Talent Strategies and Leadership Development of the Public Sector

Insights from Southeast Asia

Celia Lee

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000426786
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Public Affairs & Administration
• Index: Politics & International Relations

To stay ahead of the competition, the public sector has to ensure an effective talent management strategy to attract, develop and retain talents. Effective talent management is about aligning the organisation's approach to talent with the strategic aims and purpose of the organisation. This book adopts a comparative country analysis, which takes into account the institutional emphasis, organisational configuration and unique characteristics of the public sector.

Against the backdrop of three major stages of administrative development, i.e., the colonial, postcolonial and modern periods, this book unpacks how the talent schemes have been shaped by the reforms, experiences, cross-country knowledge transfers and evolved over time responding to globalisation and digitalisation in Southeast Asia.

This book will be of great interest to scholars and public managers working on public administration and civil service reforms in Asia towards developing a contextualised understanding of talent management and leadership development in the region.

1
Administrative reforms and transformation in the public sector that shape talent management and leadership development in Southeast Asia

The three public administration models in Southeast Asia: colonial-bureaucratic; postcolonial-development; new public management

In Southeast Asia, we can distinctively discern three models of public administration which corresponded to the various stages of administrative developments. They are colonial-bureaucratic; postcolonial developmental; and the new public management models. These models originated mostly in western nations and were subsequently borrowed by (or imposed on) various countries in the region. Most of the countries adopted or imitated the experiences and models in varying degrees at the different colonial, postcolonial and modern periods, adjusted within the local contexts of these countries (Haque, 2007). Although there existed certain precolonial administrative traditions, such as autocratic-paternalistic rule and kingship-based authority, these were largely transformed or replaced during the colonial rule and postcolonial administrative modernisation. Even for Thailand, which was not under direct colonial rule, its administrative system was also highly influenced by western ideas during the 19th and 20th centuries when the neighbouring countries were under colonial control by the major European powers.

The colonial legacy: from kingship to modern bureaucracy

There were seven major colonial powers in Southeast Asia: Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Great Britain, France, the United States, and Japan. From the 1500s to the mid-1940s, colonialism was imposed over Southeast Asia (Osborne, 2000). One interesting feature regarding colonial administration is that it can be dichotomised into two time periods: the administration before the Japanese Occupation and the administration after the Japanese Occupation which was from 1941 to 1945 (Kratoska & Goto, 2015). Both periods are marked by a clear shift in the colonisers’ goals regarding their protectorates and the attitudes of the colonised Southeast Asian nations towards their masters.

For centuries, European travellers had been travelling to Southeast Asian countries for trade and economic purposes. They also brought along religion, customs, traditions into the region. The mass immigration caused by the large demand for labour due to the rapidly developed trade and economy had also led to a demographical change in the region. Not only do they have close economic relations with the countries but they also imposed their political domination over a large Southeast Asian territory. Dominant European colonisers such as Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands not only occupied the region but also imposed their own goals, interests and style of administration on their colonies (Margolin, 2016; Public Service Division, 2015). Simultaneously, the western political system and education system were brought into the region as well, impacting Southeast Asian political and public administration. The institutions for a modern state such as a state bureaucracy, courts of law were created. The colonial-bureaucratic model offers the guiding principles for modernising administration of the states, replacing traditional kingship institutions which were adopted from South Asia (rajadharma) and West Asia (sultanate).

The two main types of colonial governments in Southeast Asia then were Liberal colonial governments and Repressive colonial governments. The British and the Americans were the two liberal colonial governments at that time but with different administrative models. The British colonised Malaysia, Singapore and Burma, while the Philippines were under the Americans’ rule. Under the British rule, the bureaucratic model administration and parliamentary system based on the concept of neutral politics and hierarchal loyalty was established in Malaysia, Singapore and Burma. However, the British’s interests regarding governance and talent management negated the interests and demands of the locals. During the colonisation of the Federated Malay States, the pervasiveness of British paternalism resulted in the employment and advancement of British cadets over the local Malays. This practice was ascribed to the belief that the local Malay community, including the educated elites, were neither sufficiently learned nor capable to manage large responsibilities (Wah, 1980). Administrative training was mostly limited to the sons of sultans and chiefs, with some exceptions made for local Malays who proved themselves to be talented. Locals who were recruited into the Malay Administrative Services and the Malayan Civil Service were mostly kept on the lower ranks with low career prospects. While the Philippines under the American’s rule adopted the American political system which included the separation of power, the direct election of the President, and the system of checks and balances. The British and the Americans brought into their colonies the rule of law, civil liberties, and rights in politics.

