The Singapore Commentator

An exclusive talk shop

2005-05-26T10:58:00.000+08:00

In response to Dr Cherian George’s lament that government restrictions led to the demise of The Roundtable, Michael Heng Swee Hai sent a letter to The Straits Times giving what he thought were the two real reasons that The Roundtable failed.

The first reason:

The cause of The Roundable’s demise is really its exclusive membership... The Roundtable’s exclusivity clearly created an “affective divide” with ordinary Singaporeans, and explained why it was unable to “mobilise the public”, and not because it activities had to be membership-based.

The second reason:

The Roundtable’s inability to mobilise the public was also because it was never more than just a “talk shop”... Members’ intellectual preoccupation showed their disdain for political action in support of their passionately expressed political beliefs. The Roundtable had begun as a talk shop, behaved as a talk shop and “died” naturally as a talk shop.

While there may be some validity behind these two points, there is a also problem with Michael Heng’s views. Based on the disdainful tone that he takes, it seems that he has based his argument on the premise that there is little value in exclusive talk shops. If so, this is a wrong premise to start with.

Exclusivity has always been one of the ways in which organisations maintain quality control within their ranks. That is, after all, why organisations look at a person’s qualifications before employing him. Talk shops generate ideas, which are the first steps to many subsequent actions, political or otherwise. If you think of it, a university is also a form of exclusive talk shop. Would he argue that universities are useless and deserve to “die”?

So there is nothing obviously wrong with being an exclusive talk shop, and such a role for an organisation should not be casually dismissed. There is a place for political parties, but there should also be a place for talk shops.

This is not to say that Michael Heng is necessarily wrong in saying that its exclusivity and preoccupation with talk as opposed to action are important factors in the demise of The Roundtable. But if he is correct, then perhaps all the more we should be asking whether there is a problem with the rules that leads to this situation. An open, intellectually vibrant society should have a place for exclusive talk shops.

Statistics in the mainstream media

2005-05-25T09:47:00.000+08:00

It’s often said that you need numbers to prove a hypothesis. Well, if you use the right numbers in the right ways, there are a lot of things you can “prove”.

Steven McDermott cited a Xinhua report that cited a Channel NewsAsia report that cited the following statistics from Singapore’s Obstetrics and Gynaecology Society: “The number of tertiary-educated married women going for abortions has tripled in the last 16 years, from some 300 in 1988 to more than 1,000 last year.”

This is a familiar issue. Back in November last year, I had posted the following excerpt from Today:

One group of women yesterday bore the brunt of accusations from a prominent gynaecological group in Singapore. Citing abortion statistics from the Ministry of Health, the Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Singapore (OGSS) chided tertiary-educated married women for a three-fold jump in the numbers of such women going for abortions — from 324 cases in 1988 to 1,070 last year...

However, OGSS did not measure the jump in abortion in this group against the corresponding growth in the number of women with higher education over the last 15 years. A check with the Department of Statistics by Today found that the number of university-educated women has increased from 17,300 in 1990 to 68,900 in 2000...

Interestingly, in citing the statistics, the Xinhua report added the following statement that was not found in the original Channel NewsAsia report: “while those who are not enough educated tend to use contraceptives”.

Journalists do sometimes get tripped up by statistics. Wang Zhen has an example from The Straits Times on the AIDS issue.

More on blogging in the press

2005-05-24T11:07:00.000+08:00

mrbrown complains about the way The Sunday Times reported its interview with him — “they...quoted my remarks selectively” — and of being called an “online diarist” — “what’s up with this bloggers = online diarists crap? Please lah, this is the freakin’ 21st century. Get with the program. I am not a freakin’ diarist.” — but then clarifies that he is not angry at the newspaper.

I wonder what he or other bloggers would say of the following comment from today’s Digital Life:

For now, blogging is the fad. I call it a fad because personal websites were once popular, but that is now passé. While it lasts, enjoy peeking into the lives of those who invite you in.

I wonder whether the writer knows how long blogging has existed, or the fact that for many bloggers, their blogs are — or are parts of — their personal websites.

Beware the reaction from cyberspace

2005-05-23T11:30:00.000+08:00

This article doesn’t have anything directly related to Singapore, but in the light of recent events involving perceived inflammatory remarks by Singaporeans and the reactions that followed, I thought readers might be interested.

Bloggers Finger a New Victim
For a glimpse of the blogosphere’s growing power, witness the brouhaha now afflicting PepsiCo over comments earlier this week by President and CFO Indra Nooyi before the graduating class of Columbia University’s B-school.

Her comparison of the five major continents to the five fingers on her hand -- with the U.S.(not a continent, mind you) being the controversial middle finger and Africa the often-ignored pinkie -- will strike many as entirely innocuous.

As she put it: “Each of us in the U.S. -- the long middle finger -- must be careful that when we extend our arm in either a business or political sense, we take pains to assure we are giving a hand…not the finger…. Unfortunately, I think this is how the rest of the world looks at the U.S. right now. Not as part of the hand -- giving strength and purpose to the rest of the fingers -- but instead scratching our nose and sending a far different signal.”

Yet a burst of blog outrage after a May 15 commencement speech has forced the beverage and food giant to post an apology on its home page...

Read the whole article and see whether you find anything familiar.

Misquoted by the press

2005-05-22T09:49:00.000+08:00

Huichieh Loy at From a Singapore Angle writes about a scholar who tries to defend herself regarding comments about males becoming whiny after national service. She now says that she was misquoted by The Straits Times or quoted out of context. It reminds me of another recent incident involving Today.

I have three comments on the matter.

First of all, The Straits Times always seems to want to have the last say on disputes regarding the accuracy of its reports. This particular report is one example (see the editor’s note at the end), but note also how often it gives replies immediately below letters that try to portray anything it writes as inaccurate. It is understandable behaviour, perhaps, since most people would want to protect their reputations, but since such disputes largely revolve around one person’s word against another’s, I doubt that many readers would be too impressed by its continued assertions of its own accuracy. Furthermore, as a newspaper, The Straits Times already has a natural advantage in such disputes as it controls what is published (see for example, a recent case highlighted by Steven McDermott), and when it exploits this advantage by having the last say, its action risks being construed by others as bullying. The fact that in this case — as pointed out by Wows and Huichieh — the editor’s note also apparently does not make much sense makes things worse.

Secondly, it would be interesting to know why there seems to be so many “misquotes” in the newspapers. Verbal interviews tend to generate misquotes, since the interviewee does not have enough time to think through what he says. If The Straits Times is really interested in accuracy, it might want to rethink how it conducts interviews. On the other hand, if The Straits Times is intentionally trying to elicit juicy “misquotes” in disregard of the true, complete views of the originators — with all their associated nuances — then it might want to consider what such disputes over the accuracy of its quotes can do to its credibility and whether such potential loss of credibility is worth the attention that such “misquotes” garners.

Thirdly, these incidents should serve as a lesson to all those being interviewed by The Straits Times and, in fact, any media organisation. Be careful what you say to them. To be safe, avoid giving interviews altogether, especially those where you don’t have a chance to vet what is to be published before publication. But this advice may be a bit difficult for some people to follow. After all, many people do want to have their minute of fame.

Integrated resort not for family?

2005-05-19T16:52:00.000+08:00

Parts of the planned integrated resorts may end up as white elephants, if the following report is anything to go by.

Integrated Resort for family will not work
The integrated resort (IR) proposed for Sentosa with attractions for the whole family will not work, casino mogul Steve Wynn, Steve Wynn said. An IR with a casino is essentially an adult entertainment facility, he told Singapore newsmen visiting the gambling capital of the United States.

“I know a family theme IR is planned for Sentosa but I do not want to go that route. I want the pops and mums to come to my IR. Let the children go to Disney World,” he said...

Mr Wynn also reiterated his belief that Singapore officials would be in a better position to know what they wanted in an IR if they were to come to Las Vegas today as their impression of the city could have been based on projects like Treasure Island with its pirate ship and the Mirage with its volcano.

“Both these projects with a family theme no longer drew the crowds,” he said. “Treasure Island’s ship no longer featured fearsome pirates but scantily-clad nubile women. And the erupting volcano at the Mirage no longer drew oohs and ahhs. People watched the show from the street but few ventured into the complex.”

Clearly, he said, the family resort theme, had failed.

But I’m sanguine. After all, the Singapore Tourism Board has some practice dealing with white elephants.

Maturity at 22

2005-05-17T13:02:00.000+08:00

In his interview published in The Sunday Times, Philip Yeo was reported to have shown “little patience” with the view that scholars are too young to know what they want. He reportedly said:

They are no longer 18 or 19 years old. Cannot be still immature at the age of 22! When will they grow up?

He also reportedly called it “amazing logic”.

I wonder what he would make of this.

Public transport fares debate

2005-05-17T11:01:00.000+08:00

Christopher Tan adds his voice to the debate over the proposed increase in public transport fares. Excerpt from The Straits Times:

All too often, debate over proposed increases in public transport fares centres on the profitability of transport companies. The consumer voice almost always argues that if transport companies are making good profits, they should not raise fares.

That logic is flawed. If an operator that makes $50 million a year charges an average 90 cents per trip, how much should it charge if it makes $100 million a year? 45 cents? Surely not. Or what if it makes $1 million a year? Or incurs a loss of $10 million, for that matter?

Profits and fares should be delinked. Instead, transport operators should be allowed to command prices the way most other purveyors of goods and services are — by the quality of their goods and services.

His article is largely on the right track, although he oversimplifies things when he says that profits and fares should be delinked. Of course they should be linked — just not in the simplistic way that some people think.

Most people whose views have been published in the mainstream media have argued on the basis of broad principles — service and affordability should be considered, profits at the transport companies should not be excessive, an increase should be implemented at a more opportune time.

But what the debate really needs are specifics — specific fare revision formula, specific benchmarks. These are in fact already in place, they implicitly take all the above factors broadly into consideration, and they guide the fare revision process. Those who want to debate on this issue need to debate these specifics, not the broad principles.

The Financial Times on rights issues in Singapore

2005-05-15T18:29:00.000+08:00

The Financial Times yesterday summed up some of the issues that have recently occupied many Singapore bloggers’ minds. Excerpt:

Singapore’s arts ambitions caught up in rights debate
The hanging yesterday of a former Singapore champion athlete for smuggling cannabis has sparked a rare activist protest against the city-state’s draconian anti-drug laws and has helped fuel a debate about civil liberties.

