – 75%. That ideal could be achieved only through the Rule of law.17

A constitutional commission was specially convened to determine how the Constitution should best protect the rights and welfare of all Singaporeans, regardless of their race, religion or language. One of the commission’s recommendations was the creation of a “Council of State” to advise the President on the impact that laws and policies might have on minority groups.18 This led to the establishment of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights in 1970.

After adopting the Constitution, the Government turned its attention to the branch of government that would be interpreting the laws – the Judiciary. Despite Independence, all our courts remained part of the Malaysian court system until 1969, when Parliament passed several Acts to re-establish the Supreme Court of Singapore as separate and autonomous from Malaysia.19

Even then, it took some time for Singapore to have a Supreme Court that comprised entirely Singaporean judges.20 In 1993, appeals to the Privy Council in the United Kingdom were finally abolished, with a permanent Court of Appeal being designated as Singapore’s highest court.

An independent and credible judiciary is needed to apply the law and to adjudicate disputes before it without fear of undue prejudice, pressure or retaliation. Provisions in the Constitution enshrine and ensure the independence of Singapore’s judiciary, by protecting the means by which they may be appointed, removed or remunerated.21

IMPROVING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Within a decade after Independence, Singapore’s courts were straining to keep up with demand to resolve disputes and admin-ister justice, as the economy grew and the passage of new laws increased the incidence of legal disputes. Civil pro-ceedings in the High Court rose from 3,743 cases in 1969 to 6,525 in 1979. From 1971 to 1979, the number of new criminal cases increased from 13,000 to nearly 22,000.22

New facilities were needed; the existing buildings were no longer adequate: two court rooms had to be created out of a converted stable at South Bridge Road, others were poorly ventilated,23 and one was found to be unusable because its building was structurally unsound.24 In 1975, a new Subordinate Courts complex opened in Havelock Road, bringing together court facilities and staff that had previously been dispersed in several locations across the island, and greatly expanding capacity. As the number of

THE M IN ISTRY OF LAWSince Independence, the Ministry of Law has played an important role in upholding the rule of law by ensuring that Singapore’s legislation reflects a sound, coherent and consistent legal policy. Before Government Bills may be tabled before Parliament, they must first be scrutinised and vetted by the Ministry of Law to ensure that the proposed laws are consistent with Singapore’s Constitution and the principles which underpin the rule of law. Since a country’s laws must evolve over time, the Ministry of Law also spearheads the Government’s efforts to review and reform the laws of Singapore in order to reflect societal norms as well as changing circumstances.


Chan Sek Keong is appointed first judicial commissioner.

Wee Chong Jin retires, Yong Pung How becomes Chief Justice.

1986

1990

Justices’ Law Clerks scheme is introduced.

1991

First Committee on the Supply of Lawyers.

1992

cases continued to grow – doubling between 1981 and 1985 – computerisation25 and other specialised systems were introduced to manage an increasing variety of tasks, including traffic offences and the payments of fines.26

Despite continuous improvements over two decades, the courts’ capacity to administer justice continued to be strained as the 1990s approached. It was estimated in September 1990 that the Supreme Court would only clear its backlog of cases in 1995.27

Much more had to be done, not just to keep up with demand, but to prepare the judicial system for future needs. In 1990, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew appointed former lawyer and banker Yong Pung How as Chief Justice (CJ). Mr Lee felt that the position called for someone who not only had a fine legal mind, but also a keen eye for management and administration. The new CJ had his job cut out for him:

When I became Chief Justice in late 1990, we faced a huge backlog of cases awaiting hearing. Anyone who had begun an action by writ at that time could expect to wait up to five years before his action came to trial; and if there was an appeal from the decision given at the trial, he could expect another two years’ delay. Lawyers dragged their feet and to a large extent, the courts – metaphorically speaking – turned a blind eye to the delay. This, in turn, had the undesirable effects of discouraging litigation, preventing access to the courts, and eroding public confidence in the efficiency of the judicial system.28

CJ Yong’s concerns were not unfounded. The long time it took for commercial disputes to be heard in court posed a threat to busi-ness confidence in Singapore. The long wait for trial also raised questions about the ability of witnesses to give accurate evidence in court. Juvenile suspects sometimes reached adulthood before their cases were heard. Delays in dealing with cases of domestic violence meant that victims were left unprotected.29

CJ Yong initiated a period of transformation, with a series of efforts to improve the administration of justice. He was aware that with greater computerisation and the advent of the Internet in the 1990s, Singaporeans would become “more accustomed to instantaneous access to information and the less formal nature of cyberspace”, and would come to expect “greater efficiency and convenience in the administration of justice”.30 In addition, he felt that since the judicial system was a “monopoly business”, it had to set higher standards of performance, efficiency and transpar-ency to the public.31

Technology was harnessed to make processes more efficient. The launch of the Electronic Filing System in 1997 greatly reduced the time and manpower needed to file or retrieve legal documents.32 Over time, the use of technology in our Courts has grown steadily more sophisticated.

During his tenure, CJ Yong also introduced measures to improve the efficiency of Singapore’s legal system. Most notably, he took firm action against time wastage in trials, and urged his fel-low judges “to be firm in cutting off long-winded and irrelevant


Abolition of appeals to the Privy Council, permanent Court of Appeal designated as Singapore’s highest court; Article 100 of the Constitution adopted, allowing convening of a Special Tribunal of at least three Supreme Court judges which the President can call upon to consider questions relating to provisions in the Constitution; introduction of hearing fees in court to ensure greater efficiency in the use of court time.

1993

cross-examination of witnesses”.33 Hearing fees were introduced in July 1993 “to ensure greater efficiency in the use of court time”.34

Alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution helped speed up the administration of justice and promote more amicable settlements. The Singapore Mediation Centre, launched in August 1997, was able to resolve disputes in three-quarters of its first 110 cases by January of the following year. Besides mediation, the courts also made greater use of pre-trial conferences to help disputing parties minimise or even resolve their issues before trial.35 Of the 2,524 writs filed in 1996, 2,036 were settled without trial.36 Such approaches have helped Singapore’s legal system to develop a culture of seek-ing early dispute resolution, reducing the volume of trials.

Having won national and international recognition for their efforts to improve the administration of justice,37 Singapore’s Courts con-tinue to strive for improvement. In March 2014, the Subordinate Courts were renamed the State Courts. Reflecting their critical role in dispensing justice for 95% of cases,38 the minimum statutory requirements for magistrates and district judges in these courts were also raised.39

STRENGTHENING ACCESS TO JUSTICE

To me, the rule of law is characterised by four key features. First, that a country’s key institutions are effective, incor-ruptible and impartial. Secondly, a culture in which rights are respected and effectively enforced. Thirdly, that justice is accessible – costs are not a barrier to resolving disputes for the poor and the vulnerable, the legal process is easily navigable, and there are no inordinate delays. Fourthly, the entire legal system is predicated upon fairness, a concept which implies moderation and proportionality in the content and enforce-ment of our laws.40

– Mr V. K. Rajah, Attorney-General

facing page Chief Justice (CJ) Yong Pung How at the opening of Legal Year 1999. During his tenure, CJ Yong led a series of reforms to make the legal system more efficient and to improve the administration of justice.

above The use of the Electronic Filing System in 1997 served to streamline Court proceedings by reducing the time and manpower needed to file and retrieve legal documents.

Technology was harnessed to make processes more efficient. The launch of the Electronic Filing System in 1997 greatly reduced the time and manpower needed to file or retrieve legal documents.


With the Electronic Transactions Act, Singapore becomes the first country to adopt the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) E-Commerce Model Law.

Launch of Electronic Fil ing System; launch of Singapore Mediation Centre.

1998

1997

Intellectual Property Office of Singapore is established as a statutory board of the Ministry of Law.

2001

For the rule of law to be effective, everyone has to have access to legal services, the justice system and other solutions to conflicts and grievances, as well as to basic information about legal rights and processes.

In Singapore, the Courts, the legal fraternity and various com-munity groups organise legal awareness programmes and clinics that provide free basic legal advice. In September 2014, the Law Society expanded its network of legal clinics to all five districts in Singapore. This Community Legal Pro Bono Services Network also refers cases to social services agencies within the commu-nity, addressing other needs residents may have. In 2013, the Community Justice Centre in the State Courts was set up as a one-stop centre providing a wide range of support services (including free legal advice) for those involved in lawsuits, so that all parties involved would be able to participate effectively in court proceed-ings. Effort has also been made to make court procedures simple, understandable and jargon-free.

Legal services can be costly. The provision of legal aid is an impor-tant aspect of access to justice, particularly for the underprivileged. In 1958, Singapore became the first country in Southeast Asia to have a legal aid scheme with the establishment of the Legal Aid Bureau to provide civil legal aid and advice to persons of limited means.41 For criminal cases, all persons facing capital charges in the High Court are ensured of legal representation, free of charge, under the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences. For non-capital charges, criminal legal aid is administered by the Law Society’s Pro Bono Services Office under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, which receives funding from the Government.42

Beyond formal judicial processes, alternative forums – such as the Small Claims Tribunal, the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals and Tribunal for Maintenance of Parents – also help to resolve some claims and disputes without the need for expensive legal representation.

THE QUALITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION

The skills and integrity of our lawyers and judges have been crucial in helping Singapore to uphold the rule of law and operate an effective legal and judicial system. Yet, in the past, the legal profession in


Singapore was largely open only to those who could travel to the United Kingdom to study for admission to the Bar in England.43 It was only in September 1957 that the University of Malaya began offering classes that would lead to a Bachelor of Laws degree, paving the way for professional lawyers to be trained locally. Overseen by the Singapore Institute of Legal Education,44 legal education in Singapore has evolved to serve the increasingly complex legal needs of a developing nation. Committees on the Supply of Lawyers periodically review Singapore’s legal profession in light of the country’s needs.

To uphold the rule of law and the integrity of our public institutions, our Public Service maintains its own strong corps of legal talent. Established in 1959 and led by the Chief Justice, the Legal Service Commission appoints Legal Service officers to staff the Judiciary, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and various government departments. Regular reviews of terms and remuneration help the Legal Service attract and retain a fair share of talent in an increasingly competitive legal industry,47 while secondments to other public agencies sharpen the officers’ understanding of public policy.48

Efforts have also been made to keep the judiciary strong and com-petent. In 1971, the Constitution was amended to permit Supreme Court Judges who retire at the age of 65 to continue working as judges on a contractual basis – a necessity, given the shortage of those able and willing to serve as High Court Judges. Persistent shortages led to the appointment of Judicial Commissioners, who may serve for a limited period of time before returning to private practice, or be absorbed into the permanent judiciary. Mr Chan Sek Keong, appointed Singapore’s first Judicial Commissioner in July 1986, subsequently became Chief Justice of Singapore.49

The Rule of Law, Economic Development and International Relations

The rule of law anchors Singapore’s economic prosperity and national development. It assures businesses of legal certainty and the security of investments – there will “not be a sudden change in policy or law instituted by a corrupt, capricious or meretricious government”.50 It gives confidence that any disputes encountered will be adjudicated “efficiently and transparently by competent and impartial judges”.51

Over time, laws and institutions in Singapore have been strengthened to support the growing size and complexity of Singapore’s economy. For instance, to meet the needs of a growing knowledge-based economy, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore was estab-lished in 2001 to oversee issues relating to intellectual property.

Singapore’s adoption of international legal standards, and the credibility of our legal and judicial system,52 have also helped make our city-state a centre for international arbitration. The number of cases handled by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre grew from 64 in 2003 to 222 in 2014.53 The establishment of the Singapore International Mediation Centre (2014) and the Singapore International Commercial Court (2015) have further cemented Singapore’s role in this global field.

facing page Proceedings at the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution.

above Appointed Singapore’s first Judicial Commissioner in 1986, Mr Chan Sek Keong became the third Chief Justice in 2006.

THE RULE OF LAW IN S INGAPORE’S CONTEXT In 1962, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had lament-ed that many law school instructors were foreigners, “people whose training and experience relates to con-ditions obtaining in a different society.”45 Instructors, he said, needed “not only knowledge of the important principles of navigation but also of the more impor-tant presence of the local rocks and the shoals”.46 The foundation of a law school in Singapore helped the growth of jurisprudence with a greater sensitivity to the local context.

THE CONSTITUTION

THE EXECUTIVE THE LEG ISLATURE THE JUDIC IARY

OUR LEGAL SYSTEMSingapore is a republic with a parliamentary system of government. The roots of Singapore’s legal system can be traced back to the English legal system, and it has evolved over the years. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and lays down the basic framework for the three organs of state, namely, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.Source: www.mlaw.gov.sg


Opening of the Family Justice Courts; Subordinate Courts is renamed State Courts; Singapore International Mediation Centre is established.

Electronic Fil ing System is replaced by Integrated Electronic

Litigation System (e- Litigation); the Government announces that it wil l start funding Criminal Legal Aid Scheme directly (November); Community Justice Centre in the State Courts set up; decision to set up fourth law school to cater to community law.

The International Court of Justice awards sovereignty of Pedra Branca to Singapore.

Soft launch of enhanced Criminal Legal Aid Scheme; Singapore International Commercial Court is established.

2014

2013

2008

2015

Financial integrity and good corporate governance depend not only on good laws and dispute resolution, but also on the effective enforce-ment of these laws. The Commercial Affairs Department (CAD),54 established in 1984 to investigate white-collar crime, safeguards Singapore’s reputation as a financial and commercial centre. In 1995, CAD was thrust into the international limelight with its assured handling of the case against Nick Leeson, the trader whose misdeeds brought down the prestigious Barings Bank.55

Singapore has been a strong advocate of the rule of law in bilateral, regional and international engagements.56 Small countries cannot be secure and thrive in an international system where might makes right. International law creates a level playing field for small and big states to interact with one another in ways that preserve peace and stability. Singapore’s strict observance of the rule of law in international affairs helps uphold our sovereignty in the interna-tional system. This explains Singapore’s support of and extensive contributions to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, thereby helping to establishing “a stable maritime legal order” vital to global shipping and commerce.57

UNIVERSAL VALUE AND PRACTICAL REALITIES

Singapore has done well on international measures of its ability to uphold the rule of law. We are consistently placed in the top percentiles of the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators for the rule of law and reduced corruption.58

The strength of our laws, institutions and legal profession has been nurtured and upheld by leaders who refused to rest on their laurels in serving the public good. Challenging our judiciary to meet the highest of standards “no matter what the contextual and transactional environment” might be,59 CJ Yong Pung How argued in 1998 that “deference and respect for the courts must stay, but such public regard must be continually earned”.60 As Minister for Law K. Shanmugam noted in 2012, “Singapore accepts the Rule of law as a universal value”,61 but it has to be “approached and applied in a way which recognises practical realities, to achieve good governance and to promote the general welfare”.62 n

above Standing just a stone’s throw away from the Old Supreme Court Building, the Supreme Court consists of the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and hears both civil and criminal matters.

HOUSING A NATION, BUILDING A CITY

27 CHAPTER 2 – HOUSING A NATION, BUILDING A CITY

Creation of the Housing and Development Board (HDB).

Home Ownership for the People Scheme is introduced.

1960

1964

HDB

State and City Planning Department recommends an integrated approach to planning and transport.

