Corporate Take-Over

In one remarkable day, you could have a good bird's eye view of the corporate culture hegemony in Singapore. Two articles published on the ST allude to the silent but aggressive agglomeration of neo-liberal economic "cost-benefit" ideology, one that pertains to NGOs (New Body to Help NGOs Stay In Place) and the other to what used to be the services of the state (More Jobs to be Farmed Out by Govt Agencies). No doubt some may view these instances as a positive step, it certainly is portrayed as generally a progressive development but there are some dangers one should be cautious about, some not as intelligible and easily overlooked.

The role of NGOs in any society should be to serve its own interests, and not to pander to a dominant institution that may seek to control and intervene into their operations. While it may seem at first glance that the organization and structure of NGOs could be strengthened to be more efficient, no doubt a benefit all may welcome, the inclusion of a overarching body (Society of Associative Executives) will not only erode the spirit of NGOs but quite possibly prove disasterous to their organisational goals. Let's study the goal of the SAE which is set up to "conduct courses, provide professional certification for staff and organise regional conferences for those in the industry to exchange knowledge" and ensure "these professionals will be neutral, transparent and get the job done at the best cost and time". Some of these initiatives should be beneficial, such as coordinating more regional conferences or conducting courses, but the other objectives are not as benevolent as it sounds. A quick inspection of these objectives on the body's website reveal that not only do they "encourage association executives participation in community service organisations, or governmental commissions" but also to "fully integrate research findings on “best practices” and market needs into products and services" indicates, to a broad degree, how much more bureaucratic and rigid such a compliance would lead, not to mention the implementation of a "market-based" approach to solving community problems. The packaging of community support into "products and services" that serve a "cost-benefit" analysis will grind whatever possible flexibility and autonomy these "not-for-profit" organisations have into oblivation.

If that didn't seem worrisome enough, the second article presented an affirmation of how the state is dealing with employment. However, it clearly extols the virtue of "neo-liberal" ideology, as the state contracts out its services and amenities to private corporations. Among them include the putting down of stray animals (trust someone else to do the dirty work), searching for AWOL enlisted men and other civil sector jobs. This isn't the place to list down and describe the dangers of private outsourcing of services, but needless to say, it certainly is a more frightening picture that probably deserves introspection and debate which will sadly not surface for time to come.