The issue of human rights in Singapore has received increased attention in recent weeks after the government appeared to be curbing free speech on the internet, while a local film-maker could face imprisonment for making a documentary about a leading opposition leader.

The issue of civil liberties is becoming more important in Singapore as it seeks to create a vibrant culture to attract tourists and permanent residents from aboard, while trying to stem a brain drain of local talent.

A study released this week by the World Bank on global political governance said that Singapore’s otherwise excellent record on administrative efficiency, control of corruption and the rule of law was marred by its attitude to civil liberties, which was below average for Asia.

But no, I am not going to bother to write about The Straits Times’ recent spate of articles related to blogging. The blogging daddy (belated congratulations) and “blogger Singapore Ink” have already done that.

AcidFlask saga continues in Today

2005-05-12T12:22:00.000+08:00

Today has a follow-up report on the AcidFlask affair entitled “Where does freedom end for bloggers and online journalists?”. The newspaper’s view: “While one is physically circulated and the latter only exists online, the writers of both are equally susceptible to being sued for defamation.”

The newspaper also had the following statement: “The incident ended on Monday after graduate student Chen Jiahao, 23, apologised unreservedly for his defamatory remarks, retracted his statements and promised never to repeat them.”

Well, A*STAR’s threat of a lawsuit ended on Monday, but as far as the Singapore blogosphere is concerned, the “incident” has hardly ended. See, for example, the posts by Lzydata and mr brown. I’m sure more are in the works.

I also noted that the newspaper quoted mr brown, Mr Miyagi and Xiaxue, the three celebrity bloggers. A blogger it probably should have interviewed on this issue but didn’t is Gilbert Koh, a practising lawyer who has blogged on precisely this issue. Unfortunately, Koh is apparently not famous enough, or maybe not accessible enough.

In any case, in his post, mr brown pointed out that his views had not been presented fully — always a hazard when you speak to the press. Just as well that he has a blog with which to set the matter straight.

One last comment. By making statements such as “While opposing views are welcome, bloggers must be careful not to make scurrilous comments or baseless accusations that could have legal implications”, the article could easily be interpreted to mean that AcidFlask did indeed make “defamatory, serious and untrue” comments.

Since the matter has been “closed” without being brought to court and the specific offending comments revealed, the rest of us don’t really know if that is true, which makes the insinuation — even if unintended — rather unfair to AcidFlask, not to mention somewhat ironic.

Lessons from Harvard Business School

2005-05-11T16:34:00.000+08:00

After my previous post, I thought a few remarks on management would be appropriate. The following are some disparate quotes that I culled from HBS Working Knowledge articles that may have some relevance to that post as well as some related issues.

From “What Great American Leaders Teach Us” — Tony Mayo, executive director of the Harvard Business School Leadership Initiative, on how leaders are selected:

There is a strong tendency to search for a candidate who has a specific track record of success, but board members need to understand the context in which specific CEO candidates were successful. It is all too easy to ignore both the past contextual framework of success and the present one. Are they aligned? Does success in one context predict success in a new one?... Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, boards tend to favor the “proven” talent, but often fail to ask “proven in what context?”

From “Time to Treat Toxic Emotions at Work” — Peter J Frost, professor of organizational behavior at the University of British Columbia, on how top management behaviour sets the tone in an organisation:

Heavy doses of toxicity (pain that strips people of their self esteem and that disconnects them from their work) can come from a number of sources, including the behavior of immediate bosses, uncooperative employees or even abrasive clients. But the tone in an organization tends to be set from the top and so toxicity is often a top-down phenomenon. As one HR manager I interviewed observed: “Fish stinks from the head!” The higher up the toxic person is, the more widely spread is the pain, and the more people there are who behave in the same way. If you have a CEO who delivers public lashings—in effect does his performance appraisals in public—then you will have the lieutenants begin to join in.

From “Are You Supporting Your B Players?” — Harvard Business School professor Thomas J DeLong on why some managers have difficulty relating to their so-called “B” grade workers:

Managers who are high achievers themselves find it especially difficult to focus on B players. The Achilles’ heel of these A-type managers is that if they can’t do something right the first time, they give up or they manufacture a compelling rationale that explains why it is not worth the effort to improve employee satisfaction.

Furthermore, he said, such managers are afraid of getting labeled. “If you want to threaten a really smart person who is task driven, question his or her competency. That’s the very soul of who they are,” he said. These managers also keep busy schedules and are reluctant to slow down to learn new skills. Sports champions such as Tiger Woods, he said, can do their training out of public view. But managers almost always train on the job.

From “What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions” — Harvard Business School professors David A. Garvin and Michael A. Roberto on decision-making:

[K]eeping people involved in the process is, in the end, perhaps the most crucial factor in making a decision—and making it stick. It’s a job that lies at the heart of leadership and one that uniquely combines the leader’s numerous talents. It requires the fortitude to promote conflict while accepting ambiguity, the wisdom to know when to bring conversations to a close, the patience to help others understand the reasoning behind your choice, and, not least, a genius for balance—the ability to embrace both the divergence that may characterize early discussions and the unity needed for effective implementation. Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire and a renowned military leader, understood the true hallmark of leadership in the sixth century BC, when he attributed his success to “diversity in counsel, unity in command.”

From “Think You Manage Creativity? Here's Why You're Wrong” — Robert I Sutton, professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University in Stanford, California, on fostering creativity:

If it’s creativity you want, you should encourage people to ignore and defy superiors and peers—and while you’re at it, get them to fight among themselves. You should reassign people who have settled into productive grooves in their jobs. And you should start rewarding failure, not just success; reserve punishment only for inaction.

People who do what they think is right—rather than what they are told or what they anticipate their superiors want—can drive their bosses crazy and get their companies in deep trouble. But they also force companies to try ideas that some boss or powerful group may have rejected as a waste of time or money...

[I]n The HP Way, David Packard brags about an employee who defied a direct order from him. “Some years ago,” he writes, “at an HP laboratory in Colorado Springs devoted to oscilloscope technology, one of our bright, energetic engineers, Chuck House, was advised to abandon a display monitor he was developing...” House was convinced he was on to something, so he persisted with the project... The resulting $35 million in revenue proved he was right. Packard continues: “Some years later, at a gathering of HP engineers, I presented Chuck with a medal for ‘extraordinary contempt and defiance beyond the normal call of engineering duty.’”

... [I]f you want to develop new products and services, I urge you to keep your creative people away from your biggest customers—and for that matter from critics and anyone whose primary concern is money.

... Every bit of solid theory and evidence demonstrates that it is impossible to generate a few good ideas without also generating a lot of bad ideas. Former Time Warner chairman Steve Ross had a philosophy that people who didn’t make enough mistakes should be fired...

That’s all for today. Class dismissed.

AcidFlask saga throws up issues on media control and leadership style

2005-05-09T10:06:00.000+08:00

The AcidFlask saga continues in the mainstream media. Huichieh Loy has the updates.

The Financial Times is the latest to join in the coverage. An excerpt:

Singapore threatens to sue internet dissenter
A threatened libel suit against a blogger by a Singapore government agency has raised concerns among international press freedom groups that the city-state might be cracking down against dissent on the internet.

A*Star, the city-state’s science and technology agency, has set a deadline of Monday for a student who criticised its scholarship system and policies on his web log to make an “unreserved and sincere apology” or else be sued in what would be one of the first such cases in Asia against a blogger...

International press freedom groups are watching the case since blogs could challenge the Singapore government’s tight media controls... But A*Star defended its libel threat, saying it had “the responsibility to protect its reputation and also that of Singapore”...

It certainly looks like A*STAR has been successful in protecting Singapore’s current reputation. One suspects that government leaders are actually pleased with that.

The New Paper also joined in the fray yesterday with two articles — “White knight, Black knight” and “Forget wimps, I prefer women” — focusing on Philip Yeo, chairman of A*STAR.

This line from the first article grabbed my attention:

”You can call me names,” he said. “I don’t care. Just don’t criticise my work... I will bomb you flat.”

Is he saying that he cannot take criticism? If he “bombs” people who criticise his work, what kind of feedback is he likely to get, especially from subordinates? Is he likely to get the critical feedback necessary for him to learn from his mistakes? Or to avoid making them?

Or perhaps the question should be: how well does he learn from his mistakes? If not well, how effective can he be as a leader of a research organisation? And what kind of a culture is he — intentionally or not — promoting in his organisation — an organisation dedicated to an activity that is, by its very nature, all about making mistakes and learning from them?

And if he cannot be an effective leader in his organisation, or promote the right culture, why is the Singapore government still keeping him in charge of it?

But don’t get me wrong. I think Philip Yeo is actually a great leader — if he were a battalion commander leading soldiers into battle. He is a doer who has no patience with dawdling. In many situations — like in the heat of a battle — decisiveness must take precedence over debate and dissent.

But not every situation is like that. In many other situations, analysis and subtlety may need to take precedence over decisiveness. Different situations require different kinds of leadership.

Dr Kevin Tan puts it well, as cited by The New Paper:

Political observer Dr Kevin Tan said Mr Yeo’s style could be seen as loud and colourful.

“Yes, we need leaders in the top echelon who dare to make the decision. In that sense, Mr Yeo’s spirit is commendable. But his style can be grating and not go well with others,” said Dr Tan, an expert in constitution and government laws.

“So should we have more Philip Yeos? Yes, in terms of his spirit but not his style.”

There is also this comment by Zulkifli Baharudin, a former Nominated MP, at the end of the other article in The New Paper:

“We should not be dogged by kiasu mentality and avoid controversies. We must look at the net benefit. If they are doing much good work for the nation, we must try to accommodate the personality and style that comes with the man.”

True, we need to look at the net benefit, but we must also bear in mind that a leader’s personality and style plays a large part in determining that net benefit. They are not independent of each other.

The Singapore government has to seriously reflect on whether it is getting the right people for the right jobs. Especially at a time when it is soliciting opinions and ideas from ordinary citizens and promoting inclusiveness, it needs to think carefully about how it uses leaders who talk about bombing critics, both for the sake of the organisations involved and for Singapore society as a whole.