On the other hand, the Spanish, Dutch and French had more repressive administrative systems. Under the French rule in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, a bureaucratic model, headed by a cadre of French officials under a mid-level official recruited by French and the local could become the lower-level officials only. The French language was also imposed as the main language. During the French colonial rule from 1863 to 1953, the protectorate found that the country was civilised with an established gentry with the King at the apex. As such, they initially did not upend the existing administrative structure but they governed through the king (Pike, 2012). Nonetheless, over the years of its colonisation, the French reformed the Cambodian government to suit its goals. In 1887, Cambodia was assimilated into the Indochina Union (besides Laos and the three constituent regions of Vietnam) and the country was stewarded by a Chief Resident (Résident Supérieur). Assistance and counsel on local matters was provided to the Chief Resident by a council of the protectorate consisting of the heads of various public services, such as the offices for agriculture, education, police and penitentiary services, and delegates from the Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture (Prum, 2005).

The Indonesian people’s liberty was also limited under the Dutch’s ruling. A bureaucracy and a police and military service was established by the Dutch in Indonesia with the aim to maintain social control and to avoid people going against the colonial government. Hence the locals under the repressive ruling by the Spanish, Dutch and French had limited liberty as they were regarded as more superior. Thailand, which was then called Siam, was the only territory that was not colonised by the Europeans. Although it remained as an independent kingdom, its administrative system started to evolve towards the western bureaucratic style as well under the regime of King Chulalongkorn. The reforms based on the western model of administration were also introduced which included uniform standards of public service, arrangement of career services, the principle of neutral politics, and separation between public office and personal life.

Japan’s colonisation of Southeast Asia between 1941 and 1945 had both positive and negative effects on the region. While under the Japanese occupation, Southeast Asia underwent major social and economic structural changes. Japan employed the divide and rule tactic in the region which highly disintegrated the region making it more difficult for the countries in this region to implement democratic political systems. Japan’s imperialist policy and military dominance exposed the people to many challenges and did not fully favour the social structure of Southeast Asia. Therefore, its failure to develop an effective social and administrative structure made it impossible for it to establish a major impact on Southeast Asia’s political system. Its weak political policies and biased development strategies also contributed to heightened social tension, consequently leading to the emergence of new social structures which influenced change in vital social and economic systems in the region. It also evoked anti-Japanese movements and a rising sense of nationalism. Nevertheless, Japan’s colonisation had helped to liberate the Southeast Asian region which was dominated by the European bureaucratic elites and formed a new social class that was more business oriented.

Postcolonial administration: rise of nationalism and road to socioeconomic development