Home owners allowed to use Central Provident Fund (CPF) to pay housing mortgages.

1967

1968

Faced with crumbling buildings and urban squalor at Independence, far-sighted planning and sustainable development laid the groundwork for a green global city and an endearing home for all Singaporeans.

ingapore’s urban environment in the 1950s and 1960s was in a sorry state. The Housing and Development Board (HDB)’s inaugural annual report in 1960 described “huts made of attap, old wooden boxes, rusty corrugated iron sheets and other salvage material… congested squatter settlements with no sanitation, water or any of the elementary health facilities.”1 Almost a quarter of a mil-lion people lived in dilapidated slum conditions, crammed six to a room, with many more residing in squatter colonies along the city fringes.2 With the population growing rapidly,3 overcrowding was worsening. Dwellings in the city centre were often too small to accommodate large families, leading to cramped living conditions, poor ventilation and inadequate sanitation.

The British colonial administration had taken a laissez-faire approach towards housing and urban planning in general;4 they had paid little attention to the housing needs of thousands of Chinese and Indian migrant workers who had flocked to Singapore in search for jobs in the booming rubber and tin industries in Malaya. The increasingly squalid living conditions and acute housing shortage compelled the British authorities to set up the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) in 1927, a statutory board tasked to tackle town planning, slum clearance and subsequently provide low-cost housing, first for those made homeless due to Improvement Schemes and then for lower-income groups. However, SIT was hampered in its ini-tial efforts to build housing as much of its limited resources were expended on road and land development plans and demolishing unsanitary buildings.

Conditions worsened with the outbreak of World War II; in the post-war period, SIT was unable to catch up with the needs of the city. In 1947, the population was nearly 940,000 with more than 70% living in the city centre.5 From 1947 to 1959, SIT was only able to complete 20,907 units, enough to house 100,000 people – out of a population that had grown to 1.5 million. By the time the need for more comprehensive urban planning and housing provision was realised, sweeping changes were underway. The year after the first statutory Master Plan was approved in 1958, Singapore was granted full internal self-government in 1959. With independence in 1965, we had to rethink our entire approach to planning, building and housing not just a city, but a nation.

S


HOUSING A NATION

On 1 February 1960, the People’s Action Party (PAP) government replaced the colonial-era SIT with the Housing and Development Board (HDB), tasking it with an ambitious and large-scale public housing programme for the masses. HDB had inherited a daunting situation: the population was growing by 4.3% annually, meaning that at least 15,000 homes had to be built each year to house new citizens and replace old dilapidated structures.10 After SIT’s lacklustre efforts, the housing shortage had become more acute.

Mr Lim Kim San, an entrepreneurial business-man, was appointed the first Chairman of HDB. He streamlined public housing decision-making pro-cesses and helped build indigenous capacity in the domestic construction industry to better undertake the massive public housing building programme. The leadership team he assembled comprised renowned practitioners of the mantra “talk less, do more”:11 by 1962, just three years after it was established, HDB had built 21,232 units – compared to SIT’s 23,019 units over its 32 years of operation.12 On Merdeka Day in 1964, a Straits Times article headlined “A Flat Every 45 Minutes” reflected the buoyant mood that the housing problem had been resolved:13

LAND SCARCITY AND THE LAND ACQU IS ITION ACTNewly independent Singapore faced many urban chal-lenges. Land badly needed to address overcrowding and slums in the city centre was in short supply. With limited funds and resources, the new government en-acted sweeping legislation to obtain land for urban development without straining public coffers.6 The Land Acquisition Act (LAA) of 1966 was controversial but necessary, as then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew would later explain:

When we were confronted with an enormous problem of bad housing, no development, over-crowding, we decided that unless drastic meas-ures were taken to break the law, break the rules, we would never solve it. We therefore took overriding powers to acquire land at low cost, which was in breach of one of the fundamentals of British constitutional law – the sanctity of property. But that had to be overcome, because the sanctity of the society seeking to preserve itself was greater. So we acquired at sub-eco-nomic rates.7

The power to acquire land was critical to fulfilling many of Singapore’s early objectives, from the provi-sion of public housing to the development of industrial estates and major public infrastructure projects such as the airport and ports. Because land acquisition was by nature sweeping and contentious,8 its legal and ad-ministrative framework had to be open, fair and trans-parent. Safeguards as well as an appeal process were put in place to prevent its abuse by the unscrupulous and to ensure that land acquired was clearly needed for a public purpose.9


Lower income groups in Singapore, which once waited helplessly and in vain for years for a Singapore Improvement Trust flat, can today move into a Housing and Development Board flat within days of applying for one. This in a nutshell illustrates how the Singapore Government, within a comparatively short time, has broken the back of the acute housing short-age and provided the people, who have hitherto been crying for a decent place to live in, with modest new flats whose rents are made une-conomically low so that they may be within the means of the tenants... In February this year, the Minister for National Development announced the Government’s policy to encourage property owning democracy in Singapore as the acute shortage of housing had been alleviated.

– The Straits Times, 31 August 1964

Home Ownership and Nation-Building

Before 1964, all HDB flats were for rental at afforda-ble rates, as many could not afford to buy their flats. As the housing shortage began to ease, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had already begun to entertain the notion of pursuing home ownership. Having seen first-hand the stark contrast between the homes of rental tenants and home owners, he was convinced that “if every family owned its home, the country would be more stable.”14 When Singapore became independent in 1965, home ownership became an urgent priority. Said Mr Lee:

After independence in 1965, I was troubled by Singapore’s completely urban electorate. I had seen how voters in capital cities always tended to vote against the government of the day and was determined that our householders should become home owners, otherwise we would not have political stability… I believed this sense of ownership was vital for our new society which had no deep roots in a common historical experience.15

THE BUKIT HO SWEE FIREThe fire that broke out in the Bukit Ho Swee area on 25 May 1961 ravaged 2,200 dwellings,16 but it became a catalyst for the expansion and acceleration of the Government’s public housing programme. Emergency flats were built with great speed – averaging three-and-a-half units a day – to rehouse victims of the fire. This boosted HDB’s credibility and demonstrated the Government’s commitment to provide for the people. After independence, the new Bukit Ho Swee estate, at the periphery of the city, would help resettle families relocated from the Central Areas of the city, freeing up the city centre for urban renewal.

facing page Mr Lim Kim San (in left foreground), founding Chairman of the Housing and Development Board, in discussion with residents in 1963.

right, bottom Residents of the first phase of Bukit Ho Swee housing estate in May 1961.


Ministry of the Environment is

formed; first Water Master Plan is created.

Formation of the Garden City Action Committee to oversee policies for greening Singapore.

Setting up of the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).

Singapore’s first Concept Plan is launched, integrating both land use and transport planning; Tree Planting Day is introduced.

1972

1970

1974

1971

ENV

URA

The Home Ownership for the People Scheme was launched in 1964, but home ownership only took off after changes were made to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) in 1968 to allow Singaporeans to use their CPF accounts to pay their monthly mortgage.17 The Government had foreseen the social problems that could be posed by rising inequality given Singapore’s economic growth strategy and saw in home ownership a way to maintain social stability and promote social mobility.18 Public housing and home ownership became important institutional pillars in Singapore’s nation-build-ing project:

This is foundational, and it helped to build a nation out of disparate racial and ethnic communities. So it was in the new towns that a sense of community was forged, as Chinese, Malays, and Indians lived side-by-side, neighbours along the common corridors of HDB blocks, going to the same schools, markets and community centres, and engaging in common activities every day.

– Mr Peter Ho, Chairman, Urban Redevelopment Authority19

In contrast to the colonial era, where different ethnic groups were segregated from each other, the newly built HDB flats fostered a greater mix of ethnic groups. This helped to build a sense of com-munity and social cohesion – critical to the harmony and stability of a diverse society that had seen ethnically-charged violence in the 1960s. In the late 1980s, as HDB’s building programme slowed down and the resale market grew, there were warning signs that ethnic enclaves were starting to re-form in certain housing estates. As a pre-emptive step, the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) was intro-duced in 1989 to ensure a mix of ethnic groups in each town and even apartment block. Sales of new HDB flats and resale HDB flats were regulated based on pre-determined ethnic quotas. This prin-ciple of encouraging social mixing and preventing enclaves from forming in our public housing estates has remained an important tenet in Singapore:

We had to mix them all up. Those who say we should cancel those restrictions on racial minorities buying and selling, they just don’t understand what the racial fault lines are and what the consequences can be. These are safeguards we put in, which have prevented the communities from fragmenting and being alienated from one another.

In contrast to the colonial era, where different ethnic groups were segregated from each other, the newly built HDB flats fostered a greater mix of ethnic groups. This helped to build a sense of community and social cohesion – critical to the harmony and stability of a diverse society that had seen ethnically-charged violence in the 1960s.


The mixing of the races also ensured that no estate would have a disproportionate share of the less well-off. Getting the various races to live next to each other also enabled them to see how their neighbours were doing in life, which encour-aged them to make sure that they educated their children well so they could get ahead in life.

The less successful are spread over every new town, so you don’t have the unsightliness of going into a slum area, where shops are poor, streets are dishevelled, people are looking dispirited. This physical landscape and the demographic mix that we have brought about, have changed the character of Singapore society.

– Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Minister Mentor (2004–2011)20

BUILDING A CITY

The resettlement of squatters from the city centre to new HDB flats freed up land for redevelopment and urban renewal. In the early 1960s, the Government had sought technical assistance and advice from the United Nations (UN). A State and City Planning Department (SCPD) was established in 1967 to prepare a com-prehensive, long-term urban development plan for Singapore. The SCPD group, working with a team appointed by the UN, was multi-disciplinary and comprised a diverse mix of agencies. These included the Public Works Department (PWD) and the Urban Renewal Department (URD), set up under HDB in 1964 to “reju-venate the old core of the city by making better use of land… by rebuilding the city completely”.21 Together, they laid the foundations for an integrated approach to urban planning that would eventually be realised as the Concept Plan of 1971.

above Progressive housing and integration policies have helped strengthen communal ties in Singapore over the decades.


With a planning timeframe of 30 to 35 years, the 1971 Concept Plan was the first coherent and coordinated urban development framework to account for Singapore’s economic and social needs in the long term.22 More than 40 years later, much of the basic structure of modern Singapore’s urban landscape and built-up area is a result of the key features of the 1971 Concept Plan: for example, in the way Singapore’s nature reserves and water catchment areas are currently preserved in the island’s centre, surrounded by a ring of self-contained satellite new town developments. It is also evident in the network of expressways and the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system that connects the new towns. Planning ahead for a mass transit system has allowed the Government to set aside land in advance for its eventual construction. By setting a clear long-term structure for Singapore, the 1971 Concept Plan became a common reference to “focus, guide, and coordinate the various government agencies in carrying out extensive clearance, resettlement, and development works”.23 It helped to formalise Singapore’s whole-of-government approach to addressing Singapore’s land needs, allowing land to be allocated to different uses efficiently while ensuring alignment with the nation’s overall long-term needs. A Master Plan translates the broad strategies of the Concept Plan into detailed implementation plans for the next 10 to 15 years; this is reviewed every five years to allow for changes in planning parameters and circumstances.24

In 1974, URD became an independent statutory board, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), under the Ministry of National Development. Its main task was to redevelop the Central Area and resettle affected residents to new locations. Between 1967 and 1989, URA vacated and sold a total of 184 hectares of land;

RESETTLEMENTLooking back, it looks so natural or inevita-ble, this sprouting up of housing estates all over Singapore. But each step along the way, from the clearing of squatters, the acquisition of land, the building and so on, entailed much effort. In some cases, the unhappiness over resettlement remained for years, maybe never went away entirely.

– Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister25

Residents on land that had been acquired for rede-velopment under the Land Acquisition Act had to be resettled, sometimes against their wishes. In the early years, many viewed resettlement with great suspi-cion, hostility and even organised resistance. Violence against public officials was not uncommon. Former Deputy CEO of HDB, Mr Yao Chee Liew, who was then a young civil engineer, recalls:

Gangs of squatters would attack us with parangs and chase us away. They meant business. Some-times, we would have to run for our lives, across narrow planks over the drains to escape.26

I t was an iterative process; public officers learnt from early mistakes, and resistance to resettlement even-tually declined. By the 1980s, resettlement would hit a high of 18,000 cases a year, with slum dwellers and tenants offered new HDB flats.

The Government was mindful to respect and preserve social bonds that had been built up over the years – communities were often resettled as a group so neigh-bours and families could continue to live near to each other in their new estates. This principle endures in the way the current HDB Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) is managed.

left and facing page, top Reclamation works for Marina Bay first began in the 1970s. Not only has the development enhanced Singapore’s status as a global city, it also serves as an example of Singapore’s commitment to long-term strategic planning.

facing page, bottom The conservation of Boat Quay, Clarke Quay and other stretches of the Singapore River has transformed these areas into thriving entertainment and leisure hubs while retaining their rich history.


the resulting 155 development projects trans-formed the Central Area into a modern financial and business hub.27 Through the Government Land Sales (GLS) Programme, the Government has used the sale of land to steer and imple-ment urban development plans through the private sector. The OUB Centre and OCBC Centre are two examples from this early period of Singapore’s urban transformation that still stand today.

In the late 1980s, there was a deliberate and comprehensive overhaul of Singapore’s land planning system and institutions. In 1989, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Act was amended to amalgamate URA, the Ministry of National Development’s Planning Department and its Research and Statistics Unit. This reorganisation laid the foundations for an inte-grated land planning authority that could plan on a national level for Singapore as a whole, beyond just the Central Area the old URA had been primarily responsible for.28 Its immediate task was to formulate the 1991 Concept Plan – often regarded as Singapore’s watershed plan, as it was the first time that the local planning authority would be drafting the Plan on its own.29 The Plan would map out physical land use for a period of 40 to 50 years, on the basis of an ultimate population size of 4 million.

Unlike the 1971 Concept Plan, which mainly involved government agencies, the 1991 version featured a concerted effort to solicit views from the non-government sector, including the private sector and academia. This consultative approach was intended to “tap the ideas, skills and experience of the private sector” and “ensure that the land use plan in each zone [took] into account the opinions and ideas of all interested sectors of [Singapore] society”.31

The 1991 Concept Plan articulated the audacious idea that land use should be integrated with trans-port planning, in tandem with the decentralisation of commercial activities from the city’s Central Area. Decentralisation would help to ease congestion in the city centre. Public transport would play a central role in the growth of the city:32

The 1991 Concept Plan made it clear that Singapore’s entire urban system must have public transit as the first organising principle. Therefore, the planning and allocation of the most intensive and activity-generating uses were at the most accessible locations by mass transit… the interchange stations where two or three MRT lines meet.

– Mr John Keung, Deputy CEO, URA (1996–2001)

URBAN CONSERVATIONAs early as 1971, the Government had established the Preservation of Monuments Board to identify historical-ly and architecturally significant buildings in Singapore to preserve. But in Singapore’s early years, urban con-servation was not a top priority, since limited public re-sources were focused on more pressing issues such as public housing and unemployment. Later, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew would note that his government had “recklessly demolished the old run-down city cen-tre to build anew”, and that this had triggered a sense of “disquiet over the speed at which [Singapore was] erasing its past”.30 When the new URA was established in 1989, it was also formally appointed as the national conservation authority, with the mandate to conserve Singapore’s built heritage. In July 1989, URA gazetted the first batch of areas for conservation comprising Chinatown, Little India, Kampong Glam, the Singapore River, Emerald Hill and Cairnhill.