Channel NewsAsia on AcidFlask

2005-05-06T13:53:00.000+08:00

Channel NewsAsia is attracting caustic comments from Singapore bloggers. The reasons? Its slow response on the AcidFlask affair and its allegedly unbalanced reporting. It’s enough to make Gilbert Koh come out of retirement.

As usual, Huichieh Loy compiles all the reactions.

There is a wider issue here beyond Channel NewsAsia’s treatment of the AcidFlask affair. I’m referring to the standard of journalism in Singapore.

I’m not sure how much effort Channel NewsAsia puts into maintaining a high standard of journalism in its news reports, but in my opinion, its reports — at least those on its website — tend to be shallower than those of The Straits Times (which is itself not exactly an icon of journalistic professionalism). This tendency is possibly a result of its television roots, where speed — ironically — and brevity take precedence over depth and balance, at least compared with a broadsheet.

In any case, it would probably be a good idea for Channel NewsAsia to do some serious soul-searching, and not just because of this particular affair. It is in the news broadcasting business where it has to compete with the likes of BBC and CNN. While it occupies a niche — news with an Asian perspective — it is a niche that is not really difficult for its bigger competitors to invade. It needs to do everything it can to build up its credibility as a news organisation.

And looking foolish in the eyes of bloggers certainly wouldn’t help.

In praises of Singapore

2005-05-03T13:00:00.000+08:00

Excerpt of a PR Newswire report on the World Trade Week in Singapore:

World Trade Week Events to Focus on Singapore: The Gateway to Southeast Asia
Businesses interested in reaching the more than 500 million people who make up the Southeast Asia market should consider attending World Trade Week 2005, May 11 - 13. Sponsored by the Automation Alley International Business Center and the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Commercial Service, this event will provide attendees with valuable insight on entering Singapore, considered the gateway to the markets of Southeast Asia...

“During the World Trade Week sessions, business owners will learn more about why Singapore is such an attractive market,” said Richard Corson, director, Pontiac U.S. Export Assistance Center, U.S. Commercial Service, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. “In addition to the bilateral free trade agreement, Singapore is known for respecting intellectual property...”

Some people will say anything...

Singapore’s National Library is highly regarded around the world for its innovations. So this — previously reported by Channel NewsAsia — isn’t surprising.

Singapore Library Praised As Innovative
Singapore’s nonprofit but entrepreneurial National Library Board has been chosen as one of the country’s most innovative and successful companies, according to a survey by the Institute of Policy Studies and the Monitor Group. The survey cited the library’s speed in letting customers check out and return books, as well as its provision of coffee bars...

Having lots of money to throw surely helped — read the linked article.

Dr M S Haq says in an editorial in The New Nation that Bangladesh has many things to learn from Singapore. Apparently, naming of newspapers has been one of them.

Living with a casino

2005-04-29T15:26:00.000+08:00

Apparently, some Singaporeans are not only willing to have a casino in Singapore, they want to live right next to one.

Residential projects near integrated resorts attract keen buyers
Property developers reported keen buyer interest in the two weeks after the government’s decision to go ahead with two integrated resort projects. This is for both residential properties near the two sites earmarked for the resorts.

City Developments, which is developing The Sail at Marina Bay, projected increases in property prices of as much as 10 to 15 percent...

Meanwhile, Keppel Land reported heightened interest in its Caribbean at Keppel Bay project which faces Sentosa Island. It said potential buyers were pleased with the idea of having an integrated resort, just a stone’s throw away from their waterfront homes. ERA, one of the marketing agents for Caribbean, said more than 20 deals were clinched, after news of the resort project at Sentosa...

I wonder whether these residents will get discounts into the casino/integrated resort.

British not interested in educating Singaporeans

2005-04-27T16:34:00.000+08:00

Charlene Huang, an undergraduate thesis student of Brad DeLong, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, doesn’t have flattering things to say about Britain’s colonial legacy in Singapore as far as education is concerned.

An excerpt from her draft:

A comparison of primary enrollment ratios in 1960 and the Barro-Lee data on the stock of human capital in 1960 clearly illustrates [that] although Singapore and Korea both have about 100% primary enrollment in 1960, the percentage of the adults over 25 years of age in 1960 who completed primary school was 26.2% for Korea, but only 5.6% for Singapore. It seems that Singapore’s British colonizers were not as interested in educating the masses, as was Lee Kuan Yew’s government.

They did leave behind a nice port, though.

Racism and eugenics

2005-04-27T16:25:00.000+08:00

Andy Ho has a commentary in The Straits Times today criticising racism. It is a response to a reader who seems to be justifying “racial purity”.

Ho objected strongly to the concept of racial purity. He warned of the prejudices and injustices that accompanied such notions in the past, including the Holocaust in Adolf Hitler’s Germany.

Ho’s unease about racial purity is perfectly understandable. However, when he moves on to eugenics, he becomes confusing.

Ho says: “Through the mid-1920s, virtually all members of the UK and US scientific communities supported eugenics or scientific racism.” Why “eugenics or scientific racism”? Why not “eugenics, or more specifically, scientific racism”? The way it is actually written could be interpreted to mean that eugenics is all about racism, and that eugenics is solely used to achieve racial purity, that one necessarily leads to the other.

Indeed, further in the article, he seems to say a similar thing about the study of genomics: “Today, widely hyped advances in genomics are promoting a resurgent interest in the issues of inheritability and, thus, race.” Again, why “and, thus, race” and not “and, particularly, race”?

In reality, genomics is not just about race, and eugenics is not used solely to achieve racial purity. As Ho himself defines it, the goal of eugenics is “to improve the human species through reproductive selection”. This improvement is not necessarily limited to traits relating to race. In fact, Ho himself cites a programme involving the mentally ill and criminally insane. The Wikipedia entry on eugenics mentions some modern uses of eugenics in controlling genetic diseases such as thalassemia.

Is Ho aware of these? If he is, why does he write about eugenics in such an imprecise — and potentially misleading — manner?

At the very end of his article, Ho says: “There is no such thing as humane, sensitive, or sensible eugenics.” Now, I can’t tell exactly what he means by that. Or is that precisely the point?

Reclamation dispute between Singapore and Malaysia resolved

2005-04-27T13:53:00.000+08:00

It looks like the long drawn-out dispute over Singapore’s land reclamation in the Johor Straits is coming to an end.

Singapore and Malaysia resolve land reclamation dispute
Diplomats and politicians from both sides of the Causeway have hailed the resolution of a land reclamation dispute as a historic agreement — a win-win solution for Singapore and Malaysia. Representatives from both sides signed a Settlement Agreement at Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday. The agreement was inked by Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh from Singapore and Mr Ahmad Fuzi Abdul Razak, Secretary General of the Malaysian Foreign Ministry. It is a model of how future disputes between the neighbours can be settled through arbitration and dialogue — such as the dispute over Pedra Branca.

Singapore will pay Malaysian fishermen nearly 370,000 ringgit for losses resulting from the settlement works... The experts found that Singapore’s reclamation works would not cause any serious impact and of the 57 impacts identitifed, 40 were classified as slight. Almost all the impact was the result of current patterns or wave action caused by the reclamations. So they concluded that if these changes were reduced, most impacts would either be reduced or disappear. Singapore has agreed to modify the final design of the shoreline at Pulau Tekong, and will pay for protection works at the Tanjung Belungkor Jetty in Johor. And Malaysia will pay for works at Pularek Jetty.

Singapore’s Chief Negotiator Tommy Koh said: “Both Malaysia and Singapore have won. We have won because we have been able to find an amicable solution that accommodates the essential interests of the two countries, and we have done it in the spirit of friendship and goodwill. So the happy headlines I want to see is that both Malaysia and Singapore have won.”...

I think Tommy Koh basically got the “happy headlines”. But Malaysia got the money — 370,000 ringgit — and at least some of the changes it demanded in Singapore’s reclamation works.

Look past the inevitable spin from both sides and arrive at your own conclusions.

The Straits Times has more:

Reclamation row is resolved

Reclamation works: Experts found no major impact on environment

And on the Malaysian side:

M’sia, S’pore Resolve Land Reclamation Dispute

Spat with Singapore settled

Caustic soda neutralised

2005-04-26T13:02:00.000+08:00

I guess this is the story of the day as far as the Singapore blogosphere is concerned.

Unfortunately in recent days, the price of maintaining the content which used to be accessible at this URL has become too high for the author to afford. AcidFlask thanks readers for their past support and regrets the inconvenience caused.

And yes, I agree with Huichieh Loy: It is a sad day for the Singapore blogosphere. Hopefully caustic soda will re-appear in another form — Blogger, perhaps?

“Infantilism”, corporate culture and the Singapore blogosphere

2005-04-25T14:46:00.000+08:00

Steven McDermott continues with his investigation of “infantilism” in Singapore.

Corporate Culture Revisited
... I am exploring... The idea that if Eric Ellis’ claim is correct, that Singapore is run like a large corporation...

“The system functions like a big corporation, designed to maximise profit. The Government maintains an upbeat information department, frequently holding press briefings lauding economic achievements but rarely or publicly discusses substantive matters of policy and politics.” by Eric Ellis

...and coupled with the following article and references to ‘infantilism’ being the result, then is this the case in Singapore? Are Singaporean bloggers willing to accept the label and argue that they have in some way accepted the corporate culture, or do they reject the label but behave childishly? It’s an idea, that’s all...

McDermott then quotes from a management article on corporate culture and how the hierarchical organisational structure is becoming obsolete and being replaced by collaborative, self-managed teams where employees contribute towards shaping corporate values rather than having them imposed from the top.

The quoted article provides a good summary of current management thinking on how corporate cultures can be shaped. However, in my opinion, it has more relevance to the way that the Singapore government is trying to engender an inclusive culture. To go from the article to the conclusion that Singapore bloggers tend to have “infantile” concerns because of an authoritarian government requires much more work, which I presume McDermott will follow up with.

Personally, though, I am more interested in looking at the issue from another angle: Why is there a lack of serious blogs in Singapore? No, this is not exactly the same question as: Why are Singapore blogs so “infantile”? While the prevalence of so-called “infantile” blogs may crowd out serious blogs, I think the lack of the latter is an issue in its own right.

