Eddie Teo is a distinguished former senior civil servant from Singapore. Over his extensive public service career, he held several key roles, among them Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, Permanent Secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office, and Singapore’s High Commissioner to Australia. He later headed the Public Service Commission (PSC) from 2008 to 2018, contributing greatly to the enhancement of the nation’s civil service standards. In August 2018, he was appointed Chairman of the Presidential Council of Advisors, a post he continues to occupy.

It is notable that in 1991, Singapore amended its constitution to grant the President special custodial powers over the nation’s accumulated reserves and to preserve the professionalism and integrity of the public service. To assist the President in exercising these powers, the constitution provides for a Presidential Council of Advisors. In matters relating to public revenue and appointments, consultation with this Council is mandatory for the President. The Council generally consists of eight members: three nominated by the President, three by the Prime Minister, one by the Chief Justice, and one by the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.

Let us return to our main topic. In a programme, Eddie Teo shared a recollection that was later quoted in a newspaper article. He said: “When I joined the public service in 1970, Mr Lee Kuan Yew (former Prime Minister of Singapore and architect of modern Singapore) had already been working for eleven years to transform the British-inherited public service to meet the needs of an independent Singapore. By that time, a strong culture of anti-corruption within the civil service had already taken root.”

He also mentioned meeting David Rivkin, President of the International Bar Association. When Mr Rivkin asked him how Singapore maintained and applied a “no tolerance for corruption” ethic in public service, Teo replied:

“There were no training classes or brainwashing sessions. Rather, civil servants followed the examples set by our political leaders. We were clean because they were clean. We saw them lead simple, modest, unpretentious lives, fully dedicated to building the country and improving the lives of Singaporeans.”

“All senior officials who worked closely with the early generation of leaders can recall stories of their simplicity. For people like Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Keng Swee, the term ‘work-life balance’ had no meaning. Work was life, and life was work. We saw that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau enforced anti-corruption laws equally on everyone, regardless of rank. We were inspired by our leaders’ exemplary conduct and their vision—and deep down we were restrained by a sense of ‘fear’. Financial temptations simply did not matter during that time.”

Today, the Singapore civil service is regarded as one of the best in the world. Lee Kuan Yew’s commitment to building a competent, neutral, efficient, and professional service was uncompromising. While he retained useful aspects of British administrative tradition, he firmly established professional competence—not political loyalty—as the main standard. He openly declared that the moment politics interferes with recruitment or promotion in public service, the decline of the republic begins. He believed public servants must work with the “government of the day,” but loyalty must be to the state, not to any political party.

His famous statement remains a guiding principle: “Ministers should decide policy and civil servants must execute them without fear or favour.”

Through this, he clearly drew the line between policy-making and implementation—one of the core principles of administrative neutrality.

A simple example may help. Suppose a future elected government in Bangladesh adopts a policy to excavate and preserve all water bodies—ponds, canals, wetlands—for aquaculture or storage. The job of public servants would be to prepare an action plan and, through a lawful and transparent tender process, select contractors to implement the work. This is an administrative task; politics should not interfere. If political pressure enters the execution process, the line is crossed, the policy is jeopardised, and ultimately the state and citizens suffer.

Countries known today for impartial and professional public administration share a common element: strong political leadership or political consensus drove their reforms.

In the United Kingdom, when no party won a majority in the 2010 general election, the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition introduced groundbreaking provisions to ensure professionalism and neutrality in public service. In Australia, the Liberal Party under former Prime Minister John Howard and the opposition Labor Party jointly passed the legal framework for a neutral civil service. Sweden constitutionally guarantees a professional and politically insulated public administration, supported unanimously by major parties. New Zealand’s 2020 Public Service Act, for the first time, explicitly stated political neutrality, supported even by the opposition National Party.

In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government reaffirmed the idea of a “non-partisan public service” in 2015, and ministers pledged not to involve officials in political work. All federal parties publicly commit to the civil service code—the foundation of Canada’s administrative neutrality.

Singapore has maintained Lee Kuan Yew’s principles ever since. Article 4.3 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct clearly states: A minister shall not instruct or request any public official to act in a way that conflicts with the core values of the Singapore Civil Service—integrity, impartiality, propriety, and honesty. Officials must be respected and kept free of political or partisan influence.

Across the world, political parties are increasingly declaring support for politically neutral public administration in their election manifestos. We hope Bangladesh’s political parties will also give this prominence in their upcoming manifestos. The National Consensus Commission report published on 17 October 2025, although not explicitly addressing administrative neutrality, contains a provision in Paragraph 71 where 32 political parties agreed to enact conflict-of-interest laws to prevent abuse of state power. This is a positive step.

Let us end with an election-related example. In the 2014 Indian general election, the District Magistrate of Varanasi, Pranjal Yadav, denied permission for a rally to be addressed by BJP leader Narendra Modi. He faced both criticism and praise. The BJP demanded his immediate removal, alleging the Election Commission was a “mute spectator” to the “biased” behaviour of the Returning Officer. Opposition parties praised his firmness.

The Election Commission took no punitive action. The Chief Election Commissioner stated they had no doubts about the DM’s integrity and competence; he made a professional decision based on available information. A decision taken to uphold the rule of law may not always please everyone, but if a public servant remains within legal bounds and upholds neutrality and professionalism, time eventually justifies his stance.

However, for a salaried civil servant to take such a stand in a crisis, the state must provide legal and psychological backing. Experiences from around the world show that bureaucratic excellence and professionalism grow only when that foundation exists. As Eddie Teo recalled, “We were inspired by the exemplary conduct and ideals of our leaders—and deep down, we were restrained by fear. Money or financial temptation played no role.”

Author: Joint Secretary to the Government of Bangladesh, and Joint General Secretary, Bangladesh Administrative Service Association