URBAN TRANSPORT

While the 1971 Concept Plan had laid the foundation for Singapore’s modern urban transport system,33 the Concept Plan of 1991 marked a paradigm shift in transport planning. The development of self-contained hubs (such as Tampines Regional Centre) away from the city centre meant that transport networks and infrastructure across the island had to be much more closely coordinated and integrated with residential and commercial developments.

In 1995, the Government consolidated the planning and regulatory functions for both private and public transport, which included rail and road transport, under a single statutory board: the Land Transport Authority. The integration of different government agencies – namely the Roads and Transportation Division of PWD,36 Registry of Vehicles (ROV),37 Mass Rapid Transit Corporation and the Land Transport divi-sion of the Ministry of Communications – enabled more comprehensive approaches to tackling Singapore’s transport challenges.38

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND THE GARDEN CITY

As an independent nation, Singapore has had to urbanise and industrialise rapidly to survive and look after the urgent needs of our people. But we have always sought to develop our city in ways that are environmentally sound and sustainable. In our earliest years, this was a matter of prudence – as a tiny island nation newly separated from Malaysia, we had to make the most of what little natural resources we had: including land, water and clean air. The Ministry of the Environment (ENV), set up in 1972, has anchored the Government’s emphasis on envi-ronmental issues in Singapore since.

REDUCING C ITY CONGESTION AND RESTRICTING THE CAR POPULATIONBetween 1962 and 1973, the number of motor vehicles in Singapore grew by 8.8% a year, adding to conges-tion on the roads.34 In order to avoid the long traffic jams that brought other developing cities to a regular standstill, the Government took decisive steps to curb the burgeoning car population and manage road usage by deploying a range of market-based policies. This included the Area Licensing Scheme35 in 1975, which charged motorists a toll for entering the Central Busi-ness District (CBD) and the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) in 1990, limiting the number of vehicles added to the roads each year.

RAI L VERSUS BUSThe 1971 Concept Plan sparked a decade-long nation-al debate.39 At stake: the future of Singapore’s public transport. Then Minister for Communications, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, favoured a mass rail transit system; an idea the Prime Minister also supported.40 Dr Goh Keng Swee, then Finance Minister, opposed rail development because of its exorbitant cost (some $5 billion at the time), 41 and preferred a much cheaper all-bus system.42

Two teams of American experts were commissioned to study the two proposed systems. In 1982, the consult-ants reported that an all-bus system was not practical as it would have to compete for road space in land-scarce Singapore. On the other hand, rail development was likely to enhance land values around stations, particular in newly reclaimed areas such as Marina Bay.43 Finally, the decision was made to proceed with constructing the Mass Rapid Transit system, which has redefined the Singaporean landscape since.


Singapore River clean-up is completed.

Area Licensing Scheme is introduced to

reduce traffic congestion.

Construction of the Mass Rapid Transit begins.

1984

1975

1982

Much also has to do with the personal commitment, dedication and vision of our founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who saw creating a clean, green and well-built Singapore as imperative. A developed garden city would draw tourists and investors and also balance the relentless drive towards industrialisation. Mr Lee also understood its deeper significance as a way to build up a sense of national unity and common purpose:

If we did not create a society which is clean throughout the island, I believed then and I believe now, we have two classes of people: the upper class, upper middle and even middle class with gracious surroundings; and the lower middle and the working class, in poor conditions. No society like that will thrive. We were going to have National Service. No family will want its young men to die for all the people with the big homes and those owning the tall towers. So it was important that the whole island be clean, green and with everybody owning property. It was a fundamental principle on which I crafted all policies, and it’s worked. Today, whether you are in a one, two, three, four or five-room flat, executive condominium or landed property, it’s clean. You don’t live equally, but you are not excluded from the public spaces for everybody.44

facing page, left Waiting for buses along Bencoolen Street in 1960.

facing page, right A growing public transport network – launched in 1987, Singapore’s MRT system has grown to encompass 142 stations across the island, with more to come.

left Maintaining our precious environmental heritage – a view of the Central Catchment Nature Reserve and Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park.


The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is set up to integrate planning and regulatory functions of private and public transport.

Formation of Town Councils to foster community ownership and municipal governance; introduction of Ethnic Integration Policy.

Reconstitution of Public Util it ies Board (PUB) into the national water agency overseeing the entire water loop.

Setting up of the National Parks Board.

1991 Concept Plan is released with a constellation concept guiding transport development and decentralisation.

1995

1989

2001

1996

1991

LTA

In the years that followed, Mr Lee would personally intervene on many occasions to steer policies towards a clean and green city: from applying vehicular emissions inspections after he had observed such standards in Boston,45 to an annual Tree Planting Day – a time-honoured tradition that has continued since 1971.46 A famous example was his insistence that the Japanese firm Sumitomo had to adhere to strict pollution control standards in building Singapore’s first petrochemical complex. This was also expected of all multina-tional corporations (MNCs) who wished to locate their factories in Singapore. While acknowledging that this could deter much needed investment, Lee was prepared to take the risk because:

We are just one small island, if we were to spoil it, we’ve had it. Unless we protect ourselves by placing the right industries in the right places… we will despoil the city.47

Over the years, Singapore has also paid close attention to the cleaning up of its beaches and waterways. A massive clean-up at the national level was initiated by Mr Lee in his 1970 National Day Rally Speech and subsequently in 1977 when he threw down the gauntlet to clean up the Singapore River, which had become dirty and filled with toxic waste from years of indiscriminate dumping.

Singapore’s management of water has also been a matter of secu-rity, survival and sovereignty. In the 1960s, the Malaysian Prime Minister had threatened to use Johor’s supply of water to Singapore as leverage to ensure that Singapore did not undertake policies detrimental to Malaysia’s interests. A unit within Singapore’s Prime Minister’s Office was set up in response to this challenge.48 To expand our water resources, the Seletar and Peirce Reservoirs were expanded by 1969 and 1975, and the central nature reserve safeguarded against development. By 1972, a Water Master Plan was instituted to steer the long-term development of Singapore’s water resources.49 New technologies, such as NEWater, are recent expressions of this national effort. Today, Singapore is recognised as having one of the most effective water management regimes in the world.


THE IDEA OF SINGAPORE AND THE SCARCITY IMPERATIVE

In his book Triumph of the City, renowned Harvard economist Professor Edward Glaeser points out an apparent paradox behind Singapore’s success as a vibrant and dynamic global city today. He argues that it was because of and not in spite of Singapore’s lack of natural resources (in particular land) that compelled its leaders and people to adopt sensible policies and pursue innovation.50 Our instinct for survival, our pragmatic mindset, and the determination of our government and our people have enabled us to adapt to the realities of scarcity, be it a lack of natural resources, housing, jobs, security, greenery or water.

In an era of progress and prosperity, however, scarcity could lose its motivating force in the national consciousness. Singapore, the global city of today, is facing political, social and cultural challenges that former Minister for Foreign Affairs, the late Mr S. Rajaratnam, anticipated 40 years ago, when he first coined the term “global city” to describe Singapore’s future aspirations:

Laying the economic infrastructure of a Global City may turn out to be the easiest of the many tasks involved in creating such a city. But the political, social and cultural adjustments such a city would require to enable men to live happy and useful lives in them may demand a measure of courage, imag-ination and intelligence which may or may not be beyond the capacity of its citizens.51

As material needs are met, other priorities and anxieties may take hold. Yet while the physical dimension of Singapore’s urban trans-formation over the past 50 years has been remarkable, we should remember that our nation-building project has always been about much more than merely roads, flats, trains and infrastructure. The past 50 years have represented a herculean effort to transcend and overcome not only physical but also social constraints and limita-tions, “creating a country where none had been intended”.52 Our core Singapore institutions such as public housing and our clean, green and inclusive environment can help preserve and regenerate our sense of who we are as Singaporeans even as we move into an uncertain, complex future:

…MND and HDB build houses; people have to own and invest emotionally their lives and love to make it a home. We see the visible impact of what we do so much in the landscape and outline of what we have built and achieved, but in the end the real value and meaning of it all must reside within the contours, in the in-line – in the lives that inhabit that realm.

– Mr Benny Lim, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of National Development53 n

While the physical dimension of Singapore’s urban transformation over the past 50 years has been remarkable, we should remember that our nation-building project has always been about much more than merely roads, flats, trains and infrastructure.

facing page Completed in December 2009, the landmark Pinnacle@Duxton development in Tanjong Pagar has helped redefine the standard for public housing in Singapore.

MAKING A LIVING, ENSURING GROWTH

39 CHAPTER 3 – MAKING A LIVING, ENSURING GROWTH

The Industrialisation Programme for Singapore is drawn up by the United Nations (UN) Industrial Survey Mission, led by Dr Albert Winsemius.

The Economic Development Board (EDB) is formed to promote industrialisation and economic development.

1960

1961 EDB

Hard work, social stability and visionary economic policies made it possible for our small city-state to stay relevant and sustain growth in uncertain times.

ingapore’s survival and success over the past 50 years would not have been possible without the fruits of economic growth.

Our social stability and progress was sustained through a strong economy that provided good jobs and wages to most Singaporeans. With strong economic growth came healthier government revenues, better infrastructure and standards of living, greater resilience and security, as well as credibility in the international sphere.

Our economic progress has had a tangible impact on the lives of our people. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita at market prices in 1960 was $1,310; by 2014, this had grown to $71,318 – among the highest in the world. The median monthly wage for trained employees in 1960 was only $120; in 2014, the median wage from work was $3,770. Broad-based economic growth trans-formed a young and relatively unskilled population into a nation of middle class homeowners.

These achievements did not come easily or naturally to a tiny island city-state with an uncertain future and no natural resources. Singapore’s economic story is one of grit, hard work and resource-fulness in the face of sometimes desperate circumstances, always against the odds. In today’s business-friendly, free and open econ-omy, casual observers may not grasp the full extent of the Public Service’s role in guiding economic development, and the step that had to be taken to ensure that Singapore could make a living, grow and thrive.

S


The Singapore Tourist Promotion Board (STPB) is set up.

1964 STPB

JTC The Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) is formed to take charge of the development of industrial estates.

1968

THE LATE 1950S TO 1970S: BUILDING A NATIONAL ECONOMY

When Singapore became self-governing in 1959, conditions were poor. While the economy had partially recovered from the ravages of World War II, the city centre was overcrowded and buildings were deteriorating. Over 70% of the population were squatters or slum dwellers. The Port of Singapore, with a disgruntled and poorly paid workforce, had a bad reputation for pilferage and strikes.1 The economy at the time was based on trade, with some income and jobs generated from the British military personnel stationed in Singapore. But unemployment was in the low double digits, with no agricultural sector to absorb jobless workers. It was a pessimistic time:

When my [People’s Action Party] government first assumed office on 3 June 1959… businessmen and industrialists, far from hailing this event as a happy augury for the future, felt for the most part that the end of the world was around the corner. The stock market collapsed and there was a flight of capital out of Singapore. Several people fled the country.2

– Dr Goh Keng Swee, Singapore’s first Minister for Finance

Singapore’s decision to join the Federation of Malaysia was based in no small part on economic need: a combined Malaysian market of around 12 mill ion people could have provided a l iveli-hood for local f irms as they grew under the protection of import substitution policies and tariff barriers, providing jobs and incomes for Singaporeans. But worker unrest was frequent, and economic growth tepid.

above Rich in potential – an aerial view of Jurong industrial estate as it began to attract new investment.


The National Productivity Board (NPB) is established; the National Wages Council (NWC) is also established to strengthen tripartite relations between the Government, workers and employers and provide guidelines on wage negotiations.

1972 NPB

NWC

Singapore accedes to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and participates in Multi lateral Trade Negotiations (MTN).

The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) is set up.

1973

1979 MTI

MTI formulates the Second Economic Plan to deal with the labour shortage and improve the low-productivity performance of the economy.

1980

Singapore’s separation from Malaysia in August 1965 dashed hopes of a Malaysian Common Market, and with it the fledg-ling city-state’s economic prospects – or so it seemed. But Singapore’s pioneers would not be so easily daunted. To a query by noted American economist Milton Friedman in the mid-1960s on what Singapore now planned to do, Mr S. Dhanabalan, who would later become a cabinet minister, replied: “I’m sorry but the truth is, we have not the slightest clue what we will or should do. We just have the wil l and the determination. We will not only survive, we will prosper”.3

While trade had been a good foundation for Singapore’s early prosperity as a British colony, it was l imited as a national economic strategy for an independent state. Trade could not create sufficient jobs for Singapore’s rapidly growing population. Without manufacturing capabil it ies, Singapore would be largely l imited to repackaging and re-exporting goods, without capturing the value from their design and production.

With the advice of United Nations-appointed economist Dr Albert Winsemius, Singapore’s leaders decided to take a bold step. They made the diff icult decision to l ift practically all import tariffs, welcome foreign investment, and expose Singapore to the winds of global competition. Many local f irms that had been set up in anticipation of the Common Market were caught by this shift in policy, and closed down.4

Dr Goh Keng Swee, the Singaporean leader most widely credited for driving Singapore’s early economic development, summed up the challenge of the day:

…we have to find the right economic strategy which wil l generate a fast enough rate of economic growth. But eco-nomic policies by themselves are steri le unless they are backed by an energetic implementation, and both policies and their implementation need a climate of confidence in order to yield results.5

Creating Jobs, Improving Confidence

Singapore’s first and most urgent economic priority was job crea-tion: to end unemployment, over 200,000 jobs had to be created within 10 years. This fell to the Economic Development Board (EDB), set up in 1961 to develop infrastructure and promote Singapore to foreign investors. The EDB, together with the Ministry of Finance, took primary responsibility for our early economic growth.

Our economic pioneers had to learn by doing. Times were tough and budgets lean in the 1960s. EDB’s development and invest-ment promotion officers had to be frugal, sometimes subsisting on simple meals of salted eggs and rice porridge. Some EDB officers recalled being posted to New York in 1968 in the freezing winter, having never set foot in the United States (US) before, and with no experience in dealing with American multinational corporations (MNCs). Working feverishly from their premises in the Fullerton Building, other EDB officers cajoled prospective investors over the phone, met with senior executives from major international companies, and negotiated with visiting entrepre-neurs from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Indonesia and elsewhere.6


The Trade Development Board (TDB) is set up to develop Singapore as an international trading hub and to promote the export of our goods and services.

The Economic Committee is set up to revive the Singapore economy after a recession and to identify new directions for its future growth. Major initiatives to cut wage costs and improve flexibil ity in remuneration system help to restore Singapore’s cost competitiveness. Strategies are proposed to develop manufacturing and services as twin growth engines.

1983

1985

TDBAt the time, most prospective foreign investors had not even heard of Singapore, let alone considered investing precious capital there. We could not afford to choose: we welcomed all investment that created jobs, foreign and indigenous, “low tech, high tech, or no tech”.7 In an era of nationalist fervour around the world, Singapore stood out as a rare exception, welcoming both MNCs and Asian companies that produced everything from garments, textiles and toys to hair wigs, salted eggs and mosquito coils.