In particular, I think that blogs written by experts on their areas of expertise are especially valuable, because they form the anchors around which other serious blogs can congregate, just as blogs also tend to congregate around mainstream media. However, Gilbert Koh has given one reason why we can’t expect much from one potentially important source: government officers; they can only blog about “infantile” concerns, and maybe poetry (I presume Koh did not officially write poetry for the government).

In the meantime, the lack of such expertise among blogs means that the mainstream media can usually ignore the Singapore blogosphere with little consequence, as they routinely do — see “Blogs as intellectual platforms” and “The Mainstream Media does not get blogs”.

Blogs and business

2005-04-24T10:53:00.000+08:00

Rob at BusinessPundit points to this BusinessWeek article on blogs and business.

See also the magazine’s own blog.

It’s only a joke

2005-04-23T11:32:00.000+08:00

Every now and then, Steven McDermott writes something that attracts the ire of Singapore bloggers. He’s done it again with the post “The Infantile Blogosphere”. Incidentally, I’m irate too, since he calls me “very old” — or “very mature” — or something like that.

But this post is not directly about McDermott’s post. Rather, it’s about the idea of using satire or humour in general to discuss issues about Singapore, as suggested by some.

In my opinion, satire is one good way to express one’s views on current affairs or government policies, especially the latter. As Anthony points out, a tongue-in-cheek approach helps keep the writer out of trouble without necessarily detracting from the underlying message. I think it also helps in getting the attention of readers who might otherwise not bother to read about weighty issues. Gilbert Koh shows very well how it can be done.

However, Singapore bloggers often use satire as disguised rants. Some of the implied criticisms don’t seem well thought-out, but because they are expressed in the form of a satire, readers are unlikely to point them out — the rejoinder “it’s only a joke” is too powerful — and the writers and other readers are poorer for it.

This makes satire not a good substitute for serious discussion.

So if McDermott is complaining that there is not enough serious discussion about political issues in Singapore, he has my sympathy. As for what people want to blog about, I trust that he would be among the first to agree that freedom of expression is something to be respected.

Reactions to the casino decision

2005-04-21T15:08:00.000+08:00

Huichieh at From a Singapore Angle is compiling the reactions of bloggers on the casino/integrated resort decision.

Call for entries--Web Symposium: Blogosphere reactions to the Casino/Integrated Resort decision 2005
Nowadays, it’s hard to find someone in Singapore without an opinion about the proposed Casino/Integrated Resort. Even those who are really without an opinion find themselves oblidged to say that they don’t have an opinion, as if the contrary is the default.

In the interest of furthering discussion on this issue of the day, From A Singapore Angle is organising a Web Symposium and inviting all interested bloggers to submit entries that will be collated together (roughly in a manner analogous to this, but voluntarily). By having many points of view gathered together under one list, the hope is that the netizens’s search for information and informed opinions will be facilitated.

Entries published both during the pre-decision debate and after the decision was announced in parliament are welcomed.

And some entries are already in — see here.

Meanwhile, The Christian Science Monitor has its own reaction to the decision in a report entitled “In search of buzz, Asia bets on gambling”.

Dazzled by the prospect of soaring tax revenues and an influx of free-spending tourists, Asian governments are starting to drop their bans against casino gambling.

Singapore became the latest country to join the race for Asia’s gamblers when it announced Monday that it would license two resort casinos in the wealthy city-state. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told Parliament that it had to keep up with the trend. “We cannot stand still. The whole region is on the move. If we don’t change, where will we be in 20 years?”

Spying an opportunity, Thailand, Taiwan, and Japan may follow suit. Even India and Indonesia have floated the idea of Vegas-style casinos to draw tourists and create jobs. For many, the ultimate prize is China, where would-be gamblers, faced with a ban at home, travel far and wide to bet their newfound riches...

The Singapore government clearly recognises the opportunity. But so does everybody else. Note the following concluding paragraphs from the Monitor report.

But the claim that casinos can revitalize tourist industries shouldn’t be taken at face value, says Ms. [Jan] McMillen, [director of the Center for Gambling Research at the Australian National University, in Canberra] who has studied Australia’s experience. Its first casino opened on the island of Tasmania in 1973 and proved a success that other areas replicated, ending the novelty factor. The result was a short-term boom in tax revenues that bottomed out, leaving a rash of gambling addicts and a social backlash. A similar trend emerged in New Zealand, which also found minimal impact on tourism.

Both countries have since backpedaled. “It’s fascinating to look at the rest of the world and wonder if they’ve learned from our experience,” says McMillen.

Some things have changed since the 1970s. For example, there’s a new market in China. Other things have not — the human being’s gambling instinct and the effect of competition.

It’ll be interesting to see which trumps which.

Singapore blogosphere getting organised

2005-04-20T10:58:00.000+08:00

A few Singapore bloggers are taking steps to organise the Singapore blogosphere.

Afterthoughts on a recent blogospheric event and a modest proposal — Huichieh Loy

Put your blog on the map! — AcidFlask

Singapore Bloglocator anyone? — Wandie

Singapore to have two casinos

2005-04-19T18:29:00.000+08:00

The Singapore government has revealed its decision and given the nod for not one but two casinos, and within a day, Lzydata of Singapore Ink has revealed his diligence by writing not one but two posts on the decision.

Casino decision

Today’s political analysis

Racist comments by scholar provokes witch hunt

2005-04-18T13:04:00.000+08:00

The event of the past week in the Singapore blogosphere must be the racist comments by a PSC scholar that was given prominence mainly through a post by Han at Wannabe Lawyer and has now made its way into the mainstream media. AcidFlask and Huichieh provide summaries of the discussions throughout cyberspace.

My own thoughts on the incident:

The racist views expressed by the scholar on his blog are repugnant. There is little argument over that. But at the moment, they are merely expressions of his thoughts. As some of the more thoughtful bloggers have pointed out, the reaction against him seems excessive, being tantamount to a witch hunt, with the people involved acting like a lynch mob.

I think there is some justification in considering the reaction excessive. People should be punished for their actions, not for their thoughts. Han put it well: The emphasis should have been on vigilance, not vigilantism.

Unfortunately, it can sometimes be difficult to draw the line between mere expression of one’s thoughts and incitement, especially over an issue that is coloured by strong emotions, as issues involving race and religion tend to be. And when coupled with the bloodlust that naturally exists in many people, the reaction by many isn’t too surprising.

And as an aside, AcidFlask is correct in using this incident to highlight the power of blogdom. The pen is mightier than the sword. So, potentially, is the blog.

Blogs as intellectual platforms — Part 2

2005-04-15T13:18:00.000+08:00

Lzydata picks up my earlier post on Koh Buck Song’s ST article and comments:

... [N]ot once did Koh mention blogs... Indeed that is disappointing, especially when one considers that [the] Review pages [in The Straits Times] are going to have a harder time getting “fame [reaching] from Haiti to Holland” when they have to be paid for, & their mother publication treats its readers so shabbily. Koh’s idea is not bad, & I look forward to the time when we find that periodical, or maybe constellation of blogs, that lives up to the description.

Huichieh adds his own comments on the issue, particularly on the viability of blogs as a medium for intellectual discussion:

The fly in the ointment, as far as I can tell, is that while there seems to be a lot of talent in the Singapore blogosphere, a large part of it is not directed toward expression of the intellectual sort at all, if impressions mean anything. Secondly, a constellation of good bloggers still won’t be quite the same as a good publication (think “edited”) in presented a focus (or name) that readers can easily point to (as opposed to a more diffused, “hit and miss affair” that is often the case with blogs).

Singapore Commentator mentioned the “intellectually vibrant blogging community in the United States”--yes, there are some very impressive blogs in the US, but they at best complement or supplement the major perodicals (the list under “magazines” in Arts and Letters Daily is indicative), not rival them. In many cases, the blogs comment on the commentaries offered in the perodicals. It does help, though, that many blog writers are also writers and contributers for the perodicals...

I was thinking through the points listed by Koh and wondering if there is enough talent and gung-ho among the Singapore bloggers to make a small start. At the height of the ST paid subscription uproar (that’s like so long ago in blogosphere time), Trowa Evans of The Police State made an interesting suggestion concerning an online magazine. But we’ll need people (editors, web people) who can commit full time, or at least quite a bit of time, to the enterprise--while most bloggers blog as a hobby.

All good points that I agree with, but I would add two points.

One is that many, if not most, of the reputable print periodicals in the United States are legacy publications that acquired their reputations and readerships before the widespread use of the Internet. A new periodical started from scratch as Koh suggested would, I suspect, merit slightly different considerations, a point that would surely not have been lost on Koh as he talks about “commercial viability” at the end of his article.

The other point is that blogging helps keep intellectuals on their toes. Even with a dominant print periodical, blogging — as Huichieh says of the US situation — can “complement or supplement the major perodicals” — and contribute towards a truly vibrant intellectual community. But this is true only if enough people — people like Koh Buck Song — pay attention to it.

Loan sharks

2005-04-15T12:54:00.000+08:00

It seems that the Ministry of Home Affairs has told the police to get tough on loan sharks.

At an annual Police Workplan Seminar yesterday, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng was reported by The Straits Times to have said that the police “are about to get tough” with loan sharks and have been told to “critically review” loan shark syndicates.

The Straits Times report also quoted Subhas Anandan, the president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers, as saying that the law should go after borrowers too.

“Without demand, loan sharks cannot exist. By borrowing from them, people are abetting the loan sharks in committing the offence. There’re some real opportunists who take advantage of loan sharks by borrowing and not paying, forcing the loan sharks to get back at them. Then they call the police,” he said.

He also had another idea: “Liberalise the industry, so they have a legal way of earning.”

If borrowers commit a crime, the police may be justified in going after them. Otherwise, Subhas Anandan’s suggestion cuts rather close to victim-blaming.

On his suggestion to liberalise the industry, we have to be careful here. Lending — indeed, finance as a whole — has long been a tightly-regulated industry, and for good reasons. Imprudent borrowing and lending can lead to serious negative social and economic consequences. And people are also often not good at handling money matters. There is also a good reason why the casino proposal is so controversial.

If we want to help loan sharks go legitimate, by all means, but there is no reason they must continue lending money. There are other ways to earn a living.

