"The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) said its anti-drug education initiatives are targeted not only at local students, but expats as well.
In the past 3 years, 15 international schools have taken part in various programmes, said a CNB spokesman.
The bureau also regularly distributes anti-drug literature to about 25 international schools here."
In the past 3 years, 15 international schools have taken part in various programmes, said a CNB spokesman.
The bureau also regularly distributes anti-drug literature to about 25 international schools here."
CNB is POWER.
The message is clear: Don't say we never warn you!
...........................................................................
Regardless, many of us wouldn't bother to read such pieces of news. It's simply not newsworthy.
It's just another government agency doing its thing.
Or is it?
Are all our Govt Agencies are similarly effective?
I think because 'our government' has done such a great job of pulling off enforcement actions and/or has done such a great job of highlighting that it has pulled off many enforcement exercises, that we assume that:
(1) ALL government agencies carry out their enforcement roles professionally
(2) As such, there is no need to watch out for ourselves, as some agency in the government will do so on our behalf.
This is a misconception.
Ok, BM, why are you so lor sor? Going on and on about such a dry topic?
Because if we do not raise awareness now, we risk serious consequences which are difficult to disentangle and resolve in the long run.
(Active vs Lame) Enforcers
I have observed a large gap between how the Active Enforcers and the Lame Enforcers. So big that it is impossible to conclude that "all Singapore government agencies carry out their enforcement roles professionally".
In general, there are 2 relative baskets of government agencies that are meant to take enforcement actions:
(A) The Active Enforcers
The Home Team is made up of 10 public agencies, of which Ministry of Home Affairs is the 'leader'.
5 out of 10 Home Team agencies carry out enforcement actions. These include the Singapore Police Force (e.g. under the Penal Code), the Immigrations & Checkpoint Authority (e.g. under Immigration Act of Singapore), Casino Regulatory Authority (e.g. under the Casino Control Act) etc.
There are other public agencies that are not under the Home Team, but also take enforcement actions. E.g. Ministry of Manpower acts under the Employment Act to take enforcement actions against say errant employers, or illegal foreign workers. Or CPIB (e.g. under Prevention of Corruption Act) etc.
(B) The Lame Enforcers
Apart from the enforcement agencies as highlighted above, there are other public agencies which are also tasked with enforcement functions. An easy way to identify them is by their names. These public agencies are, in general, statutory boards with 'authority' in their names, i.e. at least 1 Act = 1 enforcement role under their charge.
Though tasked with enforcement roles, some of these agencies do NOT carry out active enforcement actions, and/or are deficient in terms of enforcement capabilities/ competencies (to be explained in later paragraphs).
In fact, because some of them are so silent on their enforcement roles, that you may not even be aware that they are supposed to be taking enforcement actions for this and that transgressions affecting your life.
Of course, 'Active' vs 'Lame' is just a crude classification. There are stat boards which fall in-between.
E.g. In the past couple of years, NEA is seen trying very hard to move from Lame to Active. And I think it is currently somewhere in-between. It is an commendable effort.
What's the big deal with Enforcement?
Taking enforcement actions against someone/ an entity is never a pleasant task. Your 'target audience' ain't gonna be happy, and in this day and age, they will file a complaint/appeal via all possible avenues, such as writing to MPs, Prime Minister, mainstream media, non-mainstream media etc.
By then, not only does the public agency have to deal with the original complaint, it now has to defend itself against the complainant, sometimes very publicly.
Furthermore, taking enforcement is an complex process which may lead to 'serious consequences' for the offender, i.e. to be charged in court and sentenced to jail.
To top it off, assuming the officer knows how to go about this piece of work, such efforts may not even be recognised as good work.
As such, the thought process of the officers-in-charge becomes:
But, any rational individual will realise that, regardless of how unpleasant or complex the process is, there is a sound reason for the enforcement in the first place. The rules were not made for nothing. These rules are made to ensure that no one causes dis-amenities/harm to another, that no one takes more than he is entitled to etc.
And the public agency set up for the specific purpose is playing the all-important role upholding fairness and equity. It also means that if this public agency doesn't care, the 'victims' have little or no recourse.