Concurrently, the Government set up a range of state-owned enterprises to pursue activities that the private sector either were not prepared or could not afford to take on, but which were con-sidered necessary for economic and national development. These state-led firms included Singapore Airlines, National Iron and Steel Mills, Chartered Industries, Allied Ordnance, and Neptune Orient Lines.

Resolving Challenges and Nurturing Growth

Just as Singapore was beginning to find its feet economically, another shock hit: the British decided to withdraw their military forces from 1968, with completion by 1971. This was grim news for the economy: the British military presence accounted for 20% of Singapore’s Gross National Product and 40,000 jobs ranging from shipyard engineers to nursemaids, as well as business for shops and services that served the 56 British military facilities.

Once again, Singapore had to make the best of adverse circum-stances. Building on agreements won by our political leadership after impassioned negotiations with the British government,8 the Bases Economic Conversion Department was formed to convert former military facilities, including the naval shipyards at Keppel and Sembawang, for commercial use.

But buildings and facilities alone could not drive economic growth. As Singapore’s leading economic architect, Dr Goh identified four economic pillars – manufacturing, shipbuilding, tourism and trade – to shore up demand in the face of the British military withdrawal.

When asked much later if he had started out with an overall grand design in mind, Dr Goh replied, “I had no initial vision. You just start it and hope for the best.” Nevertheless, careful thought and


The National Information Technology Plan is formulated; EDB’s Local Industry Upgrading Programme is introduced.

1986

The SME Masterplan Report, a blueprint for the upgrading of local small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), is released.

The National Science and Technology Board is formed to develop Singapore into a centre of excellence in Science and Technology. The National Technology Plan is formulated.

1989

1991

NSTB

study went into his decisions. From 1967 to 1968, he published robust and detailed justifications for his strategy in the press to bolster public confidence. Singapore’s economic agencies worked hard to sustain this precious confidence, which was then in scarce supply. Mr Ngiam Tong Dow, a former EDB Chairman, recalled how Dr Goh insisted on opening as many factories as possible in the 1960s and 1970s:

…we welcomed any type of employment. There was a factory making joss paper. We called it a factory. [There were facto-ries] making hair cream, making kaya, jam. He used to go and open. All he asked was: “You write me a one-page speech.” He just goes there, makes a short speech and then gets the TV to cover. Dr Goh was really a strategist. His whole idea was to create confidence. So the more people see the Minister opening factories, the more confidence there is in Singapore.9

Developing Specialised Economic Institutions

In 1968, Dr Goh made the landmark decision to spin off the financing, real estate and trade promotion functions of EDB into the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS), the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) and Intraco respectively. This allowed EDB to focus on investment promotion, and the newly created agencies to nurture specific aspects of Singapore’s economy.

For instance, Intraco proved useful in negotiating trade with communist countries such as the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, which did not have open markets at the time. Like their EDB counterparts, the work of Intraco executives to promote Singapore-made products took them to countries as diverse as the US, Soviet Hungary, North Korea, Iraq, India, Angola and Australia.10

Reaping the Gains of Education and Training

Early investments in education and training, to create a skilled workforce that could support a growing economy, soon bore fruit. Standards at the Rollei-Government Training Centre – set up in 1973 based on the German apprenticeship model – were high enough by the late 1970s to gain accreditation by Germany’s Deutsche Industrie und Handels Tag for providing training equiv-alent to German Facharbeiter (highly skilled craftsman) standards.

By the late 1970s, unemployment had fallen dramatically to about 3%. Total visitor arrivals – excluding Malaysians arriving by land – had shot up from 100,000 in 1965 to 1.3 million per year, and manufacturing had replaced trade as Singapore’s largest economic sector. Singapore had not only survived independence, but, as Mr Dhanabalan had promised earlier, was set to prosper.

In an era of nationalist fervour around the world, Singapore stood out as a rare exception, welcoming both MNCs and Asian companies that produced everything from garments, textiles and toys to hair wigs, salted eggs and mosquito coils.

facing page, left From the mid-1960s onwards, manufacturing was one of the key engines of Singapore’s economic growth.

facing page, right Diversification was an essential part of Singapore’s manufacturing boom, with early factories producing goods ranging from appliances and food products to garments.


An agreement is signed to launch the ASEAN Free Trade Area; the IT 2000 Plan is released to develop Singapore into an intell igent island.

A new direction is set for the Singapore economy to develop a “second wing” of Singapore companies venturing overseas.

1992

1993

1980S TO 1990S: REFINING STRATEGIES; DEEPENING AND DIVERSIFYING OUR ENGINES OF GROWTH

The early 1980s were boom years for Singapore: GDP per capita grew from $8,868 in 1979 to $14,921 by 1985. As a proportion of employed Singaporeans, skilled workers doubled from 11% in 1979 to 22% in 1985.

By the mid-1980s, however, growth began to slow. Wages were rising sharply due to a tight labour market, even as businesses faced competition from lower-cost countries in the region. In 1985, a combi-nation of factors, including wage hikes, a construc-tion slump, as well as a global downturn in shipping and electronics, led to Singapore’s first recession since independence.

In response, the 1985 Economic Committee (EC) chaired by then Minister of State for Trade and Industry Mr Lee Hsien Loong exam-ined the longer term challenges and prospects for the Singapore economy, and identified new areas and strategies for growth. Among the EC’s recommendations were a larger role for the private sector, reducing state involvement in the market through privatisa-tion and corporatisation, and a more flexible wage structure that could be adjusted during an economic downturn.12 Once again, bold, broad changes were needed to lift Singapore’s economy to the next stage of growth.

Economic agencies were quick to adapt to these new demands. EDB stepped up its efforts to diversify and deepen Singapore’s economy, and to encourage more valuable activities. In the elec-tronics industry, for instance, EDB moved from seeking investments in the assembly of hard disk drives and consumer electronics, to favouring investments in 8-inch wafer fabrication, personal com-puters and precision engineering. The services sector was also nurtured as a “twin pillar” of the economy alongside manufacturing.

For public officers in those lean times, working environments could be austere, even challenging. Mr Yee Min Chiat, who joined JTC in 1983, recalls:

MARKET D ISC IPLINEFor Singapore to remain competitive, our economic institutions had to constantly seek to do better, and to do more with less. An Engineering Industries Development Agency (EIDA), set up in April 1968 with UN assistance, sought to train large numbers of unemployed and lower-skilled Singaporeans. This proved a major selling point for potential investors but it was also prohibitively costly. Then Finance Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee dryly noted that between 1968 and 1972, EIDA had trained 886 personnel at the cost of about $12 million in government subsidies, and that there were, “obviously, more economical ways of industrial training”.11 To ensure sustainability, EIDA was converted into a business enterprise that had to survive on its earnings in July 1973.

right Subsequent waves of foreign investment in Singapore tapped on the production of higher-value products such as electrical appliances. At this Japanese-owned factory in 1987, the focus is on “quality first”.


Reclamation of 1,800 hectares of seabed around the seven offshore islands at Jurong begins. The 2,800-hectare Jurong Island will serve as a major hub for the chemical and petrochemical industries.

1995

The Singapore Productivity and Standards Board (PSB) is formed to take over the role of SME development from EDB; the National Science and Technology Plan 2000 and a $4-bil l ion Research & Development Fund are launched.

1996 PSB

I was deployed to a construction site when I joined. Armed with safety helmet and boots, I worked from a container office where the air-conditioning and lights were powered by a noisy diesel generator. The power tripped occasionally. The container office had basic necessities – a table, a chair and stationery. We didn’t have computers at our office back then! It was all paper and pen – computers were luxuries even at the head office. Back then, we relied on landline telephones, as pagers, mobile phones and emails were unheard of.13

Collaboration and Partnership to Win Investments

The quest to diversify and upgrade Singapore’s economy could not be accomplished by any one agency alone. In the 1990s, MTI, EDB and JTC worked closely to grow the wafer fabrication sec-tor, which was seen as an exciting new addition to the Singapore economy. However, to develop a critical mass of wafer fabrica-tion parks, Singapore had to commit significant land and water resources. The Government decided that this trade-off was worth-while. With a shared sense of mission, a consortium of public agen-cies, including the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), National University of Singapore (NUS), Public Utilities Board (PUB) and the National Science and Technology Board (now renamed A*STAR) pulled together to identify suitable land, train specialist manpower, manage water requirements and build the right technological capa-bilities, even as EDB promoted Singapore’s vision of becoming a wafer fabrication hub to companies such as Hitachi in Japan.

These challenges were not for the faint of heart: every deal won or lost might determine the fate of Singapore’s ambitions. In December 1995, EDB learnt to their disappointment that Hitachi and LG Semiconductor had decided to invest in a wafer fabrication plant in Malaysia. However, Hitachi was planning a second joint venture with Nippon Steel – a chance for Singapore. Taking the next available flight to Tokyo, EDB officials proposed a package to Dr Tsutomu Kanai, President of Hitachi Ltd, who responded: “You make me an offer I cannot refuse.”

Overjoyed at the positive outcome, EDB and JTC set to work imme-diately. But Hitachi’s chosen site in Singapore was filled with layer upon layer of rubbish, having been used for years as a dumping ground. Mr Lim Swee Say, then Managing Director of EDB, recalls the horror and dismay of our officials: “Singapore’s most modern fab sited on a rubbish dump? We almost fainted!”14

JTC was determined to clear the rubbish in time for the ground-break-ing ceremony. Digging went on day and night. The sheer number of trucks carrying the excavated rubbish filled the roads in that normally quiet area. Finally, the herculean task was completed in time, and Hitachi Nippon Steel Semiconductor (Singapore) sent out its first commercial shipment from Singapore in 1998.15

Former JTC Director Ng Kok Ching recalls another episode that illustrates the can-do spirit of our economic agencies.16 JTC decided to locate a large wafer fab plant at an industrial land site in Woodlands, but the land was already occupied by about 600 small factories. Relocating them using regular procedures would have taken about five years, but the investor needed the site in 18 months, in order to catch the next upswing in the market.


An inter-agency team set to work. Recognising that these small factories were also an integral part of Singapore’s industrialisation effort, financial assistance was provided to help affected firms relocate to new multi-storey ramp-up factories in Woodlands. Many dialogue sessions were held, but the existing tenants doubted whether JTC could deliver on its promises. In desperation, Mr Ng offered his “head on the chopping block” as a guarantee!17 The companies took the spirit of his unconventional statement as a sign of JTC’s sincerity. The land was finally delivered on the dot, and the investment was successfully concluded.

The creation of the Jurong Island petrochemical com-plex, literally out of existing small islands and the sea, remains the Singapore government’s largest capital investment since independence. It has since been repaid many times through foreign investment and the creation of skilled jobs for Singaporeans.

Jurong Island also vindicated EDB’s strategy to cluster and entrench mutually supporting industries, which has since led to clusters in other sectors such as the electronics, engineering and biomedical industries.

By the 1990s, A*STAR – a public agency that spearheads economic oriented research to advance scientific discovery and develop innovative technology – and EDB had begun collaborating to deepen Singapore’s technological and research and development (R&D) capabilities. Some $6 billion was committed to R&D in the 1990s.18 The number of research scientists and engineers more than tripled.19 These commitments helped Singapore’s manufacturing sector to grow more skilled and diversified in the decade that followed. Newer high-value clusters such as wafer fabrication, clean energy, chemicals and biomedical sciences emerged alongside important job-creating industries such as electronics and precision engineering.

CREATING INDUSTRIAL CLUSTERS: JURONG ISLANDFor Singapore to remain competitive, EDB announced Singapore’s vision of a “Chemical Island Complex” in January 1990 to reap the benefits of connecting and integrating related industrial activities. This ambi-tious project demanded close collaboration between a range of government agencies and private partners.

Agencies studied petrochemicals complexes in the United States, Japan, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium to determine which practices suited Singapore’s context. Their challenge was to convince companies that Jurong Island would offer cost savings and other benefits. Supported by the positive testimo-nials of companies like Hoechst Celanese which had invested in a plant in Singapore, EDB set out to attract major petrochemical companies. With time, a stream of potential investors came to Jurong Island. One of the land parcels, successfully promoted to a Japanese chemical company, was still underwater at the time.


The Committee on Singapore’s Competitiveness is formed to examine strategies to sustain our competitiveness in the medium to long term.

Industry 21 – a set of development blueprints for the manufacturing and exportable service clusters under EDB – is launched.

1997

1999

Two off-Budget packages, estimated at $2.2 bil l ion and $11.3 bil l ion respectively, are announced to help workers and companies tide over the economic downturn. A $50 mill ion Startup Enterprise Development Scheme and $498.7 mill ion National Science Scholarship Programme are also introduced.

2001

Grooming Future Business and Economic Talent

As the economy became more dependent on highly skilled work, the need for trained workers and managers grew. While MNCs con-tinued to play a significant role in our economy, capable local small and medium enterprises (SMEs) were also needed in niche roles to support the supply chains of MNCs.

On their part, MNCs who had benefitted from the long-term rela-tionship they had built with Singapore wanted to help us suc-ceed in our next phase of development. Former EDB Chairman Phil ip Yeo recalls his conversation with the Chairman of Glaxo, Sir Paul Girolami:

Sir Paul spent the evening telling me how happy Glaxo was with the Singapore operations. Sir Paul asked: “What can I do for the EDB and Singapore to show our appreciation?” I asked Sir Paul for Glaxo to sponsor a scholarship programme that would send 30 of Singapore’s brightest young students each year to the best universities in the UK and the US…” How much do you need?” he asked. I did a quick calculation on a dinner paper napkin. Thirty scholars per year for 10 years; that would take about $50 million. …Sir Paul immedi-ately arranged for Glaxo to donate and set up a $50-million trust fund.20

Glaxo was not the only foreign investor that returned a favour to Singapore. Sunstrand was the first company to set up a scholar-ship programme; they were followed by Mobil (now ExxonMobil), Seiko-Epson, Takashimaya and others.

1998 TO 2000S: GLOBALISATION AND THE CHALLENGES OF SUSTAINABLE, INCLUSIVE GROWTH

Being a small and open economy helped Singapore thrive in the years since independence, but also left us more vulnerable to shocks from beyond our shores. By the late 1990s, globalisation had left the fates of the world’s economies intertwined like never before. Systemic weaknesses in regional banking systems resulted in the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997–1998; despite Singapore’s rel-atively strong macroeconomic and financial position, our economy was caught up in the crisis and suffered a deep recession. Further economic shocks followed the US Dot-com crash in 2000 and the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

Led by the Ministry of Trade and Industry, a new Economic Review Committee (ERC) set out in 2001 to address this volatile new environment. The Committee’s recommendations set the direction for Singapore’s economic institutions in the early and mid-2000s: embrace the reality of globalisation; tap global networks and markets; strengthen local entrepreneurs and SMEs; and redouble efforts to become a knowledge- and innovation-based economy.

Unable to sidestep the impact of globalisation, Singapore would participate in it fully. We continued to engage multilateral frame-works such as the World Trade Organization and regional group-ings like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and

facing page, top Declared open in 2000, Jurong Island has helped cement Singapore’s role as a global chemicals hub and now houses many of the world’s leading energy and chemical companies.

facing page, bottom Singapore is the region’s leading research hub for clean energy.