Creating more job opportunities in the economy is one obvious approach. Of course, this is easier said than done. In addition, the people involved in loan shark activities often don’t fit in well in large organisations. So another approach would be to make it easy for them to start their own businesses.

These measures, of course, are all already part of the government agenda, and I have blogged on them frequently before. We just need to build on them.

Blogs as intellectual platforms

2005-04-14T15:26:00.000+08:00

Do people in Singapore really understand the potential of blogs?

Koh Buck Song commented in The Straits Times today:

A recent forum raised the question of whether Singapore qualifies as a great global city. The conclusion was mostly mixed, but the consensus seems that it is not, and that there is still room for improvement... For me, the most obvious shortfall is in software. The country’s “brain” is big, but it focuses on only some things and has few places to express itself.

Crucially, Singapore is lacking in one major area — it has no intellectual periodical to speak of, let alone one that makes an impact outside these shores. The model I have in mind is a print forum for intellectual trends and world affairs. To take an example from the United States, it would be something like the New Yorker magazine and Foreign Affairs journal rolled into one...

Currently, about the only platform in this country that offers an expression of Singaporean intellectual life on a regular basis can be found in the Review pages of this newspaper...

Significantly, blogging was not mentioned as an avenue for expressing intellectual views.

Most bloggers would be aware that there is an intellectually vibrant blogging community in the United States. The Singapore blogosphere is currently not quite at the same level (although more blogs by expert bloggers like this would surely help). But the situation, in my opinion, largely mirrors Singapore society as a whole.

Notwithstanding this handicap, I think that for Singapore, the Internet in general — and blogging in particular — is a viable alternative as an avenue for airing intellectual opinions. After all, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew himself has endorsed it.

Koh’s article, however, shows that blogs still get little respect from the mainstream media. Perhaps some people in Singapore think a blog is just a toy in cyberspace.

Wannabe teachers to get short stint in school before NIE training

2005-04-13T11:48:00.000+08:00

The Straits Times reports today that the Ministry of Education has ruled that graduates who want to be teachers will have to do a four-week stint in a school before starting training at the National Institute of Education (NIE).

The newspaper said that “principals who have seen new teachers quit welcomed the move. It means those who feel they are not suited for teaching can opt out before they sign a three-year bond and start training”.

The sidebar cited the case of an NIE graduate who, after working 10 weeks at a school, found that she could not handle her students, paid off her bond and resigned. It cited Prof Allan Luke, dean of the NIE’s Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, as saying that there was no “magical” aptitude test to spot potential teachers.

Personally, I would agree that there is no magical aptitude test, and that a short stint on the job may help identify problems early on. Having said that, I think psychometric tests may also help provide some clues as to the suitability of candidates for teaching jobs.

In any case, many teachers and ex-teachers who have complained about the job point to the heavy workloads that they have to bear, often work not directly related to teaching. I doubt that a four-week stint prior to training, or assessing the ability of a teacher to handle his or her students, addresses this part of the problem.

Hopefully, the appointment of vice-principals to take charge of administrative tasks, reportedly to begin in June, will. My question is whether, in the absence of a change in management mindsets or incentive structure, the arrival of these vice-principals will only provide an excuse for the education authorities to find other non-teaching work for teachers.

Workers’ Party casino stand doesn’t sit well with Singapore bloggers

2005-04-12T14:56:00.000+08:00

The Workers’ Party (WP) releases its statement on its stand on the casino, but some Singapore bloggers are not impressed.

Wows at Singapore Ink thinks that the statement “is a commendable move” but complains that the WP’s statement lacks “any alternative suggestion as to how we might raise the revenue a casino might bring in, or how we might have an alternative to the casino as part of our new tourism blueprint”. He elaborates on his views further here.

Lzydata, also at Singapore Ink, agrees that the stand is “commendable”, but is somewhat disappointed that it largely echoes the views of religious organisations, the “family” lobby and sceptical Singaporeans, and does not adequately address the potential economic benefits.

Han is scathing in his comments about the WP. He thinks it is an opportunistic bunch of losers. He is “sick and tired of that old ‘family values’ bugbear used to justify every reactionary impulse to control”, whether it is used by the PAP or by the opposition. “If there’s one thing I cannot stand more than a oppressive government, its a stupid opposition.”

Reacting to a reader’s defence of the WP, Han adds fuel to the fire by criticising the WP of “distasteful paternalistic arrogance” — of proposing more interference and meddling in the affairs of people, of possessing socialist and communitarian tendencies.

If these reactions are any indication, it looks like the Worker’s Party has its work cut out for it if it hopes to win the support of Singaporeans.

Having said that, let’s not forget that last year, President George W Bush’s Republican Party got a lot of stick too in the United States before going on to win the election comfortably. And while some people may focus on the so-called “reality” or “truth” — “logic is the final arbiter of truth”, says Han — let’s not forget that elections and politics are ultimately about people.

The New Paper on scholarship bond-breakers

2005-04-06T18:21:00.000+08:00

AcidFlask links to The New Paper’s articles on scholarship bond-breaking (see “Red tape and bond breakers”, “PSC: We have regular feedback sessions” and “Why bond breakers left”). Not surprising since he is featured in the articles.

I’ve already given my views on bond-breaking in an earlier post “Bond-breakers: Shame no more”.

Assistance comes too late for bank robber

2005-04-05T10:12:00.000+08:00

This is most unfortunate, but somehow, knowing the official attitude towards welfare in Singapore, you could see it coming.

State to assist would-be bank robber’s family
HE TRIED to rob a bank and has been condemned to years in jail, but his family members will not be left high and dry. The family of Brian Khoo, who attempted to rob a Maybank branch with a toy gun in November last year, will be assisted while he serves out his four-and-a-half year sentence, which was passed down last Friday...

The family’s plight — their electricity supply had been cut off, their telephone line was disconnected and they had little food when Khoo went jobless for 10 months — became public, when Khoo gave his mitigation plea last week.

For [Minister of Community Development, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan], the “sorry episode” impressed strongly on him how Singaporeans who need help are not turning to the right channels and to people who are willing to help. Ensuring that everybody knows where to turn to for help will be one of his priorities over the next few years...

Lawyer Siew Kum Hong had warned as much in an opinion piece last month:

Heart of the State
... The Government has long maintained that anything resembling welfarism would mark the start of the end of Singapore. It is the slippery slope leading to a downward spiral from which there is no escape. The best way to solve the problem of unemployment and break the poverty trap is to ensure job availability and to provide education for children in low-income households.

But in this day and age of structural unemployment, I wonder whether such a dogmatic approach is hard-headed or hard-hearted. The harsh reality is that for whatever reason, some Singaporeans are unable to support themselves and some families struggle in circumstances that are entirely unsatisfactory in a society as rich as ours...

There is a variety of financial assistance available to the poor. But when assistance is as highly targeted as it is here, it also becomes extremely fragmented, because each scheme only provides a specific solution to a narrowly defined problem.

When you have a range of problems stemming from the root cause of poverty, you will require a whole host of specific solutions to address each of them. But is it realistic to expect the very poor to hunt down the different schemes available and still have time and energy to work hard? I have never been in that situation, but I can imagine that the desperately poor would find that extremely difficult...

Little wonder that many people are cynical about Singapore’s welfare policy.

Copyright protection

2005-04-04T12:49:00.000+08:00

Following up on my previous post “Cinemas and the Competition Act”, Han at Wannabe Lawyer has an interesting take on the situation.

He points out that competition for cinemas come not only from each other but also from substitute products like CDs, DVDs, rentals etc. Therefore, even if there is cartel-like behaviour involved, competitive conditions still exist in the overall entertainment industry and “Government intervention in this scenario would certainly be unwarranted”.

The last point is probably debatable, since it depends on whether one views these alternatives as good substitutes for the cinema. But his next statement is interesting: “... I would argue that this current state of affairs is a direct result of government intervention in the market”.

What does he mean?

“Copyrights are artificial monopolies created by government statute,” he writes. He implies that by enforcing copyright law and driving out VCD pirates — one of the cinema operators’ competitors — the government has empowered cinemas to raise ticket prices. “Strong copyright ‘protections’ are [a] barrier [to entry for new market players], and should be weakened.”

But what of the rights of the originator of the idea, which copyright is supposed to protect? Han is not too concerned.

“Ideas and expression of ideas are inherently non-rival and non-excludable,” he writes. An idea is non-rival because when someone other than the originator uses it, the originator does not lose the use of his idea. An idea is non-excludable if people cannot be selectively excluded from using it (although some might say that this argues for stronger copyright protection).

However, Huichieh of From a Singapore Angle says that while there is no cost in replicating an idea, there is a cost in generating the idea. That justifies some sort of copyright protection.

Ultimately, I think, it is all about balance. Too little protection and ideas are under-produced, as non-rival, non-excludable goods tend to be. Too much protection and you create monopolies of ideas, an anti-competitive situation that results in ideas being underutilised.

At the moment, intellectual property laws are mainly being driven by businesses and their lawyers, especially those in the United States. As a result, the trend is towards greater protection. Han’s recent post, as well as some of his other posts in his Copyfight category, is helpful in reminding us that there is a downside to this trend.

Cinemas and the Competition Act

2005-04-01T17:42:00.000+08:00

On Monday, three cinema operators announced that they would raise ticket prices from next month. Today, a report in The Straits Times says that such a move would be illegal under the new guidelines to the Competition Act that takes effect next year.

The move by three cinema operators to raise ticket prices in unison is one that could be deemed illegal under a tough new law that takes effect next year. The cinemas’ move could be construed as price-fixing, which the new law frowns upon, said the Competition Commission in response to queries from The Straits Times. This practice is defined by the Competition Act as an agreement which “directly or indirectly fixes purchase or selling prices, or any other trading conditions”...

The nub of the problem is that three cinema operators...agreed to raise prices together. The three, which form the Cinematograph Film Exhibitors Association (CEFA), announced on Monday that they will raise weekday prices of tickets by 50 cents and weekend prices by $1 from next month. It said the hike was to cover the increase in GST and higher utility costs. The three account for 80 per cent of total box office sales here.

The new law takes effect on Jan 1, so the cinema operators’ move is not illegal — yet. But the [Competition Commission] urged the CFEA to “ensure that it complies with the provisions on anti-competitive practices and agreements when they come into force”.