Following the Japanese Occupation, the philosophy behind Great Britain’s colonial rule shifted from securing its own interests to promoting self-governance in all its colonies. This was to be accomplished through constructing the appropriate institutions and conditions, such as local public service commissions, to nurture the growth of indigenous civil servants and through presenting scholarships to capable local candidates with the aim of preparing them for postings in the higher ranks of the civil service (National Library Board [NLB], 2013). However these institutions were to only be advisory in nature, in that, they are to counsel the Governor, the head of administration in a colony, on the selection and appointment of candidates for posts in the civil service (Tilman, 1961). In 1947, the Trusted Commission published a list of recommendations regarding the creation of a Public Service Commission (PSC). Some of these include, inter alia, the standardisation of administrative schemes into four divisions according to the various prerequisite educational, professional or technical criteria, and the revision of public officers’ salaries in the Malayan Union and Singapore (Quah, 2010b). Establishing a PSC was an arduous process for the Federation of Malaya due to the unstable social and political climates at that time. While the Legislative Council looked into the implementation of such an administrative body, an interim organisation known as the Public Service Appointments and Promotions Board was set up with the same basic functions as the PSC in order to test its operability. The interim organisation was further limited to advising the High Commissioner on the selection of candidates for their first appointment to job placements in three of the four divisions that was proposed by the Trusted Commission, and the transfer of current public officers in the same posts. Decision-making regarding six other classes of officers was excluded from the jurisdiction of the interim board. When the Public Services Commission Bill was introduced in 1955 to set up a PSC, it was opposed by the Legislative Council on the grounds that the Bill did not guarantee the total malayanisation of senior civil service posts within the shortest time possible (Tilman, 1961).

In the hope of maintaining Singapore (part of Malaysia) as a focal point for Far Eastern imperial defence in the post-war era, some of the local officers were promoted to the senior ranks which were previously monopolised by European cadets (Low, 2018). On 1 January 1951, Singapore inaugurated its own PSC to safeguard independent control of the nation’s bureaucracy from the Malayan Establishment Office, with key operations including the advising of the local Governor on matters relating to the employment and promotion of qualified individuals and exercising discipline against erring civil servants (NLB, 2013). A notable restructuring of the Singapore bureaucratic system began when the British had to content with mounting levels of frustration and national consciousness among the locals for self-autonomy. Initiating the first step in constitutional reforms was the commission of the 1953 Rendel Constitution where a system of ministerial administration was devised to replace some aspects of British colonial governance (Low, 2018). The antagonism of the Legislative Council towards the creation of a PSC resulted in the interim body’s continued operation till 1957 when the Malay Peninsular obtained the freedom to self-govern (Public Services Commission of Malaysia, 2020; Tilman, 1961).

After the Japanese Occupation, Cambodia gained a transitory period of independence under King Norodom Sihanouk in early 1945 with the help of the Japanese before ultimately ceding to French colonial forces again in the later part of that year. This attainment of autonomy was symbolic in nature as the government was dependent on Japanese support and it did little to improve local conditions. This period was also marked by a coup between the pro-French royals and loyalists and the pro-Japanese supporters. Due to deteriorating political conditions and a desire by the Allies to defend the nation, the French returned, arrested the Cambodian Prime Minister, Son Ngoc Thanh, and re-established their regressive colonial regime (Chandler, 1986; Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019).

Colonial experience had given rise to anti-colonial as well as anti-fascist (anti-Japanese aggression) nationalist sentiments that further spawned independence movements. Southeast Asian elites responded to western colonialism in a continuum anywhere from adaptation, collaboration, to resistance. Colonial power’s rule upon Southeast Asia had an impact on the rise of nationalist movements as people tried to fight for their independence. Nationalist movements were triggered to unite local people against the western powers. Many of these movements were inspired by western ideologies such as freedom, equality and dignity, influenced by western education. The rise of modern nationalism in the region can be credited to capitalist development, the availability of Western education, the adoption of vernacular languages and the spread of the vernacular press (Gellner, 1983; Anderson, 1991). Emerging native elites were educated in colonial schools and strongly influenced by Western ideals of liberty, socialism and democracy. In Burma, Students from the University of Rangoon formed the Dobayma Asiyone (‘We Burman’) society in 1935. In Indonesia, Dutch-educated Indonesians formed the Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI) in 1927 to create a modern state free from Dutch colonial rule. In Singapore, the People’s Action Party was formed in 1954 by middle-class English-educated Chinese. Subsequently, PAP led Singapore to become a completely independent state. At the same period, communist leaders and parties also arose in many areas of Southeast Asia as well, for example, the Malayan Communist Party, the Indonesian Communist Party and the Vietminh in Vietnam to seize back control from their western masters. Historically, nationalism in Thailand has never been as powerful as in its neigh-bour Vietnam and Cambodia, since it was never colonised. But nationalist sentiments did fuel the military coup in 1932 that overthrew the absolute monarchy.