The Economic Review Committee sets a clear direction over the next 15 years to remake Singapore into a globalised, creative, entrepreneurial and diversified economy.

2002 concluded more Free Trade Agreements. Our economic agencies continued to guide industrial development. They nurtured new clusters with promise in the global marketplace such as clean tech-nology, urban solutions, health and wellness, renewable energy and interactive digital media. Cultivating these new activities meant partnering with institutions and agencies in sectors not tradition-ally associated with trade and industry, such as healthcare and the arts. To support these emerging sectors, dedicated facilities such as Mediapolis@one-north, the Gillman Barracks arts cluster and JTC CleanTech Park were developed. Taking advantage of Singapore’s small but sophisticated urban environment, special-ised facilities such as the Energy Market Authority’s micro-grid on the offshore island of Pulau Ubin and the Singapore Autonomous Vehicle Initiative (SAVI) helped test solutions that could be put to use in cities elsewhere.

To reflect a new emphasis on innovation, the Productivity and Standards Board (PSB) was given a broader mandate in 2002 and renamed SPRING Singapore – two years later, SPRING would be tasked to promote entrepreneurship and champion the devel-opment of SMEs in Singapore. Working together with EDB and A*STAR, SPRING spearheaded an array of initiatives to boost our

local SMEs, including government-backed loans, grant schemes, access to R&D facilities, link-ups with MNCs, and training. Industrial space was also configured to meet the needs of startups.21

The Global Financial Crisis – Challenge and Recovery

Global markets continued to be volatile, with economic shocks becoming increasingly transnational in impact. The global financial crisis which originated in the US and Western Europe in 2007 to 2008 hit Singapore badly. Real GDP fell by 10% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2009. Responding swiftly, our economic agencies designed a $20.5-billion Resilience Package including a Jobs Credit Scheme, a financial risk-sharing initiative, and other measures to bolster confidence, ease business costs and preserve jobs. The Resilience Package was ready to be passed by Parliament by early 2009.

To finance the Resilience Package, the Government had to draw upon $4 billion of Singapore’s past financial reserves for the very first time – a move debated at length in Parliament, but welcomed by many companies and individuals.22 The measures helped Singapore to weather an economic storm that had wrecked many other economies, with relatively little lasting impact.

A THRIV ING BANKING SECTORSingapore’s intangible but crit ical strengths – integ-rity, low corruption, a sound regulatory framework, a reputation for competence and excellent connectivity with the rest of the world – contributed to the rapid growth of the financial and business sectors in the 1990s and 2000s.

Since the early 1970s, the Monetary Authority of Singapore has promoted the growth of the Asian Dollar Market. It set up a Financial Sector Promotion Department in 1997, and later l iberalised the banking sector through the Qualifying Full Bank scheme to allow foreign banks more scope to operate in Singapore.

By the end of 2013, Singapore was home to over 200 banks with total assets of almost $2 trillion. Today, it is one of the world’s largest financial centres.

TRIPARTITE HARMONY: A P I LLAR OF S INGAPORE’S ECONOMIC RES I LI ENCEStabilising Labour Relations

Singapore has overcome several economic downturns over the past five decades, only to emerge stronger than before. This resilience is due in no small part to the constructive tripartite relationship between employers, unions and the state.

>>

facing page A city centre for the future – foreseeing the needs of our vital finance, banking and business sectors, Singapore embarked on a massive land reclamation project at Marina Bay from the 1970s onwards.


Raising Productivity for Quality and Inclusive Growth

As Singapore recovered from the financial crisis after 2009, it became clear that we were now a maturing economy, and no longer a low-cost venue. Growth had slowed to about 4.5% annually in the 2000s. Since Singapore’s labour force cannot keep growing indefinitely, continued economic growth would have to depend on raising productivity.

Productivity growth is important to Singapore for several reasons: it enables continued economic growth and sustainable wage increases, reduces dependence on low-skill and labour-intensive business models, and helps to address emerging challenges such as income inequality and an age-ing population.

In April 2010, a high-level National Productivity and Continuing Education Council (NPCEC)24 was formed to address this multi-faceted challenge. Our economic agencies have convened efforts across the public and private sectors – not just in the economic sphere but also in education and training, manpower, science and technology as well as infrastructure and development – to support new and innovative ways of doing business. In the last five years, this has led to major policy initiatives such as the Productivity and Innovation Credit, sector-specific productivity roadmaps, two new national centres for continuing education and workforce training, and the SkillsFuture movement to promote skills mastery and lifelong learning.

>>

But this was not always the way things were. From 1963 to 1968, Singapore lost some 35,000 to 45,000 man-hours each year to strikes. There was a running joke that a new factory established on Monday would have banners protesting the exploitation of workers by Friday. This was highly disruptive to Singapore’s vulnerable economy at the time.

The passage of the Employment Act and Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act in August 1968 encouraged longer collective agreements, and prevented unions from striking on matters regarding promotion, recruitment, transfer, retrenchment and assignment of tasks. It also abolished certain discriminatory practices and abuses. The number of man-hours lost to strikes soon plummeted. A few years later, the National Wages Council (NWC) was set up in 1972 to promote better tripartite relationships.

Public Service agencies help maintain a stable environment for businesses and workers. For example, the Ministry of Manpower’s labour relations officers mediate in disputes between employers and workers, failing which cases are referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court.

Since 1980, almost no man-hours have been lost to strikes in Singapore.

Tripartite Response to Economic Crises

Over the years, Economic Committees have been convened to address major economic crises. Such Committees have always been tripartite in nature, involving unions, business associations and Government officials. The Public Service, trusted for being fair, impartial, balanced and effective, moderates the diverse and sometimes conflicting interests of different groups.

To bring Singapore’s economy back on track, tough measures have had to be taken – such as the cuts in Central Provident Fund (CPF) employer contribution rates in 1986 and 1998 to lower business costs. While similar wage cuts would have met with strong resist-ance from workers elsewhere, Singapore’s workers accepted the CPF cuts as necessary to preserve jobs and restore economic growth. This was because the tripartite representatives were able to reach a credible consensus on recommendations that would serve the long term interests of both employers and employees:

The alignment of interests projects a certain cohesiveness and is the biggest contribution of Tripartism to Singapore. It is this alignment and cohesiveness which distinguish us from other countries and which give us the nimbleness and the backing during a crisis to take firm steps and to move towards a generally aligned direction in a situation of normalcy.

– Mr Leo Yip, former Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Manpower23


SINGAPORE’S ECONOMIC JOURNEY: 50 YEARS ON AND BEYOND

Fifty years on, certain realities remain constant. Economic growth remains as fundamental to Singapore’s destiny as a nation as it was at independence:

Without growth, we have no chance of improving our collec-tive wellbeing... Slow growth will mean that new investments will be fewer, good jobs will be scarcer, and unemployment will be higher. Enterprising and talented Singaporeans will be lured away by the opportunities and the incomes they can earn in other leading cities. Low-income workers will be hardest hit, just as they were each time our economy slowed down in the last decade. Over time, our confidence will be dented. Thoughtful Americans have told me that a major challenge for the US after years of slow growth has been a profound loss of optimism. The same is true for Japan, and will be true of Singapore too if ever our economy stagnates.

– Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister25

Our economic institutions are fundamentally pragmatic and adaptive, not adhering strictly to any ideology, always seeking the best balance of measures to address the situation at hand.

above Completed in 2012, the Marina Bay Financial Centre is now a crucial base for multinational firms.


Singapore is severely affected by contagion effects from the 2007–2008 Global Financial Crisis. Government designs a $20.5 bil l ion Resil ience Package to bolster confidence, preserve jobs and control business costs.

2009

The Economic Strategies Committee recommends medium term targets of 3–5% GDP growth, 2–3% productivity growth, and 1–2% workforce growth annually. The National Productivity and Continuing Education Council is formed to address these challenges.

2010

The Severe Active Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic triggers a sharp economic downturn. A $230 mill ion

SARS relief package is

implemented to help

businesses and save jobs.

2003

Throughout the decades, two tenets have guided our economic institutions. First, our economic agencies support and facil itate markets, rather than replace them. For instance, EDB’s suite of incentives guides investment choices rather than mandat-ing l ists of approved investment sectors. Agencies such as the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Competition Commission of Singapore ensure that both private and government-linked companies are subject to rigorous market discipline and com-petition. Second, our economic institutions are fundamentally pragmatic and adaptive, not adhering strictly to any ideology, always seeking the best balance of measures to address the sit-uation at hand.

Singapore’s economic future wil l be very different from our early decades of independence. As a maturing economy, GDP growth wil l stabil ise, physical and social constraints wil l l imit the pace of immigration, and the emphasis wil l shift to higher productivity, innovation- and ideas-based industries. We will continue to be exposed to global economic volati l ity, costs wil l r ise over time, and the challenge will be to ensure that future growth is sustain-able, inclusive and of a high quality. To attract global talent and meet the evolving needs of citizens, Singapore wil l need to look beyond economic indicators: to become both a distinct global city and an endearing home.

But the past five decades of development, hard work and part-nership have earned Singapore a skil led workforce, cordial tri-partite relations, polit ical stabil ity, sound business environment, good global reputation, well-developed infrastructure, a diversi-fied range of firms in high-value sectors, and sizeable national reserves prudently saved and invested. Strong and active eco-nomic governance – supported by a responsive and responsible public sector – continues to complement an open and vibrant private sector. In an increasingly uncertain global economy, Singapore faces the future from a position of strength. n

As a maturing economy, GDP growth will stabilise, physical and social constraints will limit the pace of immigration, and the emphasis will shift to higher productivity, innovation- and ideas-based industries.

INVESTING IN OUR PEOPLE

53 CHAPTER 4 – INVESTING IN OUR PEOPLE

The Adult Education Board is formed to help working adults upgrade themselves, so that they can take up new career opportunities with better prospects.

1960

Singapore’s winning strategy has always been to develop our one, best natural resource – our people – through education, training and opportunities for continual learning.

hen Mr Soon Boon Eng started teaching in the 1960s,1 his school was a modest cluster of dusty classrooms set in the

middle of low-rise flats. Nearby Toa Payoh was still a swamp. After teaching in the mornings, he attended lessons in the afternoon at the Teachers’ Training College.2 At night, he took classes to pre-pare for his own ‘A’ level exams. He was 18 years old.

Today, Singapore’s education system is regarded as one of our most important institutions and among our signature achievements. Education provides every child, regardless of family background, with the means to learn, grow, thrive, better themselves and con-tribute to society. It is a critical investment in the well-being and future of our nation, nurturing the one natural resource we have: our people.

But the early years were gruelling ones for schools, students and educators. Under the British colonial administration, education in Singapore had been a patchy, uneven affair. The few schools we had were mostly provided for through the largesse of commu-nity groups or philanthropists. As former Minister for Education Dr Goh Keng Swee put it, “the colonial government did not feel any responsibility to provide universal education. Hence education was the privilege of a minority of families who could afford to send their children to school”.3

When Singapore attained self-governance in 1959, there was thus no comprehensive national school system to speak of. There were not enough schools. Most of the population were unskilled and illiterate.

A mammoth undertaking lay ahead.

W


To raise the standards of vocational training, the first vocational institute is opened.

1964BUILDING A NATIONAL EDUCATION SYSTEM

The first step was to build many more schools so that more children could have a chance at being educated. Between 1959 and 1965, the Ministry of Education (MOE) built 83 new schools; an average of one every month for seven years.4 The number of primary and secondary school students increased from 315,000 in 1959 to more than 520,000 in 1968.5

But new school buildings were just the start. There were now thou-sands of new students, but not enough teachers to teach them. A massive recruitment drive was mounted. “In a great hurry,” went one account, “one teacher after another was recruited, often right in the examination hall where a 16-year-old just sat for his or her last ‘O’ level examination paper”.6 The number of teachers increased from 10,590 in 1959 to 19,216 in 1968.7

By the 1970s, the pressure to swell the ranks of the teaching force had eased, and more attention could be paid to ensuring teachers were better equipped to carry out their duties. A new statutory board, the Institute of Education, was set up in 1973 to take over the functions of the Teachers’ Training College. Reconstituted as the National Institute of Education (NIE) in 1991, it set out to offer rigorous professional training and development for both graduate and non-graduate teachers and school leaders and continues to play this role today, evolving as the demands on Singapore’s edu-cators become increasingly sophisticated over time.8,9

Learning and professional development came to be regarded as lifelong processes. Today, our teachers continue to better them-selves as educators long after they graduate from NIE. In school-based learning communities, they hone their professional practice through lesson studies and action research. In 2010, an Academy of Singapore Teachers was founded to support peer learning among teachers: our educators regularly share their insights, experience and resources with one another, through teacher-led programmes and rich networks of learning.


The Industrial Training Board is formed to centralise, coordinate and intensify industrial training.

1973

1979

ITB

The Skil ls Development Fund is launched to encourage employers to send their staff for training and to help offset training costs.

facing page. top Introduced in 1966, the flag-raising ceremony in schools remains in practice today.

facing page. bottom Tracing its roots to 1973, the National Institute of Education (NIE) offers professional training and development to teachers and school leaders.

left A classroom in 1967. With bilingualism established as one of the defining characteristics of Singapore’s education system, students acquire language skills relevant to the global economy, while preserving their cultural roots in Asia.

A Bilingual Education

In the early years, language was a challenge – different schools each used a different language of instruction (often the vernacular tongue of the communities that had set up the school). The newly independent Singapore had to establish a common language that everyone could learn and use to communicate with one another.

For pragmatic reasons, English was set as the medium of instruc-tion, the language everyone had to learn. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, then Prime Minister of Singapore, recounted:

[T]o attract investors here to set up their manufacturing plants, our people had to speak a language they could understand. That language had to be English – since World War II ended, the English language had spread. It was the language of inter-national diplomacy, the language of science and technology, and the language of international finance and commerce. Singaporeans would have increased opportunities if they had a strong mastery of English.10

There was some political resentment at having to learn the colonial language. Singapore’s diverse communities wanted to preserve their own cultures and languages, which they feared might be lost if everyone was forced to learn English. The solution was to make bilingualism a cornerstone of the education system. From 1960, all primary school children had to learn two languages: English and another language, usually Chinese, Malay or Tamil. Secondary school students had to do likewise from 1966.

As Singapore industrialised over time, English came to be the primary language used in the workplace. Parents came to prefer English-medium schools, regarding them as giving their children better chances at success. With time, demand for vernacular language schools declined, and most eventually shut down or switched to using English as the main medium of instruction. By 1987, all schools in Singapore were using English. Bilingualism, however, has continued as a defining characteristic of Singapore’s education system – grounding all students in a common, globally important language, as well as in our respective mother tongues, connecting us to our cultural roots in Asia.


above Singapore’s curriculum emphasises a holistic education that includes the humanities and sciences as well as physical education, the arts, character and citizenship education, and co-curricular activities.

Creating a National Curriculum

There were many other needs to be met in the early years. Under the colonial administration, different schools offered their own curricula, each with their own sets of textbooks and educational prior-ities. An independent Singapore needed a common, standardised curriculum and teaching materials to equip students with knowledge and skills relevant for the future workforce, and to build a cohe-sive nation.

