SINGAPORE SOCIETAL SCHISM THROUGH THE BLUE COLLAR (OPS) - ELITE (PROCESS) LENSES
When I map this onto Singapore politics in general, the reactions to some controversial local events suddenly become understandable and predictable.
Blue Collar mindsets value outcomes over narratives; prioritise enforcement over intention; trust experience over expertise; prefer clear boundaries and are tolerant of rough execution if it works. You are Blue Collar if at times you think like:
"Stop talking. Fix it."
"If rules don't work, change or break them."
"Reality doesn't care about models."
Elite mindsets see outcomes as systems-generated; prioritise legitimacy and inclusion; trust credentialed expertise; believe language shapes reality; fear hard reinforcement as destabilising. You are Elite if you think like:
"Something's wrong. Let's redesign."
"We need guardrails."
"The process matters. You can't shortcut legitimacy."
Singapore contains this Blue Collar-Elite tension better than most countries -- but it never eliminates it. It exists in the streets of Singapore.Singapore's Elite governance model is almost a pure process elite state, and unusually honest about it. The governing establishment sees society as a complex machine. Stability come from design, sequencing and control. Competence is about selecting the right people and right processes. Legitimacy flows from outcomes and credentials, not popular sentiment. This makes sense to the establishment because they see themselves collectively as the system itself. They experience failure as reputational or systemic, not personal. Their daily work is coordination, optimisation and risk-management.
Singapore Inc is rule-dense, technocratic, predictable, allergic to improvisation and deeply suspicious of populist "operators" (like Trump). They look through the Elite-process lens and say this is responsible governance.
The Blue Collar logic of the public clashes with the establishment. The operational thinkers ask:
"Why is the system correct but my life is harder?"
"Why are the rules rigid when reality is changing?"
"Why does nobody on top feel consequences?"
Singaporeans who criticise governance aren't "opposition" or "anti-PAP", they just have Blue Collar mindsets who want things fixed. They feel policies are in the main correct, but unresponsive; that elites sound sincere but detached; and they are pissed off that mistakes are explained but never owned.
The tension is apparent. Blue Collar resentment often isn't about poverty -- it is about being governed by people who don't touch the consequences. Elites exist in a different reality and has lost touch with the ground.
Singapore journalists narrate to preserve legitimacySingapore media is state-owned and most believe it has no editorial independence. Whilst this is true on reporting really hot potato political issues or events, I do not think we have similar oppressive propagandist machinery as in communists countries. However, our journalists are almost mechanical as they systemically misread Blue Collar anger. Journalists are credentialed, language-driven, narrative-first, legitimacy-sensitive and whose status comes from peer validation, not operational success. In other words, journalists are by nature, process creatures -- the epitome of Elite wiring. They are trained to ask : "What does this mean? What does this signal? What precedent does this set?". They don't ask "Does this actually work? What broke first? Who is paying the cost right now?"
When Blue Collar anger shows up, journalists interpret it symbolically, not operationally. So state media report anger as "fear"; demands as "resentment"; operational failures as "messaging failure". They interpret the anger is psychological, moral or ideological instead of focusing on the system failure.
When Blue Collars shout "The system is broken. Fix it". (MRT frequent breakdowns, high cost of living, sky-rocketing real estate, PMET jobs hollowing-out, deteriorating health services, etc).The fatal translation error in Singapore and everyone thinks they are being rational
Journalists interpret: "They feel excluded from the narrative."
The government response: "We need better communication."
Blue Collars revolt when reality stops working. Journalists narrate to preserve legitimacy. The establishment Elites govern to prevent disorder. All three are just trying to solve different failure modes. This guarantees the anger will escalate. Because the system cannot narrate its way out of operational failure.
Singapore Inc Response Pattern
Think of it as Singapore's default error-handling algorithm. It is carried out almost mechanically. Once you see it, you'll spot it everywhere.
Singapore government pattern is Failure - Review - Frame - Assurance.FAILURE:
Something visible goes wrong -- MRT breaks down, SimplyGo backlash, Senior figure caught in controverses, etc.
What Blue Collars feel: The failure is experiential -- missed work, stress, loss of trust, sense of incompetence or arrogance.
What Blue Collar wants: Ownership of failure, correction, reassurance through responsibility and accountability.
REVIEW:
The system pauses and studies itself.
In Singapore, failure is metabolised through review, not repentanceHow officialdom responds: "We will conduct a review", "An independent panel has been appointed." "A Committee of Inquiry will be convened." What the Elite logic is actually doing: It is slowing down the situation, shifting from emotion to procedure, containing the blame, reasserting institutional control.