Hence, Enforcement is important and serious business. A task which cannot be sidelined.
How difficult is Enforcement?
From my observation, only the Active Enforcers have been fully set up to carry out their enforcement functions. This means they have the complete range* of capabilities/ competencies, broadly as follows:
(a) Intelligence - Gathering of information, analysing trends, spotting areas of concern etc
(b) Operations - This is the most visible part of enforcement. This involves officers physically approaching the targets.
(c) Investigations - Finding of facts/evidence, proving guilt etc.
(d) Target audience liaison/education - The aim of these agencies is also for all to learn about what's acceptable and what's not. This will help to lower overall rate of transgressions.
*Having complete range of capabilities/ competencies does not mean that these agencies can respond to all cases immediately.
Bandwidth is a separate issue.
Using this capabilities/ competencies framework, imagine the amount of work that has gone into that single piece of CNB news featured at the start of this blog entry.
Now contrast that effort with the Lame Enforcers. Some of the Lame Enforcers have only employed a few officers for their enforcement unit.
Even if we disregard the potential volume of enforcement cases, having employed only 2 officers in the enforcement unit is unlikely to be able to cover the entire range of capabilities/ competencies required to carry out enforcement effectively, not to mention be active or enthusiastic about enforcement.
For others, enforcement is merely PART of the officer's portfolio, i.e. the officer is multi-hatting and as such tends to de-prioritise his enforcement cases.
In other words, do the Lame Enforcers take their enforcement roles seriously?
I am afraid not.
Enforcement is Unsexy & Boring
In parallel, I've also noticed that many public agencies have enthusiastically gone on the 'lifestyle' theme with their respective portfolios, devoting a lot of manpower and budget to 'beautification' and/or 'creating buzz'.
Probably because they have seen how heads of other public agencies handsomely rewarded by the system for pulling off 'beautification and buzz projects along with high levels of media coverage, along with at least 1 politician launching the event'.
Effective enforcement, on the other hand, makes boring news and/or no news to everyone, ranging from member of public, politician, public servant, pressroom etc.
I'm not saying that 'beautification 'n' buzz' are unimportant.
However, if a statutory board was set up based on an Act, its first and foremost responsibility is to fulfill its enforcement role. After which the stat board can choose to branch out into other areas.
In simple words and example:
If the Immigration & Checkout Authority decided that it would henceforth re-prioritise its focus:
(i) Zhnging its physical facilities (e.g. to install designer fountains with laser light shows, designer gardens, and massive designer chandeliers in all its checkpoint facilities); and
(ii) Creating buzz (e.g. holding 'world-class' festivals and celebrations at the designer fountains, in the designer gardens, and under the designer chandelier; while
(iii) Reducing manpower devoted to its passenger clearance and enforcement capabilities.
How would that impact your life and mine?
Immediately, you will get many illegal immigrants freely walking into Singapore, guns will be brought onto our land, weird (dead) exotic animal (parts) and a lot of hardcore drugs circulating in our system etc. Lovely.
The top leaders (politicians and civil servants) need to re-visit the fact that, amidst 'exciting and visually-obvious' beautification and buzz' projects, enforcement is an invisible but essential factor of how and why Singapore has become a world-class city today.
How to get their Enforcement Act together?
Taking a leaf out of the books of non-Home Team Active Enforcers such as Ministry of Manpower, look for experienced enforcement officers from the Home Team.
I'm not suggesting poaching. That's just unsophisticated, myopic, and simply dull.
Instead, I'm suggesting a public service-wide enforcement capabilities/ competencies development scheme in the following order:
(A) To recognise and prioritise importance of enforcement and enforcement officers in the Public Service.
(B) For senior and junior Home Team officers with such invaluable experience to be recognised, and channeled for extended good use in other parts of the public service.
(C) To set up a public service enforcement knowledge and training platform. (Read in-between the lines if your CEP is high enough.)
(D) To train up public officers without enforcement experience to become enforcement officers.
Is carrying out the above within the capabilities and competencies of PSD and Civil Service College? O_o
The message is clear: Don't say we never warn you!