As it often does, The Straits Times manages to get a juicy quote:

The operators, however, are not backing down. The CFEA’s chairman, Mr Shaw Vee King, who is also Shaw’s managing director, said: “We are no cartel. All along, as an association, we have implemented price increases when we felt it was timely.”

And a timely quote, too, for today’s paper.

Singapore flies high, but not AWAIR

2005-03-31T13:34:00.000+08:00

AWAIR, the Indonesian arm of Malaysian budget carrier AirAsia that has recently been caught in the dispute between Singapore and Indonesia over landing rights between the two countries (see “Budget airline dispute shaping up between Indonesia and Singapore” and “Singapore under fire in airline dispute”), is not doing too well.

Indonesia’s Awair Loses Money Due to Inability to Land at Changi
Awair Airlines said it lost billions of rupiah owing to recent rejection by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CCAS) for its planes to land at Singapore’s Changi International Airport. Awair President Sendjaja Widjaja said the loss was affecting the performance of the airline. Sendjaja said the airline has to postpone serving the Jakarta-Singapore route to prevent further losses. He said the restriction announced recently by the Indonesian government on foreign budget airlines will not affect Awair.

In the light of what has been happening, the last two statements apparently made by AWAIR president Sendjaja Widjaja sound a bit strange, though.

Singapore and AirAsia, two of the other parties involved in the dispute, seem to be doing much better.

Singapore flies high
The 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) had a dramatic impact on the local aviation sector. Yet the latest outbreak — this time of budget airlines, otherwise known as low-cost carriers (LCCs) — is likely to cause even more turbulence for the sector...

Soaring above all budget carriers in the region though is Malaysia-based AirAsia, established in December 2001 by its current chief executive officer and director Tony Fernandes. With a staff of around 1,600 and a customer base of 5 million, AirAsia flies from multiple points throughout Southeast Asia, including Singapore.

... AirAsia, which listed on Bursa Malaysia in November, now employs a fleet of 80 aircraft and has plans to add another 40 from early 2006. Services to China are also in the offing. The airline, which includes affiliates in Thailand (Thai AirAsia) and Indonesia (AWAIR), saw its profitability for the first half of the year rise substantially to US$14.2 million.

... While the flying public has certainly gained from LCCs, the biggest winner may yet be the Singapore government. This is likely not only from its investments — via its trading arm Temasek Holdings — in two of the low-cost airlines, but also from the jump in passenger traffic at Changi Airport and the growing number of tourists entering Singapore.

Passenger and cargo traffic hit new highs at Changi in 2004... The airport also handled a record amount of air cargo last year... Tourism numbers have also improved, with visitor numbers in 2004 surpassing the Singapore Tourism Board’s targets... LCCs can be assumed to have at least partly helped in this strong rise in visitor numbers and revenue...

One organization set to gain from the entry of new airlines into the Singapore market is Changi Airport, which appears to be banking on a bright future. Work aimed at expanding Changi Airport’s capacity continues, with the construction of the third passenger terminal building due for completion next year... Moreover, a terminal solely for LCCs and able to handle 2.7 million passengers annually will be built by early 2006...

Another piece of good news for Singapore is that it remains the top place in Asia for doing business, according to an Economist Intelligence Unit survey.

Singapore, Hong Kong retain top Asian spots in business survey: EIU
Singapore and Hong Kong retained their spots as the best places in Asia to conduct business in the next five years, a global survey showed Wednesday. Singapore, Southeast Asia's most advanced economy, was ranked number four in the survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) which saw Denmark dethrone Canada in the number one spot... Singapore had the highest ranking among the Asian economies, followed by Hong Kong, which was in fifth place in the global tally...

This is evidence that the Singapore government’s economic policies is largely on the right track, even if some don’t seem too impressed with the results of its science policies.

Mavericks and the elite

2005-03-30T14:01:00.000+08:00

Koh Buck Song has a commentary in The Straits Times today on mavericks.

In the commentary, he says: “Ideally, the maverick would be seen playing the role of a ‘wise duke’, who has the guts to speak truth and advise the ruler and enlighten the people to avoid errors.”

This leads him to ask the question: “Can mavericks be part of the elite?”

To which I would ask: Why not, if they are talented? After all, in his speech on the elite at the NUS Society Lecture, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that “there will always be some who do not fit the mould for an academic education, but have other valuable talents and life skills” and “doors must always be open to those who have taken alternative routes to success”.

Huichieh of From a Singapore Angle discusses the elite in some detail in “"Elite"...what's in a word?”.

Apparently plenty, if the post is anything to go by. Responding to some negative sentiments towards the word “elite”, he basically argues that the elite is a necessary part of society, as surely as leaders need followers, and that it is no use getting too hung up over the word. Read the post for the details.

He is quite correct, in my opinion, although the fact remains that the word “elite” is too closely associated with the exclusivity and privileges of elitism and just doesn't go down well with many people.

The King must have the right to rule, but his subjects don’t have to like it. Especially if they’re mavericks.

Earthquake off Sumatra — again

2005-03-29T15:35:00.000+08:00

Yet another earthquake off Sumatra. Thankfully, there was no tsunami this time around.

Up to 2,000 dead in earthquake: Indonesian VP
As many as 2,000 people may have been killed when a powerful earthquake hit the Indonesian island of Nias, Indonesian Vice President Yusuf Kalla said on Tuesday... [O]fficials on the Indonesian island of Nias off the west coast of Sumatra ealier said at least 300 people were believed to have been killed after many buildings were brought crashing to the ground by the quake...

The huge earthquake off northwest Indonesia triggered tsunami alerts across the Indian Ocean which caused widespread panic. The under-sea quake measuring up to 8.7 on the Richter Scale came just three months after an even bigger temblor in the same region sent giant waves crashing into 11 nations, killing over 270,000 people. The quake struck about 205 kilometres off the coast of the main northern Indonesian island of Sumatra and prompted Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Thailand, among others, to issue warnings of imminent tsunamis...

Although the quake did not trigger off a tsunami — a fact that puzzles some experts — it was strong enough to be felt in Singapore, including in Toa Payoh, where apparently many residents evacuated their flats.

South Florida in Singapore

2005-03-27T10:40:00.000+08:00

Excerpt from an article in the Sun-Sentinel:

S. Florida companies enjoy doing business with thriving Singapore
South Florida executive Rodrigo Vera travels at least twice a year to Singapore for his company that imports construction materials from Asia.

His business partners chose the small island nation as an Asian hub, lured by its sophistication, stability and strong banking and telecom systems.

Vera enjoys the ease of doing international business in the trade-oriented nation, which boasts Asia’s only free-trade accord with the United States and ample high-speed Internet access. And the tropical landscapes are beautiful, too.

“It’s like living in a garden,” said Vera, a principal in Delray Beach-based Southern Cross Building Products LLC. “The place is so manicured.”

The fact that you get the sun and sea without the hurricanes probably helps too.

Singapore’s foreign relations and its economy

2005-03-24T13:13:00.000+08:00

This is a relatively long post as I have a number of things to share.

First, let me follow up on yesterday’s post on the budget airline dispute with this excerpt from a Channel NewsAsia report:

Indonesia to restrict budget airlines’ access to protect domestic carriers
Indonesia is to impose new restrictions on foreign budget airlines flying to key destinations such as Jakarta and Bali to protect its own operators in the face of fierce competition, reports said on Wednesday. Transport Minister Hatta Rajasa said the new regulations would remain in place until Indonesia had negotiated agreements with other national aviation authorities over the booming low-cost air industry in the region...

With Indonesia’s protectionist measure now officially in place, it may actually become easier for the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore to defend its decision to withhold AWAIR’s right to fly to Singapore.

But Singapore also faces other disputes with Indonesia.

Singapore Embassy in Jakarta attacked over dumping allegations
The Singapore Embassy in Jakarta was attacked by a group of demonstrators on Tuesday morning. Accusing Singapore of dumping toxic waste in Batam, the demonstrators turned violent, damaging the main gate of the embassy and defacing it with graffiti...

Clement Mesenas, in his article entitled “S’pore-Indon ‘toxic’ issue must be neutralised in Today, points out that this incident may just be “a diversionary tactic to distract Indonesians distraught with rising fuel prices following the removal of subsidies”. This suggests that the friendly relations built up in “Singapore’s generous and forthright response to the plight of tsunami-ravaged Aceh” should help provide a resolution to the dispute.

But Singapore’s relations with Indonesia aren’t the only ones giving it problems at the moment. While Singapore’s alleged military exercise with Taiwan hasn’t quite blown up to serious proportions, there is already another potential irritant:

China blamed for Singapore’s refusal to let in Taiwan seamen
Taiwan yesterday accused Singapore of blocking a port call by two warships to the city-state because of pressure from China... Frank Hsieh, the Taiwanese prime minister, alleged Singapore did not allow the crew of two Taiwanese frigates to go ashore when they docked in the city-state this month because of pressure from China...

If push comes to shove, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has already made clear which side he will back. China is too important to Singapore economically for him to antagonise.

And the economy is something that PM Lee definitely has in mind, as he made clear at the NUS Society Lecture in talking about the casino:

Singapore must reinvent itself to stay attractive and competitive: PM Lee
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Singapore must reinvent itself to remain attractive and competitive and building a casino is one of the possible ways to do it. But if one is built, the government will ensure there are systematic ways to cope with its social costs...

And in an interview with Bloomberg:

Sure economic gain from casino resort
WITH less than four weeks to go for its decision on whether Singapore is to have a casino, the signs are that the Government is leaning towards a “yes”. In an interview aired yesterday on Bloomberg Television, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that if Singapore were to have a casino, “there’s not much doubt about the economic benefits to us”...

Mr Lee said: “...It will make Singapore different and it’s one of the things we must do as we continue to make development grow. You have to be prepared to look at a different world, see a landscape which is changing and ask, ‘What do we need to do to keep up with that?’ Staying put is not an option.”

... In the long-term, the “very fierce” competition in the region means that Singapore has to move “very fast and very resolutely” if it wants to avoid being left behind...