The former colonies were left with weakly institutionalised political systems that had but a semblance of political–administrative separation or no systems at all following the military coups. In line with the trend towards a state-centric model of development, the public service hence became the main stakeholder in undertaking development initiatives. After obtaining independence, most of these newly independent states began to pursue state-led socioeconomic development and restructure their inherited colonial bureaucracy in favour of development-oriented public administration (Haque, 1996). The emphasis of such a development administration model is on the adoption and implementation of state-led economic plans and programmes through a new set of development-oriented public agencies and officials towards achieving nation-building goals (Haque, 2004). Except for countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia, the administrative systems in Southeast Asia had also evolved in line with the liberal democratic models of public administration characterised by principles such as separation of power, political neutrality and public accountability, which were to be maintained through constitutional provision, legal system, legislative means, ministerial supervision, budget and audit and performance evaluation. This led to the development of an institutionalised government that consists of development planning commissions, boards, councils, agencies to provide efficient administration.

Proceeding from the attainment of self-governance, some of these Southeast Asian nations, particularly Malaysia and Singapore, reoriented their acquired colonial bureaucracy towards a developmental style of governance (Haque, 2006) while others, like Cambodia, struggled to expand their civil service due to volatile local climates. As manifested in Malaysia and Singapore and elaborated below, the developmental administrative approach encompasses a state-centric paradigm where nations developed their own set of programmes, policies and public agencies to aid their pursuit of socioeconomic and political developmental goals (Haque, 2007). Through the lens of talent management, this brand of governance results in the recruitment of a specific type of personnel or the application of distinctive human resource policies to acquaint existing public servants with the nation’s new ideology. Thailand among the Southeast Asian nations had never been colonised by European powers. Thai ‘independence’ was purchased with acceptance of unequal treaties with French and British imperial powers, in which not only land was ceded but extraterritoriality was granted not only to the Europeans but also to colonised Asian subjects of the European powers (Chua, 2008).

Following independence from the French colonial rule, the Kingdom of Cambodia resumed its rule from 1953 to 1970. During this period, moderate improvements were made to the bureaucracy. One particular enhancement concerned the management of the Khum. The head of the commune (Mekhum) was now selected through the general, direct and secret ballots system. These chiefs had two purposes to fulfil: to represent the central government in enforcing laws and regulations and to represent the Khum. They also had a number of responsibilities besides collecting taxes such as looking into the local education and public health matters and allocating lands to farmers (Prum, 2005). Another enhancement was the creation of a public administrative statute called the kram in 1953 where civil servants were employed through the use of competition and were further ranked into four distinctive grades with varying advantages (Vandeluxe, 2014).

New public management: market-driven state policies and business-like restructuring of public sector

Many countries in Southeast Asia were largely influenced by the bureaucratic western models and liberal democratic values in developed nations (Haque, 1996). Bureaucracies were also deemed to be key to developmental effectiveness. From the late 20th to the 21st century, governments in Southeast Asia began to adopt a business-like model of administration according to the ‘New Public Management’ (NPM) theory. This form of governance encapsulates the ambit of administrative modifications where techniques, strategies and axioms usually harnessed by the private sector, such as performance management metrics and contracting out service provisions, are co-opted by public agencies to improve their ef...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of tables and figures
• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• Introduction
• 1 Administrative reforms and transformation in the public sector that shape talent management and leadership development in Southeast Asia
• 2 Talent management as a growing discipline in the public sector
• 3 Talent management and leadership development in Singapore
• 4 Talent management and leadership development in Malaysia
• 5 Talent management and leadership development in Thailand
• 6 Talent management and leadership development in Cambodia
• 7 Talent management and leadership development in Vietnam
• 8 Comparison of the talent management practices – attraction, development and retention
• 9 Leadership development of senior public officials through transnational knowledge transfer
• 10 Assessing talent strategies within the context of inclusive–exclusive tension paradigm
• References
• Index