A review is the establishment saying "We are handling this properly." It is not about fixing the failure yet. It is about legitimacy management.
Think I am talking nonsense? See our culture of reviews (♫ When things go wrong, just sing "review"):
- Committee of Inquiry (COI) into major MRT disruptions
- SMRT governance and safety culture reviews
- Independent engineering assessments (after signaling failures)
- Internal reviews of fare payment user experience (SimplyGo fiasco)
- Post-backlash "reassessment" of SimplyGo rollout
- SCDF leadership and culture review (after major scandals)
- SCDF internal disciplinary reviews
- Dormitory Covid-19 outbreak reviews (Pandemic failures)
- Vaccine rollout and procurement reviews
- Foreign manpower framework reviews
- Public housing affordability reviews
- PLSE scoring system review
- Government reviews after GLC losses
FRAMEWORK:
The failure is then translated into languages. You will see or hear through all state megahorns -- TV, media, ministerial talks.
- The design is to protect -- individuals, core decision logic, elite credibility.
- New SOPs
- Revised guidelines
- Additional layers of oversight
- Updated KPIs
- Training modules
- Governance changes, regulations.
What does all this mean? It is a socio-psychological maneuvre that translates a failure into a process gap. Instead of "We made a mistake", it becomes "Our framework did not anticipate this scenario."
ASSURANCE:
Like the super salesman, finally comes the closure. "The system remains robust." "We have strengthened our safeguards." "This will not happen again." "We ask for continued support."
Assurance means "Please believe in the system again." It is forward-looking confidence reset, not a backward-looking reckoning.
The establishment is happy as this works all the time, because Singapore values stability, systems actually do improve, panic is avoided and institutions stay strong.
Time and again the Elites fail to understand their fix is technical, procedural, not relational. Thus they fail to see emotional trust is never repaired, responsibility is abstracted, citizens feel unheard, anger goes underground. (Elite response to this is --- POFMA)
The core insight to the Singapore Inc pattern to failure response is the Establishment treats failure as a design flaw to be corrected, not a responsibility to be owned. Now you understand why Elites never apologise, why they are "review" salesmen and why Blue Collars have persistent cynicism. Take this "failure-review-framework-assurance" template and apply it to any issue and you can see the truth.
The Elite mindset is fixated on providing explanation of complexity; giving assurance of standards; making references to investigations or upgrades; and no ownership of apology. This is procedural respectability, not operational accountability.
The mis-match:
Elite logic: "We must preserve confidence in the system."
Blue Collar logic: "Stop explaining. Just own it."
So even when Singapore fixes the issue, the emotional repair never completes.
I declare myself operationally-inclined and so paradoxically, the framework I set out thus far seems abstract. I am not describing abstractions. I am describing systems failure in the Singapore compact. Let's examine 2 examples in the Singapore context with this Blue Collar-Elite, or ops-process, lens, then we can see the framework stops being abstract and starts explaining why people feel being gaslit.
1. SimplyGo Fiasco
Where process logic collides with operational realityThis is what the Elites saw -- It's a system upgrade. We are switching to account-based ticketing which is future-proof, data-rich and scalable. It removes the need for on-card balance storage. This aligns with global "smart mobility" standards.
The Elite slogan is "smart". It is objectively superior architecture. Everything "smart" we also want. Smart city, smart cars, smart wharfs... .We have ticked every Elite check list -- technically sound, internationally validated, policy-aligned, managed by credentialed experts.
But the Elites' reality of assured process is not the reality of Blue Collars. Users experienced frustration of not seeing remaining card balance (trust issue), anxiety at the gates (will it tap out?), loss of immediate feedback, more cognitive load for a routine task.
Blue Collars say "You guys removed a function that worked." It's not about tech, it's about operational trust. Balance visibility is realtime certainty. SimplyGo app gives no certainty when you're late, tired, or underground.
The mismatch:
The Blue Collar reality is "They made something that worked fragile."
Elites frame it as "People just need time to adjust."
The backlash wasn't irrational. It was operational revolt against process arrogance.
Note this : The eventual climbdown by the government was not explained as a mistake -- it was "listening to feedback.". That was classic Elite -- never admit the model was wrong, only that communication needed improvement.