MOE developed a national curriculum that was both pragmatic and values-based. A strong foundation in both literacy and numeracy was established in the primary school years, so students could access learning in other subjects and at higher levels. The curriculum also emphasised a holistic education, providing students with a grounding not

just in the humanities and sciences, but also physical education, the arts, character and citizenship education, and co-curricular activities to build social skills and broaden interests.

Singapore’s education system has always sought to evolve with the times. Our educational institutions and approaches stay respon-sive, pragmatic and adaptable, ensuring that our people have the right skills and knowledge to thrive in a changing world.

CREATING MULTIPLE PATHS TO SUCCESS IN WORK AND LIFE

The priority in the early years was to give as many children as possible the opportunity to go to school. The rapid buildup of new schools and student places was aided by a single, standardised curriculum which could be quickly replicated across all schools.

In 1979, however, an Education Study Team led by then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Dr Goh Keng Swee shared its findings with the public that “the ‘single-curriculum’ education system does not take into consideration differences in… rates of learning of the pupils… This rigidity in the system tends to favour the above-average pupils, penalising the below-average pupils and the slow learners.”11

Many were dropping out of school early, without qualifications that could help them make a living. To address this, the team recom-mended that different streams of study be made available so that each pupil could learn at a pace that best served their learning needs.

Endorsed by Parliament, this “New Education System”, as it was called, was implemented in Singapore’s primary schools from 1979. Students who struggled to keep up with the standard curriculum were given either an additional two years to complete the curricu-lum, or a monolingual curriculum instead of the bilingual standard. Streaming was extended to secondary schools in 1980. A four-year “Express” stream and a five-year “Normal” stream were created.


The Vocational and Industrial Training Board (VITB) is formed, incorporating the Adult Education Board and the Industrial Training Board. VITB offers a comprehensive system of full-time institutional training, part-time Continuing Education and Training and a national public trade testing system.

1979–1980

Industrial training institutes are set up by the Economic Development Board to help the workforce acquire advanced skil ls required in new growth sectors.

1982–1983

V ITB

E D B

Students in the latter would take the ‘N’ level examinations, after which they would either spend an additional year of study and go on to take the ‘O’ level examinations, or move on directly to voca-tional and technical training.

The new system enabled many more students to stay longer in the school system, succeed in their studies, and graduate with better qualifications and prospects. In 1971 to 1974, 71% of the cohort passed the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), with 14% progressing to post-secondary education.12 By the 2000s, more than 97% of the cohort passed the PSLE. The proportion that progressed to post-secondary education also increased to 88% in 2003 and 95% in 2013.13

As the 21st century approached, it became clear that in the new globalised economy, more than basic technical skills and text-book knowledge would be needed. Could Singapore’s finely-tuned education system keep up with a world of rapid change, in which creativity and the capacity to continually learn were the keys to success? Could Singaporeans be equipped for a future that could not be predicted?

With Singapore developing into a knowledge-based economy, our educators conceived a broad vision for teaching and learning, more suited to the new age and its demands. This vision – “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation”14 – prompted curricular reforms to bet-ter cultivate inquiry, creativity, innovation and other higher order competencies that would be needed in the future. Important new literacies and resources such as information and communications technology (ICT) were quickly incorporated. However, some of these competencies could not be taught in the same way as how academic knowledge or technical skills had been taught in the past.

A much more flexible, diverse educational landscape was called for, with multiple pathways – going beyond streaming – to cater to different abilities and interests, in order to nurture “a pool of diverse talents with different educational experiences and outlook, who are able to offer different ideas for Singapore to be a truly vibrant country, adaptable and responsive to the varied challenges of the future”.15

In 1997, MOE began to group schools into regional clusters, each headed by a cluster superintendent. Learning from the successes of independent and autonomous schools since the 1990s, each cluster of 11 to 14 schools now makes its own school management decisions.16 The schools share resources among themselves, and can adopt innovative practices and programmes better suited to their students’ needs.

Since the mid-2000s, educational options in Singapore have blos-somed at every level. A wide array of new ‘O’ level subjects were introduced in some schools from 2006, including media studies, drama, creative 3D animation, introduction to enterprise devel-opment and physical education.17 Streaming was replaced with subject-based banding in primary schools in 2008, allowing chil-dren to study subjects according to their different strengths in each. Eighteen schools began to offer a more flexible Integrated Programme: 14 of them leading to the traditional ‘A’ level qualifi-cations, three to the International Baccalaureate Diploma, and one


To give workers who missed out on formal school education a chance to upgrade their qualif ications, the following Continuing Education and Training (CET) programmes are introduced: Basic Education for Skil ls Training (BEST), Worker Improvement through Secondary Education (WISE) and Modular Skil ls Training (MOST).

1983–1987

to the NUS High School Diploma. New specialised independent schools were also set up to nurture excellence in particular fields: the Singapore Sports School in 2004, the NUS High School of Mathematics and Science in 2005, the School of the Arts in 2008, and the School of Science and Technology in 2010.

Schools have been encouraged to create niches for themselves, with more dedicated resources to help their students excel in spe-cific interest areas. More resources have also gone into helping those who have not done as well academically. One such school, NorthLight, was set up in 2007 to help students who failed the PSLE. Catering to the unique needs of the pupils, the school now offers an engaging, supportive,18 career-oriented and values- focused education to prepare them for life and work.19

Our university system has experienced similar shifts. With the transition to a knowledge-based economy, research and development (R&D) and innovation would play an increasingly important role in Singapore’s eco-nomic development.21 The university system has become a key pillar in the national effort to “attract and train superior research manpower and produce research out-comes that translate into economic or strategic gain”.22 Responding to rapid global changes in knowledge, learning and the economy, the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) were corporatised in 2006,23 joining Singapore Management University (SMU) which was set up in 2000 as a not-for-profit company. This institutional auton-omy would afford them more flexibility to build on their different strengths, create peaks of excellence in teach-ing and research, grow as internationally-recognised universities, and enrich students’ learning experience.24 In addition, new institutions have been established, each with its own niche: the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School in 2005, the Singapore University of Technology and Design in 2009, Singapore Institute of Technology in 2009 (which became an autonomous university in 2014), Yale-NUS College (offering a liberal arts education) in 2011, and the Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine in 2013.

BLOSSOMING IN NORTHLIGHT2 0

Mr Jimmy Yap recalled that when his daughter, Helen, first attended school, she “struggled to understand her lessons, she failed her tests and examinations, and she was constantly miserable”.

Mr Yap and his wife decided to send Helen to the NorthLight School instead. He noted:

Within a few months, we could see the change in her. She would come home tired, but happy. She was getting higher grades than she ever did in primary school. She was made a school councillor and she was given responsibilities, which she undertook with great enthusiasm.

Under the school’s care, Helen also uncovered a gift for art and painting, which she had never displayed before. “My life has changed,” Helen told her father one day.

Mr Yap believes that as Singapore’s education moves away from a one-size-fits-all approach, there is a greater utility in helping those at the other end of the spectrum. He has seen first-hand how dedicated and passionate teachers can make a real difference to the lives of their students.


LEARNING TO MAKE A LIVING

In its early years, Singapore’s lack of an educated and skilled workforce was keenly felt. Jobs were scarce in the 1960s; with unemployment of about 10%.25 Singapore’s economy at the time depended heavily on entrepôt trade, which was not growing fast enough to create jobs for the growing population. Singapore had to industrialise, so that our people could earn a living, but this required technical skills that most of the population did not have at the time.

Vocational and technical education was therefore a priority from the start, to support Singapore’s push towards industrialisation and job creation. Subjects such as Math and Science were empha-sised, particularly in the secondary school curriculum. Following a 1961 report, four types of secondary schools were created – vocational, technical and commercial schools, as well as vocational institutes.26 The latter focused solely on vocational courses such as electrical installation, radio service, motor vehicle mechanics, plumbing, shipbuilding, product design, applied arts and so on.27,28

In 1968, the Technical Education Department was set up at MOE to improve the quality of technical education in secondary schools, as well as in industrial training. A technical curriculum was made compulsory for all Secondary One and Two students, so every Singaporean pupil would learn some practical skills in the course of schooling.29

facing page To nurture a pool of diverse talents, Singapore‘s learning landscape now offers multiple pathways to cater to the creativity, abilities and interests of individual students.

above Students at the Vocational and Industrial Training Board (VITB) in 1986.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

PRIMARY SCHOOLS6 YEARS

PRIMARY SCHOOL LEAVING EXAMINATION

(PSLE)

SPECIAL EDUCATION SCHOOLS

GCE ‘O’ LEVEL

GCE ‘N(A)’ LEVEL

DIRECT-ENTRY-SCHEME TO POLYTECHNIC

GCE ‘N(T)’ LEVEL

INTEGRATED PROGRAMME4–6 YEARS

SPECIALISED INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

****

4–6 YEARS

4 YEARSEXPRESS

NORMAL (ACADEMIC)

[N(A)]

4 YEARS

NORMAL (TECHNICAL) [N(T)]

4 YEARS

SPECIALISED SCHOOLS*

1–4 YEARS

ALTERNATIVE QUALIFICATIONS

**

POLYTECHNIC FOUNDATION

1 YEAR

SEC 5N(A)1 YEAR

PRIVATELY FUNDED SCHOOLS

4–6 YEARS

P R I MARY S E C O N DARY6 YEARS 4–5 YEARS

THE SINGAPORE EDUCATION LANDSCAPESource: www.moe.gov.sg/education/

CHAPTER ONE – INTEGRITY

UNIVERSITIES

GCE ‘A’ LEVEL



**

**

JUNIOR COLLEGES/CENTRALISED INSTITUTE

2–3 YEARS

POLYTECHNICS3 YEARS

INSTITUTE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION2–3 YEARS

ARTS INSTITUTIONS3–6 YEARS

P O ST-S E C O N DARY W O R K 1–6 YEARS

*

**

***

Specialised Schools offer customised programmes for students who are inclined toward hands-on and practical learning. These schools include NorthLight School, Assumption Pathway School, Crest Secondary School and Spectra Secondary School.

Alternative Qualifications refer to qualifications not traditionally offered by the majority of mainstream schools in Singapore.

Continuing Education and Training (CET) is designed for adult learners or companies looking to upgrade the skills and knowledge of their employees.

Specialised Independent Schools offer specialised education catering to students with talents and strong interests in specific fields, such as the arts, sports, mathematics and science, and applied learning. These schools are the School of the Arts, Singapore Sports School, NUS High School of Mathematics and Science, and the School of Science and Technology.

****

CONTINUING EDUCATION AND TRAINING (CET)

***

W O R K

D I F FE R E NT PATH WAYS TO W O R K AN D L I F E


In 1973, the Industrial Training Board (ITB) con-solidated most of the functions of the Technical Education Department, and stepped up industrial training in Singapore. Working with industry players, it set up a national skills certification system and an industry-oriented curriculum for its institutes, so that the skills taught would be relevant to the economy. This led to industry-based training schemes, appren-ticeships and on-the-job training in partnership with specific companies.31

Indeed, vocational and technical education in Singapore has always aimed to address the evolv-ing needs of industry. Singapore’s first polytechnic – Singapore Polytechnic – was established in 1954 after a group of businessmen realised that there was a major shortage of skilled labour in many sectors of the economy.32 By 1959, it was focused exclusively on technical education, shedding non-technical courses offered by other institutions. Internal exam-inations, more relevant to the prevailing needs of the Singapore economy, replaced overseas papers. These and other reforms meant that by the 1970s, the Singapore Polytechnic had established itself as one of two main institutions33 that trained tech-nicians with skills much needed by manufacturing companies in newly industrialising Singapore. Today, the polytechnics, offering courses at the post- secondary level and beyond, continue to produce highly-skilled manpower to support Singapore’s current and new industries.34 The polytechnics also maintain important ties with employers in industry to

keep abreast of what their graduates will need to stay relevant in the working world.

With the formation of the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) in 1992, vocational and technical education became firmly inte-grated into the Singapore education system as one of its core pathways for post-secondary education, alongside polytechnics and junior colleges.

ENCOURAG ING STUDENTS TO LEARN TECHN ICAL SKI LLSMr Wee Heng Tin, a former Director of Education who was the Principal of Dunearn Secondary School in the late 1960s and early 1970s, recalls:

In those days, a rapidly industrialising Singapore was in need of people with skills in the technical areas; so the Technical Education department in schools offered four subjects: Woodwork, Met-alwork, Basic Electricity and Electronics, and Technical Drawing.

Every boy in lower secondary had to do this technical curriculum, but not all schools had the necessary infrastructure; so students would move to these receiving schools like Dunearn Secondary for technical instruction. Some very bright students were even taken out of Raffles Institution (RI) and Anglo-Chinese School and en-couraged to transfer to the technical stream. The most illustrious is probably Lee Yock Suan, who became Minister for Education (1992–1997). He studied in the technical stream in Queenstown, went to RI for his ‘A’ levels and was awarded the President’s Scholarship thereafter. But not many bright students found it attractive to be uprooted and transferred to another school; so the policy was changed: students could stay in their school of choice and do the technical curriculum in an-other school.30


The Institute of Technical Education (ITE) is established as a post-secondary institution delivering high quality vocational and technical education, with courses that match the nature of jobs available on the market.

Industrial training institutes move to form Nanyang Polytechnic (NYP) where industry-based training and

upgrading of workers continue to be strengthened.

1992

1993

ITE

NYP

But there were still hurdles to overcome. In its early days, ITE students often “had low self-esteem and morale, accepting the perception that they were ‘under-achievers’”35 who had been chan-nelled into technical education only because of poor academic performance. ITE had to redefine itself so that the graduates it produced would be motivated to put in their best in their vocational and technical studies, knowing that good opportunities awaited them after graduation.

Much has been done to improve the image and substance of ITE Colleges over the years. State-of-the-art facilities and equipment were installed, so that students would train in realistic, well-equipped environments similar to those in actual workplaces. ITE educators were sent for training to upgrade the quality of teach-ing and the curriculum,36 and encouraged to keep up with current knowledge through industry projects and consultancy work.37 ITE now offers a full-fledged post-secondary education, including advanced-level courses matching the nature of jobs available on the market. Beyond work skills, students receive an all-rounded education that also nurtures strength of character, social respon-sibility, physical fitness and other important life skills.38 Today, ITE is a respected institution that serves both the needs of industries and the prospects of its graduates, with 90% of its students finding jobs within six months of graduating.39

SKILLING UP THE WORKFORCE

Singapore’s formal education system has been powerfully transform-ative. It has been pivotal in equipping our people with the means necessary to make a good living and lift themselves out of poverty.

But investing in our people’s future also involves generating more jobs and opportunities for them to take up. In the 1960s, Singapore had a sizeable, mostly unskilled, illiterate workforce, who were already out of school and faced grim prospects. In 1968, the Economic Development Board (EDB) set up an Engineering Industries Development Agency (EIDA), with foreign aid and assis-tance from technical experts from several developed nations. EIDA provided training for these unskilled workers, so they would acquire the skills needed in industries EDB hoped to grow in Singapore. The EIDA training centres, and other similar centres that soon followed, demonstrated Singapore’s commitment to equipping its workforce with skills that match up to international standards. This persuaded many multinational companies to set up shop and build factories in Singapore, creating jobs for thousands.40

facing page and above At the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), students learn and train in facilities and environments that are similar to actual workplaces, such as a pilot cockpit for aerospace avionics lessons (facing page, left), restaurant kitchen for culinary lessons (facing page, right) and hotel for hospitality lessons (above).