That more or less echoes the point I made in “Employment and globalisation”. And to illustrate the problem that Singapore faces, the following story in The Arizona Republic on long-term unemployment is perhaps instructive:

Unemployment plateau: Many jobless for longer
... For the past 29 months, one-fifth of the nation’s jobless people captured in federal statistics have been out of work for more than 27 weeks, which qualifies them as “long-term unemployed.” And unlike previous periods, many of those job seekers have college degrees and solid professional experience...

While there have been periods when the share of long-term unemployed has been higher, it has never remained above 20 percent for so long, economists note. And when the jobless rate shrank, as it has lately, the share of long-term unemployed traditionally shrank along with it. That hasn’t been the case this time around...

There are new dynamics in the world economy; just blaming the unemployed isn’t going to be very helpful.

If it’s any consolation to the unemployed, inflation seems reasonably subdued:

Singapore’s living cost falls, Japanese cities remain the world’s most expensive: EIU survey
Costs of living in Singapore have dropped while the Japanese cities of Tokyo, Osaka and Kobe have preserved their status as the world’s most expensive cities to live in, a survey shows. A bi-annual Economist Intelligence Unit survey of more than 130 cities says Singapore is now at the 19th position, down from 17th in cost of living over the past year...

The following report says the same thing once you read beyond the headline:

Singapore’s CPI up 0.7% in February
Singapore’s consumer price index rose 0.7 percent in February from a month ago, due largely to higher housing cost, the Department of Statistics said on Wednesday. The consumer price index was flat from the same period a year ago...

Of course, counter-intuitive though it may be to some, those who are familiar with economics know that low inflation isn’t necessarily a good sign, as I point out in “High expectations and cost of living”.

As they say: Be careful what you wish for.

Singapore under fire in airline dispute

2005-03-23T10:22:00.000+08:00

The budget airline dispute between Indonesia and Singapore — or more accurately, between budget carrier AirAsia and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore — gets more airing in the media. Although the title of the following report highlights Singapore, this is really about AirAsia’s battle with the Singapore aviation authority.

Singapore shakes up skies over Asia
The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) has come under fire for refusing to grant landing rights at its only airport, Changi International, to an Indonesia-based carrier in which Malaysia’s leading low-fare airline, AirAsia Berhad, holds a 49% stake. Though Singapore may call the shots in granting landing rights at Changi — upsetting AirAsia, which claims Singapore is using its planned Jakarta-Singapore route to give itself an edge in bargaining with Jakarta over air links — the issue has stirred up waves of criticism.

Southeast Asian countries plan to adopt an open-skies policy between their respective capital cities by 2008 and fully liberalize the region’s air-travel industry by 2011, but AirAsia’s charismatic founder and chief executive officer Tony Fernandes has implied that unless the respective governments fight back, the only winners in the skies between Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia, at least, will be Singapore. AirAsia has said it is abandoning the planned Jakarta-Singapore route after having to postpone its launch at the 11th hour because it failed to secure the necessary approvals from Singapore aviation authorities. This would be a setback for the republic’s plan to present its only airport as an aviation hub for Southeast Asia...

Notice that the report is largely written from the perspective of AirAsia, particularly that of its CEO Tony Fernandes. It’s not quite a model of balanced reporting, but it’s hard to blame Bill Guerin. In contrast to the reticence of CAAS, Fernandes makes it easy for reporters to quote him.

Those who shout loudest get the most attention.

The Singapore authorities probably need to pay more attention to its image. This Asia Times report is just another example of the bad press that Singapore often gets from the foreign media.

And the resulting poor image for Singapore conceivably explains the behaviour of a British footballer as reported in the following article.

Defender rejects a move out to Singapore
Frozen-out defender Steve Burton has incurred the wrath of Kidderminster boss Stuart Watkiss again — after snubbing a move to Singapore. Watkiss claims the 22-year-old third choice left-back has turned down the chance of a lucrative year’s contract in the Far East. Burton, who has already rejected the chance of loan moves to Worcester City, Redditch and Accrington Stanley, now faces the prospect of a depressing diet of reserve team football indefinitely.

“Steve had the chance of going to Singapore on more money to play professionally in their mini-championship,” said Watkiss. “His accommodation would have been paid and he would be on more wages. “But he’s turned it down. I find it amazing that he has rejected such an opportunity by preferring to pick up his money in our reserves.”...

Or maybe the footballer just finds Singapore’s standard of football even more atrocious than that of the reserve team of a British Division Three side.

New scheme for HDB shops underlines disturbing trend

2005-03-22T15:28:00.000+08:00

Earlier this month, Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan announced several new policies in Parliament, one of which is the Restructuring Programme for Shops (RPS).

This programme is targeted at shop tenants where there is an over-supply of shops and where business is poor. Shop tenants in a cluster selected for the RPS will be polled on whether they wish to retire from their business. If more than 50 percent of the tenants in a block opt to quit, those who opt to quit will receive $60,000 while those who did not will be given HDB assistance to relocate.

Some responses on the scheme in Channel NewsAsia:

Mixed response from shop tenants on Restructuring Programme for Shops
The Restructuring Programme for Shops could provide a vital lifeline for struggling shop tenants as the new scheme aims to minimise oversupply of shops and improve business by offering them a way out. But not every tenant was keen.

Jessica Yeo, who operates a skincare centre along Mei Ling Street, was one of many who welcomed the Restructuring Progamme for Shops... Yet others like Janice Chan want to stay put despite sluggish sales...

And in Today:

Lifeline heartens HDB shopowners
IT would not be wrong to call the Government’s new rescue package for beleaguered heartland retailers a scheme of half-measures, say some observers.

After all, the Restructuring Programme for Shops (RPS) requires a voting majority of just over half to take place, helps less than half of Singapore’s 15,200 HDB shop units and co-funds up to half of business revitalisation projects.

But what some say are half-measures is seen as help by others, which begs the question: Is the glass of the HDB retailers half-empty or half-full?...

While it may need some refinements, I think the concept behind RPS is a good one. It gives retailers who are not doing well a way out, while for those who choose to remain in the business, it helps to reduce competition and keep them viable. But I think it also reflects a disturbing underlying trend.

Ownership of a small business represents, for many people, an alternative avenue for making a living — one that does not tie them to the corporate world, affords them some freedom and provides a back-up for employees who cannot get or keep a salaried job. In a sense, it represents economic egalitarianism.

The HDB shop is an important symbol of the small business owner. But it looks like many retail shops in Singapore’s heartland have difficulty staying economically viable. This is not surprising; in the United States, large retailers like Wal-Mart are driving smaller ones out of business as well (see “The Darwinian world of retailing”). Unfortunately, the government’s plan to remove the 30 percent rental rebate for HDB retailers only makes things worse for the latter.

These developments indicate that the door may be closing on one alternative for people to own their own business. All this while the world may be facing greater income insecurity (see Brad DeLong’s recent post “Daniel Gross on Social Security and Income Insecurity”) and Singapore itself sees a possible slowdown in hiring. The RPS notwithstanding, this may mean more frustration for people trying to earn a living in Singapore.

Singapore-Taiwan joint military exercise

2005-03-21T16:39:00.000+08:00

Singapore Ink’s Wows has this interesting report.

S’pore-Taiwan Joint Exercises
The Taiwanese army has gained a major breakthrough in its inter-military cooperation level. In order to familiarise themselves and Singapore’s Starlight forces with alliance-like joint operational co-ordination mechanisms, the military is currently breaking from its previous restrictions to conduct joint military operational exercises with the Starlight forces under the joint instruction of American and Japanese military advisers...

From a Singapore Angle’s Huichieh picked up the report and added his comments:

Unfortunately, this sort of news is hard to verify. SAF is not in the habit of being open about our Taiwan connections (the very opposite is true), while the Taiwanese tend to be fairly footloose at times about supposed information. But it is certainly within the realm of possibility... I’m really not sure if China would be pleased with Singapore to hear about this.

Well, you can be sure that China would make her displeasure known — maybe after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s departure.

Think again

2005-03-17T10:14:00.000+08:00

Excerpt from a post by Wows at the Singapore Ink on the Oxford Singapore Forum.

A question also popped up about tolerance of homosexuals. Irene Ng gives the story of her change in attitudes from before and after she was an MP (these kinds of stories are always interesting … the many Vivian ones are just irresistible for instance). She has many gay friends, from the arts scene primarily. When she became an MP she wanted to fight for a more actively and openly tolerant stance by the govt. towards gays. Then she realised during dialogue sessions that many, many people were almost bitterly opposed to any change from the government.

Warren Fernandez then recounts how he used to run stories on gay hangouts. Not only does he receive angry callers (he is just that bit short of saying “religious”) who berate the paper for devoting space to such “deviant” elements of society, he receives calls from the higher-ups in the police. “Why do you want to run so many stories on gay hangouts. If only you don’t run them, then we don’t have so much pressure to crack down.” His belief is that perhaps a spotlight might not be the best way to foster a space for gays.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two problems that these two instances illustrate.

Firstly, people often think that others have the same views as them. Diversity of views is underestimated. As is conflict of interests.

Secondly, people often take or suggest actions that superficially forward their goals but don’t think through the second and third order effects. Think of backlash. Think of unintended consequences. Think of game theory.

Singapore workers are fussy

2005-03-16T15:19:00.000+08:00

As seen in The Straits Times report on employment and salaries in Singapore:

Asked if the new rule to let companies hire more foreign workers will further widen the gap [in employment growth between locals and foreigners], Aljunied GRC MP Cynthia Phua said most companies prefer to hire locals and that it is the workers who are fussy.

In contrast to workers, companies are not fussy and hire anybody who asks for a job.

I sometimes wonder whether The Straits Times makes up these quotes just so that I have something to blog about.

Temasek in the news

2005-03-14T19:03:00.000+08:00

Looks like Singapore doesn’t have to go into biotechnology to create clones.

The Singapore Clones
If copying is the most sincere form of flattery, Singapore should be red in the face. Its Temasek Holdings was once a novel experiment: a state investment fund that molded renowned brands, like Singapore Airlines and SingTel. In recent years, as Temasek began to invest abroad, it was at first greeted by neighbors like Malaysia and Indonesia as an unwelcome foreign intrusion. But now several Asian states, including these detractors, are more or less openly trying to copy the Temasek model.

