MP Seah Kian Peng’s speech in Parliament last week has been widely shared online. Using the example of charging teachers for parking in schools, he felt that there is a limit to the role of market and economic reasoning in policymaking, and that we need to fall back on values, trust and moral foundation in our decisions.

After I read Kian Peng’s speech last week, I thanked him for speaking up for teachers. I also told him I agreed with him that we should never allow ourselves to see things from a purely economic lens. Governance, running a public service system, is not always about taking a purist market-based approach.

And we don’t. In fact, a large part of public service is to provide goods and services - defence, education, public housing – that are either undersupplied, or not supplied by the market at all. Our foreign policy is driven by core principles, not simply about trade and investments. We plan our land use not just for economic purposes, but for social, community, and environmental ends as well.

In everyday life, we do social work, volunteer our services, help our friends and neighbours. It’s about kindness and generosity, which have no economic price.

Perhaps for the same reason, for a long time, we didn’t charge parking for teachers in schools and servicemen in camps.

But within our governance system, we also put in place checks and balances.

The Auditor General’s Office (AGO) checks on practices pertaining to the use of public funds. The observations and findings are published and subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

A few years ago, the AGO pointed out that free parking in education institutions constitutes a staff benefit and is against the civil service’s clean wage policy.

This finding went against years of MOE practice. Yet we have to respect our internal system of checks and balances. We cannot pick and choose which finding to address or comply with – we take them all seriously. This is about upholding the value of self-discipline.

Furthermore, the whole public service subscribes to the discipline of having a clean wage, so every public officer knows that his salary is all he gets - there are no hidden benefits. This is one of our core practices to ensure a clean government. As Kian Peng said, clean wage surely must be a moral idea. Indeed, it is.

We took some time, discussed with educators, sought their understanding, and decided on how best to follow up and address the finding. So from August this year, car park charges will be implemented in schools. We have explained to our educators the need to abide by the clean wage policy, and that we cannot be giving a benefit just to one group of teachers who drive. Free parking is also at odds with the rest of the civil service.

In the end, we must recognise that charging for parking stems from our duty to address the AGO’s findings, of abiding by our system of internal self-discipline. Charging for parking, therefore, is primarily a decision borne out of duty.

But this duty does not diminish our appreciation of teachers and educators. And I am heartened to see so many people coming forward to express their appreciation of teachers. As Kian Peng said, it is a reminder about the kind of conversations and discourses we should be having. That policy decisions should be grounded not just on economics, but more importantly on values, morals, and public duty.