The Straits Times reported that the Public Utilities Board had announced steps to tighten control of the access to water tanks installed in HDB apartment buildings, in response to the recent security incident at a block of flats in Woodlands.
Following this, people who appear to enjoy throwing stones at the PAP government immediately came out to post negative comments online, basically wondering why it took 50 years for the PUB to realise that there was a security problem, why the civil service is always reactive, and why taxpayers are paying high salaries for such incompetence etc. When I saw those comments, my initial response was this: These guys obviously do not understand basic risk management.
One of the most basic concepts in risk management is that a risk should be treated if the cost of treatment is less than the expected cost of the detriment suffered should the risk event occur. For the past 50 years, the PUB has had no major incidents that exposed our water supplies to the risk of serious contamination, and so I think it is fair to ask if a tighter security posture was appropriate, given that more taxpayers' money would have been spent on what appeared then to be a very low risk event. Furthermore, knowing the typical Singaporean mentality of blaming all bad things on the government, in all likelihood some stone throwers would have asked why money was 'wasted' on security to guard against low risk events.
I am not trying to exonerate the PUB here. I think that given what has already happened, it is appropriate to do a reassessment of threat levels and then to respond accordingly, which the PUB has apparently done. It is also without doubt that all relevant government bodies could have handled the Woodlands incident better. What has been disappointing but unsurprising is the knee-jerk response of some Singaporeans in blaming the government apparently without trying to understand the situation from a risk management perspective. To me, there are far too many Singaporeans who believe that life should be without risks, and that the government's job is to help us eliminate those risks. And we wonder why foreigners think we are living in a cocoon.
Dear Sgpreparedness
ReplyDeleteI just couldn't resist this comment to your this statement: "One of the most basic concepts in risk management is that a risk should be treated if the cost of treatment is less than the expected cost of the detriment suffered should the risk event occur."
This may suggest a cold, calculative and callous attitude to risk that will attract punitive damages to the party exposing the pubic to such risk when the risk event does actually occur. You can only do this if the only one exposed to the risk is the one making the decision not to treat the risk.
Regards
McCool
McCool my friend, I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteThat said, under circumstances of limited resources, such calculations will become more common. If we as citizens become more aware, it means that we can prepare for such circumstances using our own resources and not be dependent on the government. That's what I want to try to stress on this blog. :-)