As an institution, EDB’s mission has been to identify and promote new growth sectors for Singapore. Where the workforce lacked certain capabilities to meet the needs of these new growth areas, EDB has worked with companies, educational institutions and other government agencies to fill the gaps. As changes to the economy called for a much more specialised workforce with higher order skills in science and technology, EDB sought partnerships with foreign governments that had experience in training for advanced industries, such as advanced manufacturing (Germany and Japan), mechatronics (Japan), electronics and telecommunications (France) and software engineering (Japan). This led to the setting up of sev-eral bilateral training institutes to help develop advanced skills.41

It was important that these institutes kept up as technology rapidly advanced. To ensure this, EDB partnered these institutes with companies that were leaders in the respective industries. This meant that the workers were not only trained in the latest tech-nologies, but could develop new and useful appli-cations around them.42 The workforce was plugged straight into the cutting edge of their fields. Some of the institutes were later merged to form Nanyang Polytechnic in 1993, where industry-based train-ing and upgrading of workers continued.43 Later, as the rapidly expanding biologics manufacturing sector boomed, EDB partnered with the Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) and Temasek Polytechnic to provide both skills training and apprenticeships with top biologics companies overseas through a joint Biologics Overseas Skills Training (BOOST) programme.

Today, these training programmes and broad partner-ships are well recognised as benefiting both industry and the resident workforce. But this was not the case in earlier years. Some employers were reluctant to send their workers for training, which costs time, money and resources that could be spent on other business needs in the short term.

To offset costs and underline the importance of investing in our people for the long term, a Skills Development Fund was set up in 1979 to help employers offset the costs of training. All employ-ers were required to contribute 2% of their payroll budget to the Skills Development Fund.44

Opening the National Productivity Board building in 1987, then Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence (Services) Mr Lee Hsien Loong argued that training and reskilling workers was an important long term goal that called for tripartite cooperation among the Government, employers and unions:

For their part, workers must put in the necessary effort, and even make personal sacrifices, to upgrade themselves. Unions should encourage their members to take up training courses, even if this means classes in the evenings after work. They must explain to the workers that although the gains from training may not be immediate, such training

above From game design and development to robotics, Singapore Polytechnic offers advanced programmes to train highly-skilled manpower for Singapore’s current and new industries.


A new Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund is established, signall ing the Government’s commitment to continue investing in our people’s l ifelong learning.

The Singapore Workforce Development Agency is set up to

consolidate and build upon all past workforce development and continuing education and training programmes, and to enhance lifetime employabil ity.

2000

2003

Workforce Skil ls Qualif ications frameworks are launched to accredit courses based on industry-recognised competencies and give workers transferable

skil ls certif ications.

2005

W DA

is nonetheless vital to their l ivelihood. If Singaporeans do not possess the skills to fit into new jobs, or are unable to adapt to new ways of working, new industries will bypass Singapore in their search for places to invest.45

This approach of working with employers to send workers for train-ing continues today. Singapore’s ability and willingness to invest in the skills and knowledge of our people has since become an impressive draw for international industries and businesses, and an important means to help our people stay equipped to thrive in a fast-paced global economy.

TOWARDS LIFELONG LEARNING

In Singapore, the commitment to invest in our people is expressed not only through formal education, but also through continual train-ing and skills upgrading across the span of a working lifetime.

This notion of continuing to learn after leaving school is not new to Singapore. Even as the education system was being established in the 1960s, there were efforts to give working adults, who often had had little education opportunities when they were young, a sec-ond chance at basic education. The Adult Education Board (AEB), set up in 1960, offered night classes and other courses that led to higher qualifications such as the ‘O’ levels, which could then lead to better job prospects.46 In the 1970s, the polytechnics started offer-ing evening part-time diploma courses for working persons.47 The Vocational and Industrial Training Board (VITB), formed in 1979 from a merger of ITB and AEB, provided a comprehensive system of full-time and part-time training and certification for vocational careers.

With the establishment of the Skills Development Fund in 1979, Continuing Education and Training (CET) programmes in the 1980s – including the Basic Education for Skills Training (BEST), Worker Improvement through Secondary Education (WISE) and Modular Skills Training (MOST) programmes – gave many cohorts of workers who had missed out on formal school education a chance to upgrade their qualifications through night and weekend classes. In 2000, the Government endowed a new Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund (LLEF) – with a target fund size of $5 billion – to support various workforce development initiatives and promote lifelong learning. As an endowment fund, LLEF provides a steady stream of income to help workers get jobs, upgrade and retrain.

A series of severe economic shocks in the early 2000s prompted the Government to do more. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001, as well as the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) crisis in 2003, Singapore’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth fell from 8.9% in 2000 to 4.4% in 2003.48 Unemployment rate rose from 2.7% to 4% in the same period.49 While employers were still sending their workers for training, those who were self-employed or in-between jobs (such as those recently retrenched due to the downturn) found it difficult to get appropriate training.50

A concerted effort had to be made to help all Singaporeans upgrade their skills and find work both during this difficult period and in the long term as the economy restructured. In 2003, the Economic Review Committee called for “a national CET body to


To create a new habitat for adult learning, two new CET campuses are opened – the Lifelong Learning Institute and the Devan Nair Institute for Employment and Employabil ity.

Skil lsFuture is launched to provide individuals with opportunities to realise their potential through the mastery of skil ls, and to foster a culture that supports and celebrates l ifelong learning.

2013–2014

2014 SKILLSFUTURE

enrich the habit of lifelong learning”,51 and to take a more holis-tic view of workforce training in all the different economic sectors in Singapore. That same year, WDA was established under the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). The new agency would consolidate and build upon all past workforce development programmes. It would also help displaced workers find jobs, improve training qual-ity and better relate training outcomes to job prospects.52 WDA’s many initiatives include: a national Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) system to accredit courses based on industry-recognised competencies to give workers transferable skills certifications; a network of dedicated job and career centres to provide career counselling for job seekers; a Jobs Bank where employers post job vacancies; and an Institute for Adult Learning to upgrade the quality of adult educators and facilitate research in adult pedagogy. WDA also partners ITE, polytechnics, universities and other train-ing providers to deliver WSQ courses and other CET programmes.

SKILLSFUTURE: OUR WAY FORWARD

Singapore’s approach has always been to create opportunities for our people to thrive and better ourselves. The Government has pursued this through investment in important institutions such as the education system, the economic agencies and their partner-ships across different sectors of society. Today, Singapore can look to a new phase of development, towards becoming an advanced economy and society, where every citizen has the opportunity to develop ourselves to our fullest. Our people’s aspirations cannot be achieved with basic qualifications alone – instead, we must become masters of skills.

This is the spirit behind the SkillsFuture movement, launched in November 2014. SkillsFuture seeks to build up an integrated system of education, training and career progression for Singaporeans, allowing each of us to take our skills and interests further in the spirit of lifelong learning. To do so, everyone – from individuals and students to education and training providers, businesses and industry associations, unions and public agencies – must rethink the concept of learning. Supported by educators and training professionals, each of us must take ownership and realise our potential by continually improving our skills and knowledge, throughout our lives. Businesses, unions and the Government will come together to collaborate in a deeper and more integrated manner, identifying and designing appropriate training so that any Singaporean of any age and background can invest in our own learning and be duly recognised for what we know and do well.

THE JOURNEY CONTINUES

Singapore started out with no formal national education system. We have come a long way from those desperate early years, when many of our people were uneducated, jobless and lacked the means to better themselves. Today, Singapore’s education system is highly regarded as one which not only produces top quality academic outcomes,53 but also equips our stu-dents with strength of character as well as rel-evant skills to contribute to the economy. It has


evolved over time to provide multiple pathways to success, with a rich array of education options to help every student make the most of their individual interests, inclinations and potential.

Newly independent Singapore inherited a workforce that was largely unskilled and illiterate. Today, our people are a globally respected, highly skilled workforce. Every adult in the workforce continues to enjoy many opportunities, tirelessly cultivated by EDB, WDA, MOE and other public agencies, to improve their knowledge and upgrade their skills throughout their lives, and to better adapt to an ever changing world.

At the opening of the Lifelong Learning Institute in September 2014, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Tharman Shanmugaratnam said:

We cannot change the world, but we can respond to and take advantage of the way the world is changing. We have to take advantage of new technologies and new global consumer demands to ensure we remain a vibrant economy, and give every Singaporean a chance to have quality jobs and fulfill-ing lives… We must aspire to move beyond competence and doing a regular job, towards mastering skills… We must be a place where everyone has the opportunity to build on their strengths, developing the skills that enable them to maximise their potential, earn their own success and contribute to soci-ety. It’s about respecting the innate dignity of every citizen – the sense of fulfilment that comes from playing their full role and being valued for their contributions to society.54

Investing in our people over the long term has proven to be a winning strategy for Singapore; the Government continues to fine-tune its approaches in response to our shifting environment. In the national Budget for Financial Year 2015, almost one-fifth was allocated to the education and manpower development sectors55 – an indication of its commitment to continue with the effort to enable our people to learn throughout all life stages. This capacity to learn for life will be a critical institution for ensuring Singapore’s future. It will allow our people to adapt to changing circumstances, improve their prospects and lead more meaningful and fulfilling lives, whatever the future may bring. We have achieved much in the past decades, but there is still much more to learn and to do. n

facing page The Institute for Adult Learning helps upgrade the quality of adult educators and facilitates research in adult pedagogy.

above Opened in 2014, the Lifelong Learning Institute represents another step in how Singapore seeks to invest in our people by encouraging them to upgrade their knowledge and skills.

SECURING SINGAPORE:FROM VULNERABILITY TO SELF-RELIANCE

69 CHAPTER 5 – SECURING SINGAPORE: FROM VULNERABILITY TO SELF-RELIANCE

Our commitment to a strong armed forces and effective institutions of law and order has ensured decades of security, stability and peace for Singapore in a volatile world.

MID splits into Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).

First Singapore Armed Column display at the National Day Parade. The SAF displays its tanks publicly for the first time.

Announcement of British military withdrawal. National Service is introduced.

Formation of the Ministry of Interior and Defence (MID).

1970 MINDEF

M HA

1969 SAF

1967

1965 M I D

Whatever you can’t defend doesn’t belong to you.1

– Mr Chong Yu Meng, 3rd Sergeant

t 10am on 9 August 1965, Radio Singapore went on air to make the shock announcement that Singapore was out of Malaysia.2

Two hours later, at independent Singapore’s first government press conference, the Prime Minister broke down in front of the assembled journalists in a packed room at the Broadcasting House.3 The very first question posed at the press conference was on the issues of defence and diplomacy.4 That same morning, Dr Goh Keng Swee called the Head of Special Branch, Mr George Bogaars, to his office.5 Together, they were to lead a new Ministry of Interior and Defence (MID), with Dr Goh as Minister and Bogaars, an internal security veteran, as Permanent Secretary.6

BORN IN FIRE

Southeast Asia in the 1960s was a volatile region, rife with regional rivalries amid the looming spectre of the Cold War. To the north, the United States (US) was escalating its military involvement in South Vietnam against an externally supported, domestic commu-nist insurgency. Relations with neighbouring Malaysia remained tense following the sudden Separation.7 Malaysia maintained an infantry regiment in Singapore following Independence.8 Dr Goh recalled that:

Their commanders were Malaysians, most of them, and they had no loyalty to us. Try to be funny at that time and they could easily arrange a small coup or whatever. I doubt whether they’ll do it, but under extreme provocation, I think they will.9

A


There were real causes for concern. Malaysia had threatened to use the Royal Malaysian Navy to blockade an offshore island that Singapore intended to use as a barter trade zone as a way to kick-start the moribund local economy, forcing Singapore to abandon the move.13 Indonesia, the dominant military power in the region, had carried out a Konfrontasi policy of non-conventional warfare against Singapore – despite talks of ceasing hos-tilities in the wake of Singapore’s independence.14

When Singapore hanged two Indonesian saboteurs for terrorist activities during Konfrontasi in 1968, Indonesia responded with military threats.15

At the time, Singapore’s external security was still in the hands of the British and Commonwealth military forces.16 But high defence expenditure coupled with weak economic performance forced the United Kingdom to withdraw the bulk of its military forces East of Suez by 1971 to avert an economic collapse at home.17 In the US, mounting domestic opposition to rising troop casualties in the Vietnam War resulted in the US disengaging militarily from mainland Southeast Asia by 1973; the last American troops left South Vietnam in 1975. Nor could intervention from the United Nations be counted on to safeguard Singapore’s sovereignty. Then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew asked, “How many battalions has [United Nations Secretary-General] U Thant got that he can order around? I would like to have something more secure.”18

The only way to secure Singapore in the long term and defend our national interests as a sovereign nation was to develop a credible military force of our own. For a tiny island city-state, it was a daunt-ing prospect.

GREAT TREES, SAPLINGS, CREEPERS AND FRU IT TREES In a 1967 conversation between then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Richard Nixon before he became President of the United States (US), Mr Lee likened the world to a forest:

There are great trees, there are saplings, and there are creepers... The great trees are Russia, China, Western Europe, the United States, and Japan. Of the other nations, some are saplings that have the potential of becoming great trees, but the majority are creepers, which, because of lack of resources or lack of leadership, will never be great trees.10

To survive, Singapore had to be an extraordinary “sap-ling” from the outset. Or it would be condemned forev-er as a creeper, overshadowed by forest giants:

…an island city-state in Southeast Asia could not be ordinary if it was to survive. We had to make extraordinary efforts to become a tightly knit, rugged and adaptable people who could do things better and cheaper than our neighbours, because they wanted to bypass us and render obsolete our role as the entrepôt and middleman for the trade of the region. We had to be different.11

But success and prosperity would also need to be de-fended. In 1967, Mr Lee remarked to an assembled group of foreign journalists:

This is a place that has more luscious fruit trees and suits in the shop-windows and more televi-sion sets than any other in the whole of South Asia. If I haven’t a bit of muscle, I am just ask-ing somebody to push me in the face and walk off with all these clothes and television sets and washing machines and motor cars and everything else. So, we have to have the sinews… Other-wise, we will be just inviting aggression.12

right The bombing of MacDonald House by Indonesian saboteurs on 10 March 1965 served as a powerful reminder of the security challenges faced by Singapore.

facing page Answering the call – National Servicemen being sent off at Telok Ayer (left) and taking the pledge at the Central Manpower Base in Kallang (right).