2. MRT breakdowns
When process optimisation meets physical realityElite process mindset thinks in terms of asset life extension, predictive maintenance models, cost efficiency, KPI-driven uptime averages. In this logic they think in terms of maintaining overall reliability within tolerance. They see breakdowns as statistical anomalies, not lived experience.
But what is the reality of Blue Collar commuters' experience? They missed work, cascading delays, standing for hours, zero control over outcome. The logic of operational mindset is brutal -- "If it fails during peak hour, it has failed." A 99.9% reliability stat means nothing when your train is the 0.1%.
Blue Collar anger is persistent because each breakdown is not isolated -- it reopens accumulated distrust. To their minds -- "They said it was fixed." "They said it was world class." They said no need to worry."
The mis-match:
Blue Collars: "Repeated failures + reassurance is incompetence or dishonesty."
Elites: "The public doesn't understand systems complexity."
Elite "apologies" are never outright apologies, never personal, always institutional, carefully worded and forward-looking.
Blue Collars expect someone owns the failure, someone pays the price, someone to say "We got this wrong."
The absence of felt accountability keeps the wound open. When former Foreign Minister George Yeo led the PAP team to contest the Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in the 2011 Singapore General Election and lost, he took responsibility and quit politics. That kind of personal accountability is seldom seen in Singapore Inc. It earned Yeo enormous respect and trust.
Singapore government never apologises for mistakes or failures. It repairs function, not trustKey insight: Singapore government is optimised to defeat chaos, not to metabolise failure.
Compare the core difference with Japan:
- Japan prioritises trust repair.
- Singapore prioritises legitimacy preservation.
When failure happens:
- Japan absorbs it through shame.
- Singapore deflects it through procedure.
Both maintain order, but Japanese way maintains trust.
Singapore government is well respected all over the world for its competence, and rightly so. But there is something that Singapore scores a big fat ZERO. The government is absolutely bad at public contrition. The public see this as arrogance, but it is actually structural culture. The establishment's legitimacy is built on being right, not being representative. So they see errors not as moral lapses, they are system-threatening events.
The Elite mindset shapes the behavior of the establishment. When failures happen the SOP is protect institutional credibility, contain blame, reassert competence, and shift focus to process correction. Thus we see reviews (how instead of remorse, explanations instead of ownership, they speak "lessons learnt" instead of "I was wrong". The objective is -- preserve system authority.
Even an extra-marital scandal of a house-speaker was kept hidden until it threatened the system when leadership was forced to act, and even then, in the eyes of the public, the whole affair never seemed to be handled as a moral issue.
Where Singapore corporate broke Elite process logic and earned ops trustSIA Taipei Disaster (2000)
This comes closes to a Singapore apology.
The incident:
SQ006 crashed at Chiang Kai Shek airport, 83 of the 179 on board perished, families grieving, uncertainty over responsibility.
Rick Clements: Vice President of Public Affairs, played a central role in managing media and public relations. Dr. Cheong Choong Kong: SIA CEO who took charge of the crisis response. Cheong set the tone for the response -- measured, soft-spoken, not theatrical, not emotional, but unmistakably humane.
What SIA's Rick Clements did differently from Singapore Inc:
He did not default to investigation-first language, technical caveats or procedural distancing. Instead, he led with empathy. His key response features:-
- Human pain came first. He spoke about families, acknowledged loss plainly, didn't hide behind timelines or definitions.
- No premature self-defence. Never talked of "wait for investigation" as the opening move, no implied shifting of blame (weather runway, ATC), process was mentioned but not foregrounded.
- Personal tone within institutional voice. He was still Elite, still controlled, but emotionally present, calm without being cold.
- Most importantly, he didn't collapse into ops-style theatrics, and neither did he retreat into Elite detachment.
It was empathy-first and responsibility. Clements embodied the humane tone physically and emotionally on the ground. People remember him fronting the media, hugging grieving relatives, speaking with raw empathy, becoming almost a symbol of humane crisis response.
Ops-minded people think :"SIA sees the human cost." That lowered anger, restored dignity, bought time for investigation. Ops don't need legal guilt, they need recognition of harm. Rick Clements' humanity protected the institution.
SIA broke from Singapore Elite logic. It separated moral ownership from legal liability.
Singapore Elite logic did not feel threatened because no legal admission was made, institutional discipline was preserved, investigations proceeded properly, SIA retained authority.
SIA was in a sweet spot. It received approval from both Ops and Elites. A rare feat.
SIA did none of the government's Elite response SOP to a crisis. Clemens did everything that none of our ministers can do. That was because he was not the state, he was not electorally accountable, he carried moral voice without sovereign authority, his empathy did not threaten institutional legitimacy.