...........................................................................
Regardless, many of us wouldn't bother to read such pieces of news. It's simply not newsworthy.
It's just another government agency doing its thing.
Or is it?
Are all our Govt Agencies are similarly effective?
I think because 'our government' has done such a great job of pulling off enforcement actions and/or has done such a great job of highlighting that it has pulled off many enforcement exercises, that we assume that:
(1) ALL government agencies carry out their enforcement roles professionally
(2) As such, there is no need to watch out for ourselves, as some agency in the government will do so on our behalf.
This is a misconception.
Ok, BM, why are you so lor sor? Going on and on about such a dry topic?
Because if we do not raise awareness now, we risk serious consequences which are difficult to disentangle and resolve in the long run.
(Active vs Lame) Enforcers
I have observed a large gap between how the Active Enforcers and the Lame Enforcers. So big that it is impossible to conclude that "all Singapore government agencies carry out their enforcement roles professionally".
In general, there are 2 relative baskets of government agencies that are meant to take enforcement actions:
(A) The Active Enforcers
The Home Team is made up of 10 public agencies, of which Ministry of Home Affairs is the 'leader'.
5 out of 10 Home Team agencies carry out enforcement actions. These include the Singapore Police Force (e.g. under the Penal Code), the Immigrations & Checkpoint Authority (e.g. under Immigration Act of Singapore), Casino Regulatory Authority (e.g. under the Casino Control Act) etc.
There are other public agencies that are not under the Home Team, but also take enforcement actions. E.g. Ministry of Manpower acts under the Employment Act to take enforcement actions against say errant employers, or illegal foreign workers. Or CPIB (e.g. under Prevention of Corruption Act) etc.
(B) The Lame Enforcers
Apart from the enforcement agencies as highlighted above, there are other public agencies which are also tasked with enforcement functions. An easy way to identify them is by their names. These public agencies are, in general, statutory boards with 'authority' in their names, i.e. at least 1 Act = 1 enforcement role under their charge.
Though tasked with enforcement roles, some of these agencies do NOT carry out active enforcement actions, and/or are deficient in terms of enforcement capabilities/ competencies (to be explained in later paragraphs).
In fact, because some of them are so silent on their enforcement roles, that you may not even be aware that they are supposed to be taking enforcement actions for this and that transgressions affecting your life.
Of course, 'Active' vs 'Lame' is just a crude classification. There are stat boards which fall in-between.
E.g. In the past couple of years, NEA is seen trying very hard to move from Lame to Active. And I think it is currently somewhere in-between. It is an commendable effort.
What's the big deal with Enforcement?
Taking enforcement actions against someone/ an entity is never a pleasant task. Your 'target audience' ain't gonna be happy, and in this day and age, they will file a complaint/appeal via all possible avenues, such as writing to MPs, Prime Minister, mainstream media, non-mainstream media etc.
By then, not only does the public agency have to deal with the original complaint, it now has to defend itself against the complainant, sometimes very publicly.
Furthermore, taking enforcement is an complex process which may lead to 'serious consequences' for the offender, i.e. to be charged in court and sentenced to jail.
To top it off, assuming the officer knows how to go about this piece of work, such efforts may not even be recognised as good work.
As such, the thought process of the officers-in-charge becomes:
Waaaaahhh! So troublesome! So scary!
(Read in-between lines: I dunno how to handle!)
(Read in-between lines: I dunno how to handle!)
Let's not do it. Just reject the original complaint.
But, any rational individual will realise that, regardless of how unpleasant or complex the process is, there is a sound reason for the enforcement in the first place. The rules were not made for nothing. These rules are made to ensure that no one causes dis-amenities/harm to another, that no one takes more than he is entitled to etc.
And the public agency set up for the specific purpose is playing the all-important role upholding fairness and equity. It also means that if this public agency doesn't care, the 'victims' have little or no recourse.
Hence, Enforcement is important and serious business. A task which cannot be sidelined.
How difficult is Enforcement?