ESTABLISHING A DOMESTIC DEFENCE FORCE

Building up a military force from scratch was no easy task. Initial requests for military assistance from non-aligned nations such as India and Egypt were politely rebuffed. Eventually, Defence Minister Dr Goh persuaded the Israelis to provide military training. To avoid incurring a large military expenditure and to avoid depriving the economy of the manpower it needed to grow, Singapore decided to develop a conscription army, built around a small professional core model. Today, National Service is a rite of passage for all male Singaporeans, but it was born out of one dire need: to defend our homeland by ourselves. Early conscripts served with the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the People’s Defence Force, the Singapore Police Force (SPF), Special Constabulary and Vigilante Corps before passing into the reserves where refresher training was regularly conducted. In this manner, a large pool of trained military and security personnel was quickly accumulated and could be mobilised at short notice.20

By 1969, Singapore’s National Day Parade was able to feature a procession of tanks and armoured vehicles for the first time. This show of military strength marked the beginnings of a credible de-fence capability.21

Slowly but steadily, we plugged our vulnerabilities one by one. The British troop withdrawal would have left Singapore bereft of air and naval protection, so a squadron of British-made Hawker Hunter fighters was quickly procured, and local pilots trained in Britain to form a fledging air force. British-made Bloodhound surface-to-air missiles were acquired to provide a minimal ground-based

NATIONAL SERV ICEWhen National Service (NS) was first introduced in 1967, only 900 of 9,000 eligible enlistees served as full-time servicemen. The rest served part-time in the People’s Defence Force, the Vigilante Corps and the Special Constabulary. National Servicemen began to serve full-time with the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) in 1975 and 1981 respectively. Servicemen initially served for two or three years depending on rank. This was reduced to two-and-a-half years or two years in 1971. With im-provements to training and technology, the full-time service period was reduced to two years in 2005.

NS, as the bedrock of our fighting force and national security, remains critical for Singapore’s continued survival and success. It is crucial that our future gen-erations continue to believe in the value and purpose of NS, and firmly support this national institution. The 2013 Institute of Policy Studies survey findings indi-cated a healthy level of support for NS. Singaporeans affirmed that NS is a vital institution for securing the peace and prosperity of our homeland. Most also be-lieve that NS reinforces our Singaporean identity and feel that the values and skills our young men gain from NS training are valuable for character building.19


Community-oriented policing is launched with the opening of the first Neighbourhood Police Post, in Toa Payoh.

Singapore Corporation of Rehabil itative Enterprises is established.

Misuse of Drugs Act is enacted.

1983

1976

1973

Central Narcotics Bureau established to combat the drug scourge.

1971 C N B

anti-aircraft defence. New naval patrol vessels were also purchased to provide coastal defence to guard the Singapore Strait and port limits. By 1971, Singapore had a rudimentary and balanced armed forces to fill the vacuum created by the withdrawal of British military forces.22 In a 1967 conversation with British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, Mr Lee remarked that “the maintenance of confidence was vital to the continued prosperity of Singapore. The Malaysians had bought jets. Singapore had to have some answer to this threat when the British deterrent disappeared”.23

In 1970, to address the growing complexity of security needs, MID was split into the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) – both of which continue to safeguard our defence and security to this day.

SUSTAINING SECURITY

Visionary Leadership

A group of far-sighted leaders – figures such as Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Goh Keng Swee and Mr Lim Kim San – were instrumental in establishing Singapore’s security forces, including the SAF, in the anxious years after Independence. Their vision was broad-minded and bold: economic prosperity and a capable defence went hand in hand. In Mr Lee’s opinion, “trade and industry is as important to us as defence and security”; “defence and security is indivisible from trade and industry”.24 A strong defence capability and a stable

The many aspects of developing a credible armed forces – from military doctrine to weapons platform development to training – all take considerable time, effort and consistent investment.


Total Defence concept is launched.

Hotel New World collapses; 17 survivors are rescued but 33 people died.

Intoxicating Substances Act is passed.

1984

1986

1987

society with low crime gave confidence to foreign investors, who sparked economic development and created badly-needed jobs and general prosperity. In turn, a growing economy and healthier public coffers meant more resources could be set aside for defence and security needs, continuing the virtuous cycle.

As Defence Minister, Dr Goh kick-started the development of a do-mestic defence technology sector from the very beginning, with a strong research and development (R&D) capability. He foresaw that military R&D activities would create a demand for highly qualified engineers and the development of a precision engineering industry that would have knock-on benefits elsewhere in Singapore’s econ-omy. Such activities laid the groundwork for Singapore’s manufac-turers to engage in advanced industry, for instance, in the aviation sector, reaping benefits to this day.25

Singapore’s defence industry has since leapt in capability – from producing small arms under licence in the early years of independence to the manufacture of home-grown mini tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, armoured fighting vehicles and warships.26 The local defence industry, including public sector R&D agencies such as the Defence Science and Technology Agency as well as the Defence Science Organisation’s National Laboratories,27 continues to produce dual-use technology that can be applied to the civilian sector. For example, infra-red thermal imaging scanners were adapted from combat equipment and quickly deployed to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority’s checkpoints during the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic.28 The Red Rhino light fire attack vehicle, originally conceived for use by the SAF’s helicopter-borne infantry, is now used for firefighting in confined spaces.29

Consistent Approach

The many aspects of developing a credible armed forces – from military doctrine to weapons platform development to training – all take considerable time, effort and consistent investment. Singapore built up national security capabilities in phases, with defence spending invested steadily and purposefully over the years. The core institution we know as SAF today evolved through decades of methodical develop-ment, with each generation modernising and upgrad-ing its combat capabilities, eventually incorporating locally developed technology and expertise.

facing page Show of strength – the 1969 National Day Parade featured Singapore’s first-ever procession of tanks and armoured vehicles.

right By air, land and sea – the Singapore Armed Forces continues to develop capabilities that are increasingly formidable and integrated.


In the wake of the Hotel New World disaster and the Pulau Merlimau fire, the Singapore Civil Defence Force and the Singapore Fire Service are combined to form the Singapore Joint Civil Defence Force.

A fire at Pulau Merlimau’s oil storage tanks casts a pall over Singapore’s skies.

1989

1988

SJ C D F

As Singapore became more educated and economic resources grew, it became possible to create an increasingly sophisticated, integrated and information-rich defence force despite the small population pool.30 Today, the SAF – comprising the Army, Navy and Air Force – works as a powerful joint force, capable of exercising defence, deterrence and other functions. It operates combined arms divisions with infantry, heavy armour, artillery, combat engineering and signals components, as well as squadrons of modern fighter and strike aircraft, missile armed warships and submarines.31 The SAF’s comprehensive development and tight integration of people, technology and systems have helped Singapore to overcome an inherent disadvantage in size and manpower. We have worked hard and long to make sure we can punch above our weight if need be.

A Total Approach to Defence and Security

[T]here are other aspects of security which are equally pertinent in the long run – your economic viability, the capacity of your political structure to withstand pressures either of a social, cultural or whatever nature. It is a multi-coloured question.32

– Mr Lee Kuan Yew, then Prime Minister

Singapore took a broad view of security from the outset. For instance, Singapore’s defence policy is based on the twin pillars of deterrence and diploma-cy. Building an extensive network of bilateral defence relationships with countries within and outside our region through diplomacy has enabled us to work to-gether to enhance peace and stability in our region. Concurrently, having a strong and capable SAF that is able to secure a swift and decisive victory should diplomacy fail lends weight to our words and ensures that negotiations with Singapore are taken seriously.

TOTAL DEFENCEIntroduced in 1984, Total Defence is an approach to security that involves every Singaporean playing a part, individually and collectively, to build a strong, secure and cohesive nation that is prepared and able to deal with any crisis.

The five pillars of Total Defence reflect different as-pects of security in which every Singaporean plays a part – Military Defence against external threats; Civil Defence during times of crisis and disaster; Economic Defence through a strong and resilient economy able to sustain the country through economic challenges and other emergencies; Social Defence with Singaporeans living harmoniously together despite our diversity and taking care of one another; Psychological Defence through the resolve and determination to overcome any crisis together as a nation.33

CHAPTER ONE – INTEGRITY

DEFENDING OUR HOME AND NATIONToday, the SAF – comprising the Army, Navy and Air Force – works as a powerful joint force, capable of exercising defence, deterrence and other functions. It operates combined arms divisions with infantry, heavy armour, artillery, combat engineering and signals components, as well as squadrons of modern fighter and strike aircraft, missile armed warships and submarines.


Maintaining Internal Security, Law and Order

In the immediate aftermath of Independence, communism and communalism were the two salient threats to Singapore’s internal security. In 1969, the Kuala Lumpur communal riots on 13 May spilled over into Singapore in the form of communal disturbances.36 Between 1969 and 1976, communist terrorists – including elements of the Communist Party of Malaya’s armed wing – committed 22 acts of arson and carried out 11 bombings.37 In 1974, international terrorists attacked an oil refinery on Singapore’s Pulau Bukom, and later hijacked the ferry Laju. Such incidents had to be met with a joint civil-military response, with the police forces, the Internal Security Department (ISD), and the SAF working as a team to neutralise dire threats to Singapore’s internal security. While the communist threat eased after the end of the Cold War, the 9/11 attacks in 2001 in the US and the Jemaah Islamiyah plot in Singapore served as chilling reminders that we could never afford to let down our guard on the home front.

The period between the 1970s and 1990s was a time of innovation and modernisation in MHA. This was a time of growing affluence and improving security in Singapore. But new threats were also surfacing. As the drug scourge gained ground among young, impressionable Singaporeans, the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) was established in 1971 to combat the worsening drug situation.

HUMAN ITARIAN ASS ISTANCE AND D ISASTER RESPONSE OPERATIONSWhen a cyclone devastated East Pakistan in 1970, the SAF sent its first military medical mission to help. Since then, the SAF has engaged in a variety of human-itarian relief operations abroad. These missions help bolster the operational experience and readiness of the SAF in realistic environments. They also demonstrate Singapore’s contribution to international order as a responsible global citizen, and strengthen our rela-tions with other countries. An example was the SAF humanitarian relief operations in Sumatra and Thailand after the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster in December 2004, which earned the gratitude of the affected In-donesian and Thai communities. In March 2014 and December 2014 to January 2015, the SAF participat-ed in the search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 and the search and recovery of Indonesia Air Asia flight 8501; it also deployed a relief contingent to earthquake-ravaged Nepal in April 2015.34

N IPP ING HOME-GROWN TERROR P LOT IN THE BUD It was an alert member of the public who first raised the Internal Security Department’s (ISD)’s attention to the existence of a home-grown terrorist plot planned by Singaporean members of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a regional affiliate of transnational terrorist group Al-Qaeda that had carried out the 9/11 attacks in the US.

The JI members had planned to attack targets across Singapore using truck bombs. They were also planning to crash an airliner into Changi Airport. ISD’s swift pre-emptive operations foiled the JI plans, leading to the arrests of 31 persons under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 2002. Subsequent ISD arrests and deten-tions further curtailed the JI’s terrorist activities. There are currently 37 persons detained under the ISA for terrorism related activities.35

above Operation Flying Eagle saw Singapore Armed Forces personnel and resources mobilised in 2004 to assist with relief efforts in Sumatra.

facing page Community Policing officers on bicycle patrol in our neighbourhoods. The Community Policing System allows officers to engage more closely with residents through patrols, house visits and other community-based activities.


MHA launches Home Team concept. Opening of the first Neighbourhood Police Centre.

Internal Security Department arrests

Jemaah Islamiyah terrorist group members in

Singapore.

The Singapore Joint Civil Defence Force is renamed the Singapore Civil Defence Force. (SCDF).

Security is tightened following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

1997 M HA

2002

1992 S C D F

2001

In 1973, the Misuse of Drugs Act was enacted, followed by the passing of the Intoxicating Substances Act in 1987. Arrests of large numbers of drug abusers had a knock-on impact on prison facilities, with nearly 7,000 new drug addicts entering the prisons system by 1977. This led to a greater emphasis on rehabilitation of prisoners to reduce recidivism. In 1976, the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises was established to lead this effort. In the 1990s and 2000s, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) embarked on multiple campaigns to improve inmate rehabilitation through the Captains of Lives and Yellow Ribbon Project initiatives. These successful efforts have led to Singapore enjoying one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world.38

In 1997, MHA launched the concept of the Home Team, an inte-grated, inter-operable force able to address a full range of threats to internal security – from transnational crime to terrorism – with a common, coordinated sense of purpose.39 The Home Team in-corporates more traditional civil institutions of law and order such as SPF, CNB, SCDF and SPS, as well as more specialised agen-cies such as ISD, which gathers intelligence to protect Singapore from international terrorism, foreign subversion and espionage. It also involves the work of agencies such as the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority, which keeps Singapore’s borders secure (a formidable challenge for an open economy and a major tourist destination), as well as the recently established Casino Regulatory Authority, which ensures that the management and operations of Singapore’s casino industry remains free from criminal influence and exploitation.40

Following the 9/11 attacks, the National Security Coordination Secretariat was set up to coordinate Singapore’s counter-terrorism efforts across both internal and external security forces.

COMMUN ITY POLIC ING In the early 1980s, SPF spearheaded a new initiative to improve community relations and involve the public in keeping Singapore safe – the strategy of Community Policing. Schemes such as the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme were introduced; innovations in later years in-cluded the Community Safety and Security Programme in the 1990s and the Community Policing System in 2012.41 Under the community policing framework, police officers make regular house visits, patrol the community they are assigned to, engage in community liaison work, and work with community partners on the ground to enhance community safety.

In 1997, MHA launched the concept of the Home Team, an integrated, inter-operable force able to address a full range of threats to internal security from transnational crime to terrorism.Source: www.mha.gov.sg/About-Us/how-mha-works/Pages/how-mha-works.aspx

HTASCDF

SPSSingapore Prison Service

CNBCentral Narcotics Bureau

Home Team Academy

CRACasino Regulatory Authority

SPFSingapore Police Force

SCORESingapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises

ISDInternal Security Department

Singapore Civil Defence Force

ICAImmigration &

Checkpoints Authority

THE HOME TEAM


SAF participates in the search for missing Malaysia Airl ines fl ight MH370.

SAF and SCDF deploy relief contingents to earthquake-ravaged Nepal.

Community Policing System is launched.

SAF participates in the search and recovery of Indonesia Air Asia Flight 8501.

Singapore Prison Service launches Yellow Ribbon Project. SAF and SCDF participate in humanitarian relief efforts in the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster.

MAR 2014

2015

2012

D E C 2014 – JAN 2015

2004 SAFETY, SECURITY AND VIGILANCE

Singapore today is well-known for its low crime, social stability, and confident, capable defence force and Home Team. This is the outcome of decades of painstaking commitment to safety, security and vigilance. New dangers and vulnerabilities have also emerged in the world and in our own backyard. Extremist militants are courting new recruits from communities across the globe. Para-military groups have been used to subvert the sovereignty of Ukraine, on the doorstep of Europe.42 The advent of cyberwarfare, cybercrime and lone wolf attacks by self-radicalised individuals continue to demand constant vigilance and new ways to secure our nation in a borderless new world.43 Closer to home, the discovery of a JI cell, bus workers’ strikes and the Little India Riots remind us that our safe, orderly society, and the prosperity it has enabled, remains vulnerable and should never be taken for granted. Our safety and security, and peace have been hard won, and depend critically on strong public support for the efforts of our security institutions, as well as continued cooperation between the community at large and those who serve in uniform. Singapore can look to no other power save for our own people for help in difficult times. Ours is a citizen army; our fellow Singaporeans keep law and order. We must stand together, ever vigilant, in order to secure Singapore for decades to come. n

right A joint police and army patrol at Changi Airport. In the face of increasingly complex security challenges, the work of keeping Singapore safe continues.

Our Hearts

Documents

Transcript of Our Hearts