PAP leaders today struggle to replicate Clements' response style because Singapore Inc runs on processed truth -- everything must be reviewable, defensible, precedent-safe and politically neutral. Which is speak after process, not before pain. That breaks trust.
"Auftragstaktik" -- Mission Command Doctrine
Singapore's fundamental civil-military theory fault lineThe Elite process logic of Singapore Inc can catastrophically fail not by breaking rules but by being too rigid, too slow, or too insulated from human experience. The system protects itself, but sometimes at the cost of public trust and immediate outcomes.
"Auftragstaktik" is German term for the doctrine of mission command. This demands that authority and decision-making shift to the commander closest to the action because they have best situational awareness. Basically -- higher command sets intent; ground commander controls execution; subordinates are trusted to act without waiting for permission.
This is the exact opposite of Elite process logic. I have basically stumbled across a core civil-military theory fault line of Singapore Inc.
Here's a personal story to illustrate. I am long-winded, bear with me. As an 18-year old army recruit back in 1970, I had observed a structural problem of the SAF. We had a combat wing and a service wing. I asked what are we going to do with tens of thousands of pay/admin clerks or storekeepers in the reserves? The maiden issue of "Pioneer" (SAF monthly magazine) was coming out and they offered cash rewards for top 3 essays on life in the Army. I submitted and I got the 3rd price of $50, not bad considering monthly pay was $60. I wrote about the good and the bad, which included the structural problem of the service wing. The editorial team took out all the bad points and basically printed only the good that I described. Fast forward to late 1971, after my commission as a combat officer, I attended a Manpower Officers' Course. A legal officer from Mindef gave a lecture in which he mentioned a high level meeting where Defence Minister Goh Keng Swee exclaimed "Gentlemen, we have created a monster!" He was referring to the structural problem of service wing. Corrective action taken was massive retraining of service personnel, including switching of combat-service roles for officers. Service officers are essentially Elite logic minds, now transferred to take on Ops logic appointments.
Years later, during a reserves training, I led my platoon in a field exercise. In the post-exercise debrief, I asked a sub-group why they had deviated from my plan. An NCO explained that our unit Commanding Officer who had dropped by to spot check, had interfered and advised that they should do something differently. Now this CO, nicknamed "black panther" for a real black panther that had escaped from captivity at about the time, was a bulky and over-weight "service officer" transplant, whose combat expertise is suspect. I explained to my men in very loud decibels why no one except the field commander, ME, executes the task the way I deem fit. My sergeant whispered "Sir, black panther is behind you." I had intended the CO to hear me. It's auftragstaktik or catastrophy.
"Mission command" prioritises speed over perfect info; judgement over procedures; initiative over compliance; local reality over central control. The assumption is brutally realistic -- in fast, chaotic situations, waiting for approval is more dangerous than making a wrong but timely decision.
Military use this because in combat, info is incomplete; conditions change by the minute; centralised command is blind and slow. So the "mission command" accepts higher risk of individual error in exchange for survivality, adaptability and momentum. This is pure Ops logic institutionalised.
Soldiers instantly recognise "mission command" as correct. Bureaucracies feel uncomfortable about it.
Singapore's military doctrine is "mission command".
But civil governance is the opposite. It is centralised approval; process discipline; risk minimisation; and deviation is punished.
The philosophical mis-match:
Singapore trains soldiers to act decisively under pressure. "Mission command" assumes that delay is deadlier than error.
Singapore trains civil servants to wait, escalate, and review. The Elite process logic assumes that error is deadlier than delay.
A real world illustration of Elite vs Ops logic in extremisHere are two examples of real life situations of this civil-military tension where Elite logic could have been catastrophic:
1. Little India Riot (2013)
The incident:
Riot broke out in Little India, Singapore's central Indian enclave. This was triggered by a fatal accident involving an Indian worker and a private bus. Tension escalated quickly. Crowds swelled, violence erupted, property damage occurred. This was the first major riot in decades in Singapore.
Elite logic in action:
Ground commander took a very cautious, procedure-driven heavy approach. He waited for approval from higher-ups before deploying armed units already on the ground. He followed SOP and allowed escalation. This included coordinating multiple agencies carefully. This ground execution-by-the-book delayed response while the situation was worsening.
See the typical Elite logic features:
Protect institutional risk over immediate response; minimise mistakes in enforcement procedures; maintain chain of command; and avoid individual risk without oversight.
