Four day seminar and fieldwork trip to Singapore: carrying out intensive research, surveying and discussion in teams, to provide report about the particular aspects of public policy-making in Southeast Asia, under a comparative point of view (considering the experience of Hong Kong and Singapore) in strategic fields such as: social welfare, urban planning, environmental regulation, democratic transition, institutional relations between public and private sectors, etc.

1. CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
YEAR 1 RESIDENTIAL COURSE, MAPPM:
Dr. Mark Hayllar/ Dr. Brian Brewer
INDIVIDUAL ANALYTICAL ESSAY:
Memoires of Residential Course MAPPM, Hong Kong and Singapore,
Year 1/ Winter 2012-2013
(Group D)
LUJAN ANAYA, Raul Alejandro
Student No. 52915639
Semester B/ 2013
February-March 2013

2. Individual Analytical Essay:
Memoires of Residential Course MAPPM, Hong Kong and Singapore/ January 2013
[Word Count. Main body: 1,930 subtotal, approx.;
References and bibliography: 240 subtotal, approx.]
From a beginning, I noticed that the importance of the Residential course in the syllabus
of the Master of Public Policy and Management (MAPPM) program, lies in two
important lessons which we graduate students, shall bear in mind, as proud alumni of
the City University of Hong Kong (CityU):
1. Getting started on a practical and dynamic perspective on comparative public
policy-making (rather than merely theoretical, mostly characteristic of working in
the classroom), by understanding the different approaches taken within the polity of
two cousin City-States that share similarities of context and challenges to face in
matters of social welfare and providing public services in the name of public
interest;
2. Enhancing our capacity for engaging in teamwork and playing roles in a virtual
reality of policy-making (that practical aspect I said before), by bonding in groups
with common goals and exchanging ideas based on what we’ve learned so far in the
MAPPM, in the light of the personal experiences we have brought to the program
from our different socio-cultural backgrounds.
First, I understood that carrying on with a practical perspective on comparative policy-
making between Hong Kong (HK) and Singapore (SG) in the grounds of social welfare,
proves valuable when we consider the fact that both HK and SG are well-known for
being two fine City-States very competitive in matter of global trade and finance,
conforming two formidable examples of multicultural coexistence, panaceas of socio-
economic development in their own fashion, and even two gravity centers of
“technocratic governance” (if this concept can be understood as the rule and policy-
running of politicians and civil servants “encouraged to be entrepreneurial and to cut
through the red tape” [1] in pursuing the goals of the State), thus worthy of being
regarded two top-tier urban areas around the planet, at the level of other “Global Cities”
abroad like New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Shanghai, etc. [2]. Anyway, both cities

3. have been facing interesting challenges (I consider that mostly due to their nature as
major cities) especially in fields such as: social and spatial inequality; increasing
percentages of ageing population and improving their life quality; the matter of
providing infrastructure of world-class healthcare to all layers of society, be them rich
and poor; and the struggle for continuously achieving innovation in the provision of
public services, such as water (electricity, gas, and other natural resources) and land
transportation, etc., which constitute day-to-day tasks to attend in matter of policy-
making, and interesting topics of discussion in both public and academic forums.
During the activities of team-bonding and assuming roles in the formulation of projects
for policy advocacy, when we were studying the issue of land distribution for the
provision of columbaria services, I became aware on the need of developing group
identity by providing with a name, motto and defining a common course of action, as I
realized that developing such identity would help us to find a reason for guiding our
energies towards a goal: we decided to call our team “VEE”, as an acronym related to
Vision, Energy, Enterprise and our motto clearly stating “dream by dream, dream for
dream, dream to dream…” because dreaming is always the primary force for getting
things done, pursuing a dream and catching it for making it possible; afterwards, ideas
and rationale for achieving would follow by themselves [3]… Indeed after the first day, I
felt like enjoying the experience of studying about the topic and preparing the project
for our press release about the issue of public columbaria along with the other team
members, because we were committed to our task, it didn’t matter that we were working
overnight (until 1 or 2 a.m. of next dawn): the emotion in entering into the exchange of
ideas among teammates to reach consensus on the common course of action, and a
unique feeling of having fun while working (though we knew that we were getting
immerse in nothing else but virtual reality about a real issue, we were taking it
seriously!) is what brought us valuable learning and successful performance for the next
noon…
When the time came to present our press releases I understood that it’s never easy to
defend the interests of government: the concept of “public interest” can be so relative, to
the extent that it’s usually hard to reach a consensus between and among the different
interest groups represented within society: be them pressure groups of the civil society,
common citizens, the business sector and even the media. In the case of HK, the issue of

4. reaching consensus for implementing policy in the sake of common good is particularly
interesting, as it’s well known to us that since the time of the handover of HK as former
British colony, to become part of Mainland China, governments established therein
(from the highest levels: the Chief Executive himself, and even to medium or lower
layers of the administrative scale) have faced a serious legitimacy deficit that has
continuously undermined their policy and State capacity, as I will explain ahead: I
remember, as “playing” to be the government spokesman, when after being questioned
too much about the policies intended to be implemented in matter of land planning for
the provision of columbaria services I decided to play the card of patriotism (at the
moment when I said something like: “…And personally, I’m so committed to working
for the interest of our people, to the extent that right now I am wearing a shirt with the
red color of the HK flag…”) so after the feedback given by Ms. Winnie, and meditating
a little on the subject, I understood that appealing to patriotic motifs for reaching
consensus, can work as a double-edge sword: on one hand, it may help to communicate
commitment with the cause of the community which the government policy-makers
serve to; but on the other hand, it may be considered as a fallacy which diverts
arguments from the main subject of policy discussion, and being somehow recurrent
when the decision-makers run out of substantial arguments for the discussion (or even
when there’s a hidden agenda behind arguments communicated)… I also found the role
of the media to be particularly interesting, as journalists may act not only as mere
messengers, but also as mediators between the different interest groups, in accordance
to the message they spread, and for not in vain they are known as the “Fourth Estate” of
political power (outside the traditional doctrine of the trias politica conceived by
Montesquieu) as it possesses the power of exerting influence over the values and
priorities in policy-running and law- making/ enforcement between the other three
estates, and the ability of being a channel for which the different sectors of societies:
common citizens (the public arena), the modern business aristocracy (the private
sector), and pressure groups/ NGO’s (nowadays known as the third sector); can bring
their demands (and grievances) to be known by the government at all levels…
Not only during the session of press releases on the topic of columbaria services in HK,
but also after carrying out the interviews of elder citizens, the visits to the Marina
Barrage, Changi General Hospital, both Housing and Land Transport Authorities, but
furthermore, as a reflection after the conference given by Dr. Eugene Tan, I reaffirmed a

