Introduction
1. The public disagreement between Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Philip Yeo over biomedical research and development is important. If Dr Lee is right and Mr Yeo is wrong, Singapore's economic competitiveness will not be enhanced; the opportunity cost will be considerable; it may also damage the bureaucracy's reputation for relatively competent macro-economic planning.
Aim
2. However this post does not discuss the merits of Dr Lee's or Mr Yeo's arguments. Instead it aims to engage in theoretical modelling of intra-elite decision-making in Singaporean public policy.
3. This case is interesting because it deviates from a perception that high-level decision-making in Singapore tends to be monolithic and secretive. However this incident seems to contradict this perception. Dr Lee and Mr Yeo are regarded as 'titans' of the establishment; their disagreement was publicized via domestic and international mass media.
4. Via a conceptual smash-and-grab raid, the models used are taken from Graham Allison's Essence of Decision, i.e. the Rational Actor, Organizational Process (OP) and Bureaucratic Politics (BP) models.
Clash of Individuals
5. It is assumed that both Dr Lee and Mr Yeo are rational actors [1] with similar interests and goals (i.e. bringing Singapore's biomedical research to 'world-class' levels). Why, then, do they disagree so vehemently? Behavioural models that rely on bounded rationality could provide insight into causes. However it still does not explain why it was public.
Clash of Inputs
6. Another view is that bureaucracies make decisions via OP. This is often represented by hierarchy trees and flow charts.
7. However Dr Lee does not seem to have a formal role in the A*STAR OP. Her public criticism implies she made an attempt to give input to A*STAR policy formulation. Given Dr Lee's status as an Establishment insider, why did she feel it was appropriate and/or necessary to give her views via the mass media rather than communicate privately?
Clash of Bureaucracies
8. BP is often summed up with the phrase: "Where you stand depends on where you sit." It assumes that bureaucracies are not unitary entities; they are made up of different groups of competing sub-bureaucracies [2]. It claims that individual decision-makers are inclined / conditioned to push for the interests of the sub-bureaucracy they belong to.
9. Using BP, Dr Lee's advocacy for shifting A*STAR's focus towards head injuries would be explained by her position as Director of the National Neuroscience Institute. Her advocacy of other non-NNI niche areas, such as Hepatitis B and auto-immune disorders, would be interpreted by the BP model as an attempt to bolster external validity / generalizability for the broader claim that A*STAR should change policy. Combined with the assumption that Dr Lee does not have a formal input into A*STAR's OP, her public remarks could thus be explained as an attempt to get a public response to said input.
10. Likewise the BP model would explain Mr Yeo's response as representing the considered view of A*STAR (versus NNI) based on its own (bounded?) rational calculus; more deterministic BP users would posit that the stridency of Mr Yeo's rebuttal would not simply be due to his unique personal style of communication but also his mindfulness to defend A*STAR's authority over the biomedical research policy formulation process.
Conclusion
11. While the BP model appears to best explain (a) possible sources and (b) the public nature of the disagreement, it is merely abstract speculation; this post makes no truth claim about the internal validity of anything posited here.
12. Nonetheless Dr Lee and Mr Yeo's disagreement remains an interesting case of intra-elite contestation over public policy that is conducted in the public domain.
13. For your perusal and comments please.
Footnotes
[1] In Allison's framework, ratact is applied to the state as a unitary decision-maker rather than individual decision-makers within the state.
[2] This has also been applied to political parties. An amusing fictional example is Sir Humphrey Appleby's description of his Minister's party as a "loose confederation of warring tribes". ('The Smoke Screen', Yes Minister)
Comments (6)
Dr Lee's relationship with the MM and PM doesn't make her a bureaucrat. She's just another one of those kay poh doctors who has a lot to say about all kinds of random stuff. You have not been reading her Forum letters in recent times meh? Just because she is an expert at head injuries doesn't make her an expert at biomedical research. The KTM wouldn't take her views too seriously.
Philip Yeo only took over A*STAR and started on his ambitious plan to train biomedical researchers (1000 PhDs?) in 2001 or so. The scholars are only beginning to trickle back over the last two years (and many are still studying abroad). Singapore cannot anyhow change direction halfway now. Research takes time. There is no doubt that our investments in biomedical research was somewhat of a gamble, but we need more time to see whether our gamble has paid off (and we cannot happily write off what we're already done).
Posted by Kway Teow Man | February 10, 2007 2:10 AM
KTM - interesting point about Dr Lee. Another random data I know about her. I believe Dr Lee was also against bungee jumping (See article below). The word on the street (totally not verified) is that her point of view against bungee jumping results in no bungee jumping in Singapore for a long time. Maybe the same reason we don't have F1 racing here (just kidding!)=0
Do we want to encourage mindless risk taking?
By ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR LEE WEI LING.
25 July 2003
Straits Times
THE Remaking Singapore Committee made many recommendations. One which made headlines in newspapers and on all major TV news bulletins was that Singaporeans have to be encouraged to take risks. Bungee jumping was cited as the first risk-taking activity which would be allowed.
It does not take a rocket scientist or Nobel-laureate economist to know that there is a vast difference between calculated risk taking, balancing the dangers and the gains of a particular risky endeavour and the totally mindless risk taking involved in bungee jumping.
The former kind of risk-taking behaviour is what we want to encourage. Only if we have enough of such men and women will we be able to compete with the rest of the world as venture capitalists, scientists, etc.
On the other hand, risk taking just for the adrenaline surge (which in itself can kill), or to boast that 'I dared to do it', which involves no skill, physical fitness, nor intellectual ability to weigh the pros and cons, will produce shallow bravado at best and encourage the gambling mentality at worst.
If we allow bungee jumping, we might as well legalise motor racing in Singapore. At present, the thrill seekers choose to do so in the middle of the night on public roads, creating a danger to others who do not choose to be risk takers.
I am a risk taker myself, but one who carefully studies the risks before undertaking an endeavour. Before going on a hike, I study the terrain and weather, calculate the hours of daylight and assess my fitness level and I balance these against the scenery, the physical challenge and the peace of getting away from humanity.
In short, I strongly support encouraging calculated risk taking, but I am against mindless risk taking.
Document stimes0020030725dz7p0006o
Posted by Sze Meng | February 10, 2007 4:06 AM
KTM - Good point. I took significant liberties in using all the models; I didn't mean to imply that Dr Lee is a professional bureaucrat, only that the BP model might be applicable because within the model's framework, she could be assumed to be representing a bureaucracy/institution's view (NNI) rather than simply a personal view. Again, I make no comment on the relative merits of her or Mr Yeo's arguments since I know nothing about medical research and development. And actually, no, I don't read the Straits Times, much less the ST Forum. :P
Sze Meng - thanks for highlighting that letter. I would have thought she'd mention head injuries due to bungee jumping somehow. /joke ;)
Posted by ringisei | February 10, 2007 5:07 AM
Ringisei,
She got A LOT A LOT of published ST Forum letters. Most of them are ultra-long some more (ST Forum Editor probably dare not edit her letters lest she complain to papa). :-) If you take the sum of all these letters in perspective, then you would probably not be quite so inclined to put her in this Bureaucratic Politics (BP) model. It's more like a CKPB model (Connected Kay Poh vs Bureaucrat) model. :-)
Posted by Kway Teow Man | February 10, 2007 12:53 PM
KTM- Come to think of it, you are right. She does have a number of Forum letters... Not sure about the editing part though =)
Posted by Sze Meng | February 10, 2007 11:30 PM
oh no... Cuban Missile Crisis...
The thickest readings EVER in International Politics at NUS.
Posted by oskar | February 11, 2007 2:34 AM