What the Ops or Blue Collar critique:
From the crowd's perspective, this felt like inaction. A command paralysis. Lives and property were at stake. Immediate action was needed. Delays amplified lived harm and public anger.
Watch Ops logic in action -- by police sargeant Mydeen Sahul Hameed :
A single sergeant acted instinctively by rushing into the crown to protect property; he engaged directly with rioters to de-escalate; took personal risk, acting before formal orders.
Ops logic in action:
Sergeant Mydeen took immediate action; had moral clarity over procedural correctness; protect lives and assets in real time.
The mis-match:
Ops logic mitigated harm on the ground -- it's immediate action, moral & physical protection. Ops saved the day.
Elite process logic eventually followed to formalise containment -- it's process, chain of command, risk containment. Elites preserved institutional safety and minimised long-term risk.
2. The Cable Car Tragedy (1983)
The incident:
The derrick of oil rig MV Eniwetok struck the overhead cables near Jardine Steps, causing 2 cabins to plunge into the sea, killing 7 pax. 13 other pax were trapped in 4 other cabins, 2 of them dangling over waters.
All the pax were finally rescued by two helicopters one piloted by RSAF pilot Lieutenant YC Kao and the other by Lieutenant Geoff Ledger from the Australian Navy, together with RSAF winchmen. The aerial rescue itself took hours under strong wind conditions, darkness, rising tide and the oil rig drifting and pulling the cables.
The rescue mission was headed by Phillip Yeo, then permsec, Defence. The operation was handled by then Col Lee Hsien Loong. Hours of analysis were conducted by Lee before action was taken.
Ops logic: Cabins are dangling in cables, tide rising, night and darkness approaching, wind picking up, the vessel is shifting and tugging the cables. Immediate action expected or lives may be lost. Delay is experienced as detachment or overthinking.
Elite logic: Prioritised error minimisation, systemic consequences, accountability; acting too fast could have worsened outcome; focused on correct decision under uncertainty.
The outcome of this incident highlighted Singapore's governance default: Process-First decision making; SOPs, escalation, risk matrices; Framework, over immediate lived resolution.
The cable car incident taught Singapore Inc that the greatest danger was not delay -- it was making the wrong decision under pressure. Everything since has flowed from this belief. Elite process logic dominates crisis responses in Singapore, frustrating Ops expectations.
Singapore Opposition Trap
Pritam Singh "lying" debacle
Where Elite process logic converges with Blue Collar ops logic but both end up dissatisfiedThe incident:
- 2021 Raeesah Khan, opposition workers' Party MP, made an untrue statement in Parliament (about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station).
- Pritam, as leader of WP, did not take timely decisive action, allowed the truth to persist in Parliament.
- He made misleading statement in Parliament through omission or lack of clarity.
- The issue was not that he told the original lie, but that he failed in his duty to ensure Parliament was not misled.
- Committee of Privileges was convened. Findings
- Pritam gave untruthful, misleading, inconsistent accounts.
- He was charged in 2024 on 2 counts of giving false answers to the COP.
- 2025 he was found guilty and fined $14,000.
- Pritam appealed and in 2025 the High Court dismissed his appeal.
- He accepted the judgement.
Normally:
Elite logic says: " Rules were followed, case closed."
Blue Collar logic says: "This still feels wrong."
So Elite goes on the defensive, and Blue Collar distrust grows.
In Pritam's case, both logics facture -- but on different grounds.
Why Blue Collar ops logic turned against Pritam:
From ops lived-experience lens, the opposition leader is supposed to be direct, take responsibility, shut down falsehoods fast and accept moral risk. What they witnessed instead were long delays, qualified statements, procedural framing and defensive postures.
Ops logic is outcome-and-instinct-based, not legalistic. "Even if he didn't technically lie, he didn't lead." Once that instinctive trust is broken, Ops logic doesn't wait for verdicts.
Why Elite process logic turned against Pritam:
Viewing through the process lens, Elites see the problem differently. They expect absolute precision in Parliament, zero ambiguity in institutional settings, immediate containment of risk, and no tolerance for gray zones that threaten legitimacy. From their perspective they see a lapse in control, exposure of institutional vulnerability, and process risk not neutralised early.
Elites don't punish bad intent -- they punish process risk. "Even if intentions were defensible, this created unacceptable procedural exposure."