5. conclusion of mine I have reached at this point, which I acquired before from learning
from both theoretical and practical aspects of the MAPPM: that both the governments in
HK and SG, have a need of maintaining good levels of efficiency and responsiveness in
performing policy-running for the interest of common good, as if the problems of
(social and spatial) inequality are left unchecked, the reputation of both City-States as
world-class models for socio-economic development in Asia will be at stake… Then I
understood that comparing aspects of implementation for the public interest between
both City-States is also relevant to understand the concept of “good governance” (as
reviewed for the semester before in class of Theories of Government and Public
Administration, the eight features of good governance, in the doctrine of the United
Nations directorate: democratic participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness,
consensus, equity, efficiency and accountability [4]), considering that their political
structure work as semi-democracies: on one hand, HK, possesses a scheme of polity and
laws designed to be enforced under authoritarian and executive-led guidelines, but one
which has constantly clashed with the democratic ambitions of its people, an active and
illustrated population concerned to protect their own liberties, rights and interests; on
the other hand, we have SG, which in theory possessed a policy framework designed to
be democratic (as the Constitution of Singapore stipulates, especially under its Articles
3 and 12, that “Singapore shall be (is) a sovereign republic…”, that “all persons are…
entitled to equal protection of the law” also making reference to freedoms of speech,
assembly and association, free choice of education, among other concepts which are
meant to uphold the Rule of Law and democratic governance [5]) however in practice,
government has tended to exercise power in an authoritarian but pragmatic fashion, by
prizing efficiency and appearing to be responsive in policy-running, giving priority to
the value of stability in governance, but at the cost of showing little or no regard
towards public opinion and demeriting other values such as transparency and
accountability, a government which hasn’t hesitated on imposing its will or interests
over those of common citizens; and this was one substantial argument wielded in the
conference given by Dr. Tan (in a rather subtle manner): socio-economic development
in the State, has no reason for which it shall preclude the conservation of democratic
governance…
Let’s say, for instance, that in the provision of public housing ownership and
infrastructure, SG has done better job than HK, considering that this kind of issues tend

6. to be more related to the economic interest of the State, in which “changes to… policy…
(come as) result of economic problems and business pressure, not a consequence of
deliberate changes to government’s views of how citizens should be treated” [6], even
when this can be considered a proof of responsive and efficient governance. However,
in matter of liberties of press and expression, and in promoting publicly the values of
accountability and transparency, we can say HK would score higher, considering that
common citizens here perceive more freedom to express their ideas and political
values… Then, I can only agree that the HK government has developed better
governance than that of SG, as the former, despite its own legitimacy problems and
consequent handicaps of State and policy capacities, according to which the government
should be able of reaching coherence between the design/ formulation and
implementation of policy programs, has proved to be more concerned about
accomplishing the goals of good governance.
There are more ideas I would really love to share the learning acquired about the
Residential course in HK and SG, but at this point I am running out for the allowed
number of words for this essay… However, as manner of conclusion, I can only say that
the Residential course of the MAPPM program at CityU will remain as one of the most
valuable and exciting projects I had experienced so far, for even when the time was
short in quantity, it was definitely worthy for combining theory and practice on the
learning of comparative policy-making, to the extent that those four days I shall keep in
mind for the rest of my life, not only as student of CityU, but also if we (myself and my
classmates) really want to play a role as architects of humanity within the foreseeable
future…
Thank you for your Attention!

7. List of References:
[1] Scott, Ian. The Public Sector in Hong Kong: Policy, Government, People. Hong Kong
University Press (2010), p. 58;
[2] “Global City”; Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cities
[3] I enjoy bringing this topic: believing in the power of dreams, as I can gladly remember the
days when I was just getting started with my admission process at CityU, just a year ago… At
that time, coming to Hong Kong was nothing but a mere image in my mind; however, a lesson I
will always keep, was one given by my own family: daring to dream, and acting on instinct to
bring them into reality; speaking for myself, and after practicing as lawyer for three years,
preparing all the necessary paperwork and qualifications, following all the necessary steps and
processes, and awaiting patiently for the good news and times to come: that was how I finally
ended up being right here and now, coming miles away from home, to start a new life and play
one of my greatest bets, aiming to win big in both academic and professional expertise, while
sharing ideas and experiences with the new friends and acquaintances I’ve met during this
journey;
[4] “What is Good Governance?”; United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia
and the Pacific (UNESCAP):
http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp
[5] Constitution of the Republic of Singapore:
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=1c961483-74d1-41ab-927f-
9e4295c1a997;page=0;query=DocId%3A%22cf2412ff-fca5-4a64-a8ef-
b95b8987728e%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0#pr10-he-
[6] Scott, Ian. The Public Sector in Hong Kong: Policy, Government, People. Hong Kong
University Press (2010), p. 244.