From my observation, only the Active Enforcers have been fully set up to carry out their enforcement functions. This means they have the complete range* of capabilities/ competencies, broadly as follows:
(a) Intelligence - Gathering of information, analysing trends, spotting areas of concern etc
(b) Operations - This is the most visible part of enforcement. This involves officers physically approaching the targets.
(c) Investigations - Finding of facts/evidence, proving guilt etc.
(d) Target audience liaison/education - The aim of these agencies is also for all to learn about what's acceptable and what's not. This will help to lower overall rate of transgressions.
*Having complete range of capabilities/ competencies does not mean that these agencies can respond to all cases immediately.
Bandwidth is a separate issue.
Using this capabilities/ competencies framework, imagine the amount of work that has gone into that single piece of CNB news featured at the start of this blog entry.
Now contrast that effort with the Lame Enforcers. Some of the Lame Enforcers have only employed a few officers for their enforcement unit.
Even if we disregard the potential volume of enforcement cases, having employed only 2 officers in the enforcement unit is unlikely to be able to cover the entire range of capabilities/ competencies required to carry out enforcement effectively, not to mention be active or enthusiastic about enforcement.
For others, enforcement is merely PART of the officer's portfolio, i.e. the officer is multi-hatting and as such tends to de-prioritise his enforcement cases.
In other words, do the Lame Enforcers take their enforcement roles seriously?
I am afraid not.
Enforcement is Unsexy & Boring
In parallel, I've also noticed that many public agencies have enthusiastically gone on the 'lifestyle' theme with their respective portfolios, devoting a lot of manpower and budget to 'beautification' and/or 'creating buzz'.
Probably because they have seen how heads of other public agencies handsomely rewarded by the system for pulling off 'beautification and buzz projects along with high levels of media coverage, along with at least 1 politician launching the event'.
Effective enforcement, on the other hand, makes boring news and/or no news to everyone, ranging from member of public, politician, public servant, pressroom etc.
I'm not saying that 'beautification 'n' buzz' are unimportant.
However, if a statutory board was set up based on an Act, its first and foremost responsibility is to fulfill its enforcement role. After which the stat board can choose to branch out into other areas.
In simple words and example:
If the Immigration & Checkout Authority decided that it would henceforth re-prioritise its focus:
(i) Zhnging its physical facilities (e.g. to install designer fountains with laser light shows, designer gardens, and massive designer chandeliers in all its checkpoint facilities); and
(ii) Creating buzz (e.g. holding 'world-class' festivals and celebrations at the designer fountains, in the designer gardens, and under the designer chandelier; while
(iii) Reducing manpower devoted to its passenger clearance and enforcement capabilities.
How would that impact your life and mine?
Immediately, you will get many illegal immigrants freely walking into Singapore, guns will be brought onto our land, weird (dead) exotic animal (parts) and a lot of hardcore drugs circulating in our system etc. Lovely.
The top leaders (politicians and civil servants) need to re-visit the fact that, amidst 'exciting and visually-obvious' beautification and buzz' projects, enforcement is an invisible but essential factor of how and why Singapore has become a world-class city today.
 |
| FWAH! Wouldn't it be great to build such a huge designer fountain with laser show at the Woodlands Checkpoint?! People can then watch the mesmerising 10-hour show while waiting for clearance, so that they will not complain about the new inevitable 10-hour wait. |
How to get their Enforcement Act together?
Taking a leaf out of the books of non-Home Team Active Enforcers such as Ministry of Manpower, look for experienced enforcement officers from the Home Team.
I'm not suggesting poaching. That's just unsophisticated, myopic, and simply dull.
Instead, I'm suggesting a public service-wide enforcement capabilities/ competencies development scheme in the following order:
(A) To recognise and prioritise importance of enforcement and enforcement officers in the Public Service.
(B) For senior and junior Home Team officers with such invaluable experience to be recognised, and channeled for extended good use in other parts of the public service.
(C) To set up a public service enforcement knowledge and training platform. (Read in-between the lines if your CEP is high enough.)
(D) To train up public officers without enforcement experience to become enforcement officers.
Is carrying out the above within the capabilities and competencies of PSD and Civil Service College? O_o
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar