What do school admissions,
government procurement and
social assistance have in
common?
They are all domains in which
administrators and officials are
exercising greater flexibility and
discretion in decisions that affect
citizens, firms and other societal
stakeholders.
While greater flexibility is to be
welcomed, it is important to
remember the role that fixed
rules and qualifying criteria have
played in taking Singapore to
where it is today, so that the
values of fairness and impartiality
continue to be prioritised as the
foundations of good governance.
This requires clear evaluation
criteria for public officers making
qualitative assessments, along
with a system of checks and
accountability. Most importantly,
it requires that public
administrators be well-trained
and perform their duties with
integrity and professionalism.
ADMISSIONS FOR STUDENTS
One area where greater discretion
is being exercised is admission to
national schools and tertiary
institutions.
As the Direct School Admission
(DSA) route enters its 20th year,
its importance has grown
considerably. The year 2023 saw
nearly 40 per cent of Primary 6
pupils submit DSA applications
for secondary school.
The DSA represents a major
reform of the school admissions
framework, which hitherto had
been based almost exclusively on
results attained in the Primary
School Leaving Examination. The
DSA broadens admissions criteria
by recognising other talents
beyond academic performance,
such as in the area of sports, music or leadership. Initially
implemented in just seven
schools, DSA is now available for
the vast majority of secondary
schools and all junior colleges, with DSA places set aside for
about 20 per cent of each cohort.
Our tertiary institutions, too,
have discretionary admission
routes which aim to assess
applicants’ potential beyond
grades through interviews,
aptitude tests and portfolios. The
share of students admitted this
way has increased significantly
over the years. For instance, the
Nanyang Technological University
admitted over half of its freshmen
through aptitude-based
admissions in 2023.
While the old grades-based
system had its limitations, we
should not overlook its
contributions. It defined the bar
for school qualification
independent of other
considerations, leaving no room
for bias, perceived or otherwise.
The system provided bright
students from less privileged
backgrounds a clear path into
their schools and courses of
choice, enabling them to obtain a
good education and setting them
up for success in life. This enabled
social mobility and laid the
foundation for Singapore’s system
of meritocracy.
Recent moves to broaden our
definition of meritocracy will
enable a wider range of talents to
be recognised, so that our
students have the best chance of
developing their strengths and
maximising their potential. With
discretionary intake, schools and
universities may select students
on a more holistic basis, beyond
examination grades. This can
improve the fit between student
and school, enabling institutions
to admit those who can benefit
most from its programmes while
also contributing positively to the
learning environment.
It is however important to
ensure that this process is
implemented fairly and rigorously,
so that public trust in the system
is maintained. While schools need
not disclose reasons for
non-selection of particular
applicants, there should be clear
internal criteria and processes for
evaluating applications, with
assessments properly
documented for accountability. Having applications reviewed by
more than one person can
mitigate the risk of blind spots
and biases, intentional or
otherwise.
In February 2024, Minister for
Education Chan Chun Sing shared
in Parliament that MOE would
thoroughly investigate any
allegations of unfair practices in
the DSA, and its reviews thus far
had found the schools to have
conducted their selection
processes “rigorously, objectively
and professionally”.
That an average of only seven
sets of parents on average a year
have questioned the outcome of
their child’s DSA application
suggests that public trust in the
system remains strong.
It is precisely because of the
strong foundations that years of
rules-based admissions have set
that schools today are trusted to
exercise discretion in their intake
of students. Key to this is trust in
the professionalism and integrity
of school leaders and
administrators, on whom the
system relies. These values must
continue to be reinforced within
the teaching profession and
education service.
GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
Likewise, the integrity and
judgment of public officers are
critical for government
procurement, which has a bearing
both on the efficiency of public
spending as well as fair
opportunities for businesses that
supply goods or services to the
Government.
Singapore’s procurement
system, which prioritises
transparency and fairness, has
been vital for clean government.
The default mode of procurement
is an open tender or quotation
that is not restricted to specific
suppliers. The tender
specifications are set out publicly
on the Government’s electronic
business (GeBIz) portal, with the
bids received and tender award
subsequently published. There
are checks and balances, with
more than one public officer
involved in the process. All these
minimise the opportunity for
corruption.
In the past, public officers in
charge of purchases have often
defaulted to the lowest quote. However, in seeking the best
value for money, public agencies
ought to consider both price and
quality of the goods and services
they purchase.
In 2018, the Government
announced that the price-quality
method, which factors in both
price and quality, would become
the main option used to evaluate
tenders.
This requires clear criteria for
the assessment of quality, so that
there is transparency and a level
playing field for suppliers. At the
same time, procurement officers
should be empowered to exercise
judgment in assessing bids, rather
than be constrained by a rigid set
of rules. Officers must have
strong professional competencies
and integrity to be entrusted with
such judgment. Concurrently,
there is a need for a robust system
of audits and accountability. In
particular, conflicts of interest
must be scrupulously avoided.
Again, as the system shifts
towards a more flexible approach,
it is important to recognise how
past practice has established a
strong foundation for the present,
and take every care to maintain
trust and accountability going
forward.
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
A third area that has benefited
from greater flexibility and
discretion is social assistance.
In disbursing Community Care
(ComCare) assistance to needy
families, social service officers are
guided by the schemes’ eligibility
criteria and prescribed support
levels, but are also given some
leeway to exercise flexibility.
Individual and family
circumstances vary significantly,
hence the reviewing officer needs
to make a holistic assessment that
factors in a household’s unique
needs as well as support received
from family and community
sources. Empowering officers to
exercise such discretion helps to
better tailor social assistance to
ground needs, while recognising
the need for fairness and broad
consistency in how support is
rendered across the 24 social
service offices spread out across
Singapore.
Exercising discretion within a
broad framework of rules must
rest on a good understanding of
social assistance principles by
trained officers. These officers
would benefit from mutual
support within a professional
community that shares best
practices, norms and benchmarks
that are informed by practice and
research.
In these and other domains of
governance, the shift from
prescriptive rules to
principles-based governance with
greater flexibility is already under
way.
While there are clear benefits
from flexibility and discretion, it
cannot be assumed that system
integrity and public trust are a
natural state of affairs. As rules
and processes change, systems of
accountability need to be updated
and strengthened in tandem, while values must continue to be
reinforced. Only with robust
systems and good people in place
can Singapore continue to thrive
as the challenges of governance
grow ever more complex.
This article was first published in
The Straits Times on 8 October 2024.