How the Elites frame the issue : They focus on procedural truth -- what was said, when, and under what rules; stick to consistency of statements; measure within the integrity of institutional processes (COP, Parliament). From this perspective, their simple question is "Did he follow the rules correctly?". The Elites' logic is Truth = procedural compliance.
Blue collars don't parse the transcripts. They ask the simple questions "Did he mislead us. Yes or NO?"
Blue collar treats Truth as functional : "Did his words create false confidence?" "Did actions match reality?" "Did delay worsen consequences?" This is why many people felt : "He is playing word games." Not because of legal guilt, but because process truth diverged from lived truth.
"Process truth diverged from Lived Truth". This is important so I'll unpack.
- Processed truth is truth after is has gone through rules, procedures and definitions. Was the rule followed? Were correct steps taken? Were statements technically accurate? Was due process observed? Is it defensible inside the system?
- Process truth lives in reports, transcripts, committees, legal definitions, official statements -- they must be internally consistent.
- Lived truth is truth as the people experienced it directly. What actually happened to me? Did I feel misled? Did this make my life worse? Did someone's actions create harm? Does this pass the common-sense test?
- Lived truth lives in delays, stress, confusion, broken trust. It is emotionally and experientially coherent.
Both Elites and Blue Collars view Pritam is wrong, but from different logic.
Elites saw nuance, fairness, safeguards. So they say: "This is complex."
Blue collars saw evasion, hedging and insulation. So they say : "If it takes this long to explain, something's wrong."
Singapore opposition figures get trapped by the process gameIn Singapore, opposition leaders are trapped in a terrain that is process-dominated. Rules are tight; language precision is weaponised; institutions are procedurally impeccable; deviations are punished symbolitically. This forces opposition into the Elite-mode survival.
The Trap:
To survive institutionally - opposition must speak carefully; avoid definitive statements; respect procedure; hedge under ambiguity.
To connect to Ops-minded voters -- opposition must speak plainly; take responsibility; show decisiveness; and accept moral risk.
They cannot do both at the same time.
That is what happened to Pritam:
Ops expect him as a leader to be direct, take responsibility, shut down falsehoods fast, and accept moral risk. Instead, he delayed, gave qualified statements, used procedural framing, and took defensive posture. Ops logic is outcome-and-instinct-based, not legalistic. He lost the Ops-minded who think: "Even if he didn't lie, he didn't lead."
Elite logic expects absolute precision in Parliament, zero ambiguity in institutional settings, immediate containment of risk, no tolerance off grey zones that threaten legitimacy. Elites saw a lapse in control, process risk not neutralised early (a subordinate's falsehood)' Parliament exposed to interpretive dispute, a process problem that escalates publicly. So Elites think: "Even if intentions were defensible, this created unacceptable procedural control." To Elites, the intent doesn't matter -- only that the system must be kept clean.
Under Process lens - "Did he technically mislead Parliament?" YES.
Under Ops lens - "Did he give cover for something untrue?" YES
The two sides condemn different things, so Pritam ends up in the worst possible position:
- Too procedural to satisfy Ops trust.
- Too messy to satisfy Elite standards.
This is the dead centre where leaders get crushed. This outcome is structural, not personal. This is not about Pritam. Any opposition leader in Singapore faces this trap because:
- They must act like Elite-minded to survive institutionally.
- But must act like Operators to earn public trust.
The moment an opposition acts on Elite logic, the Ops side says "He's one of them!". It's a lose-lose situation.
Singapore's system allows very little slack for hybrid behavior. Once a case escalates, Ops logic has already turned. The Elite logic must defend the system. And the individual becomes expendable. In Pritam's case, Operational logic judged him wanting in leadership instinct, while Elite logic judged him wanting in process control --- a rare convergence that left him exposed from both sides.
Singapore's system ensures the fight is always adjudicated on Elite terrain, not lived reality.
The Singapore Challenge
Singapore Inc runs with a system that is exceptionally strong at process -- high competence, low corruption, tight institutional discipline and predictable outcomes.
The Achilles heel is Blue Collar empathy. When things fail, Elites explain but the people want correction.
When challenged, Elites defend legitimacy, Blue Collars demand ownership.
When the system glitches, reassurances feels like condescension.
The mis-match:
Elites would be forgiven if in private they think Blue Collars are an ungrateful lot, living in the best run country in the world and they grieve over petty issues.
Blue Collars think Singapore has the highest paid cabinet in the world, the public deserves big bangs for big bucks. Failures are unforgiveable.
The inability of the Government to accept personal accountability chips away public trust.
This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.