At a time when much of the world is questioning the free-market ideal, the appeal of a quasi-public investment vehicle is clear. It gives Asian political leaders a proven mechanism for directing investment and shaping national industrial champions. Taiwan has plans to consolidate some $31 billion in state shares into a holding company modeled on Temasek. Indonesia is considering a similar idea to reorganize and improve the efficiency of some of its state giants, like the oil and gas company Pertamina. And while Malaysia would never admit to following the lead of its neighbor and rival, economists say the recently reorganized Khazanah, the national investment agency, looks like a carbon copy of Temasek in its early days...

In the meantime, Temasek itself appears to have moved on beyond its national borders.

Singapore’s Temasek emerges as an Asian powerhouse after regional expansion
Singapore’s Temasek Holdings is stamping its mark as an Asian powerhouse investor after a trailblazing multi-billion dollar shopping spree in the region over the past two years, analysts say. Temasek, which has interests in everything from banks to telecoms, airlines to energy firms, is now a major presence in the region, stretching from closest neighbour Malaysia to China and India.

Almost half of Temasek’s portfolio, worth 90 billion Singapore dollars (55 billion US), is invested overseas with many of its foreign interests acquired over the past two years, company spokeswoman Rachel Lin told AFP...

According to the AFP report, Temasek’s portfolio is worth US$55 billion. Interestingly, American billionaire investor Warren Buffett’s investment vehicle Berkshire Hathaway has US$43 billion that it is trying to invest but has trouble finding good buys.

No Companies to Buy in 2004, Buffett Says
The mighty billionaire Warren Buffett says he has “struck out.” The CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. wrote in his annual report Saturday that he had hoped to make several multibillion-dollar acquisitions in 2004. He certainly had the money, so the problem? None to buy, he said.

“I found very few attractive securities to buy,” Buffett wrote in his company’s 40th annual report. Berkshire ended the year with $43 billion of cash equivalents, something he called “not a happy position.”...

If he raised a little more cash, Buffett could buy up Temasek and save himself the trouble of looking for any further acquisitions.

Maybe Buffett could help Temasek improve its investment performance (see my earlier post on Temasek’s performance).

Budget airline dispute shaping up between Indonesia and Singapore

2005-03-11T10:48:00.000+08:00

I have mentioned previously the delay that Indonesian budget carrier AWAIR is facing in getting approval from the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore for its flight to Singapore (see “Budget airline may sue Singapore”), and the lack of explanation from the latter. Well, the CAAS has finally spoken.

New Indonesian restriction stops AWAIR’s flight to Singapore
There has been a new twist to the AWAIR saga. In a statement on Thursday, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) said it was unable to proceed with AWAIR’s application to fly to Singapore because... Indonesian authorities intended to introduce a new restriction on services by low-cost carriers to and from certain points in Indonesia...

The Straits Times reports that the Indonesians are unhappy with this linkage.

When contacted in Jakarta, director for air transport in the Transportation Ministry, Mr Eddy Santoso, said he was baffled by Singapore’s attempt to link Awair’s application with the talks on Singapore-based carriers... “[T]his was never in the talks with Singapore,” he said, adding Indonesia’s airlines are already far behind in the competition...

In a statement, Mr Sendjaja Widjaja, president director of [Awair]...said that the carrier was “very disappointed” with CAAS for “dragging its feet”... “CAAS should not have used Awair as a bargaining chip...” he said.

To the Indonesians, I would say that tit-for-tat is just par for the course when it comes to protectionism.

To Singapore, this should be a reminder that when you make a living off others, a conspicuous advantage tends to invite a backlash from the latter, even when the advantage is gained in fair competition.

Singapore tops in networked readiness

2005-03-10T18:47:00.000+08:00

IT- and rank-obsessed Singapore will probably be pleased with this.

S’pore tops WEF’s survey on use of infocomm technology
Singapore has been ranked the world’s most successful economy in exploiting infocomm developments. In its latest technology survey, the World Economic Forum placed Singapore ahead of 104 other nations in its Networked Readiness Index...

Internet users will probably be interested in the fact that Singapore ranks a relatively lowly 11th in broadband adoption. The report states that the Infocomm Development Authority is already addressing this by providing “more choices and more alternatives”.

See also “IDA believes Singapore firms poised to ride next wave of infocomm”.

Spin and the universities

2005-03-09T11:12:00.000+08:00

The Straits Times published an opinion piece on spin today from the Los Angeles Times. Excerpt:

It’s an old story that the news and our understanding of it are affected — or afflicted — by “spin,” meaning efforts by partisans to make us see things their way. But this treatment of the mechanics of spin as news in its own right seems more recent. And so does the spread of spin and the awareness of its mechanics to areas far beyond politics.

Singapore universities would probably see the value of spin, judging from their latest recruitment activities.

Varsities adopt marketing approach to recruitment
[T]he three local universities have already spent tens of thousands on advertising campaigns to draw students. In stark contrast to former no-frills application proceedings, this year, marketing strategies include talks at five-star hotels, outdoor concerts and even pre-entry undergraduate courses...

Director Alan Goh of the Office of Admissions at the Singapore Management University (SMU) said: “The old model in which you sit back like a retailer is long gone. Today, you need to take a marketing approach to recruitment.”...

Indeed, the SMU seems the most adept at it. Not surprising perhaps for a university that, relative to the other local universities, seems to stress presentation in its curriculum. In fact, it looks like the SMU can even get a newspaper to weave its marketing spin for it.

SMU – Going from being different to making a difference
FIVE years since it burst upon Singapore’s staid education scene, the Singapore Management University (SMU) has gone beyond making American-style teaching in higher education a hot new trend. It is now a brand leader, to quote Mr Alan Goh, the university’s sharply dressed director of undergraduate admissions and a respected marketing maven himself...

Its liberal but rigorous pedagogy...and institutional autonomy have gained the school almost a cult status among Singapore’s students. More importantly, it has established itself as such a reliable source of graduates among the nation’s top corporations, that for two years running, the heads of several blue-chip companies have vouched for them in eye-catching university recruitment advertisements...

There are statistics to back this up. According to a study by market research company Taylor Nelson Sofres last November, SMU has the makings of a “rising star”...

Above all, it speaks of the commitment of the faculty. How many universities are there in the world, let alone in Singapore, where a dean kick-starts a scholarship fund by paying a whopping $80,000 out of his own savings to fund two needy but bright young men’s studies?...

It’s not too often that you see a journalist describe an institution or organisation in almost gushing terms without those terms being in quotation marks and attributable to a source, preferably reliable. Not that the story didn’t have its fair share of anecdotal accounts, another favourite marketing technique.

Its fee increase notwithstanding, I think the SMU will be successful in establishing itself as an educational icon in Singapore.

Employment and globalisation

2005-03-08T14:34:00.000+08:00

While the job market appears to have become rosier for graduates of the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University last year, KnightofPentacles of Singapore Serf still has trouble getting work which pays reasonably in the IT sector.

If you think the education policies puts Singaporeans at a disadvantage, just wait until you start competing in the cut-throat work private sector environment...

I was chatting with a friendly recruitment agent (“headhunter”) last Friday. What I heard ran a chill down my spine... What was upsetting to me personally was that her clients are specifically rejecting Singaporeans for those positions.

Seems that clients are requesting Caucasian faces for the mid- to top-level positions to bolster the “image” for the company...

As for the cost-sensitive entry-level positions, the clients have specifically requested for India and PRC workers and are more than willing to apply for (‘Q’-class) employment passes since it is cheaper than paying the extra CPF for Singaporeans, and the hassle of having male Singaporeans disrupt employment for National Service reservist every year...

... The recruiter told the SO that the wages for the IT market (from the recruiter standpoint) has pretty much collasped due to the influx of cheap foreign labour...

The discrimination at the mid- to top-level positions would probably strike a chord with redrown of Rebrab Moor. For entry-level positions, the situation that KnightofPentacles describes has to be seen against the backdrop of globalisation, and specifically, the rise of India as an IT powerhouse.

The effects of globalisation is far-reaching. In my earlier post on “Budget crunch?”, I had consciously stretched my excerpt from The Straits Times to include a paragraph that mentions Harvard economist Dani Rodrick and his book Has Globalisation Gone Too Far?. Much of the income risk that I have mentioned elsewhere in this blog is the result of globalisation. It is a phenomenon that Singapore cannot be shielded from.

Incidentally, I doubt that Australia — where KnightofPentacles hopes to go to — can either. It’s a worldwide problem. In fact, just yesterday, Morgan Stanley chief economist Stephen Roach wrote a commentary entitled “From Jobless to Wageless” regarding the current American job situation:

The global labor arbitrage has a rich and long history... Courtesy of e-based connectivity, both tradable goods and an increasingly broad array of once non-tradable services can now be sourced anywhere around the world. That has turned low-labor-cost platforms in places such as China (goods) and India (services) into both wage- and price-setters at the margin... [T]hese offshore employment options played an important role in crimping domestic hiring. Now, I suspect these same forces are having an important impact on the US real wage cycle... Why pay up for a software programmer at home when you can get the same functionality at a fraction of the cost from Bangalore?

To a large extent, many of the Singapore government’s policies — including that on accepting foreign talent — are formulated in an attempt to address the effects of globalisation without sacrificing economic growth. In a sense, I guess, the Singapore government should be commended for being proactive about meeting the challenges arising from globalisation.

However, being proactive also often means implementing untested policies. Or even reversing tested policies. The policy that favours foreign talent, for example, contradicts a long-standing policy of keeping out immigrants from Singapore, a factor behind the foreign worker levy. Little wonder then that its effects are causing a brouhaha among Singaporeans (see “TODAY Reader Mail: Feeling marginalised in own country”).

On a more fundamental level, we also need to ask whether the almost-single-minded pursuit of economic growth — at least as measured by gross domestic product or similar indicators — is realistically compatible with the true wishes of individual Singaporeans. This is a question that I am not sure the government has provided the correct answer to (For elaboration on this point, see for examples another Singapore Serf post “GK’s Real Question” and my own “High expectations and cost of living”).

Study on political blogging

2005-03-07T14:52:00.000+08:00

No doubt, like many other Singapore bloggers, I’ve been invited to participate in a study on political blogging by some NUS students (see the comment in the neuromarketing post). Ironically, the invitation appeared in a post that has nothing to do with politics.

Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe neuromarketing is related to politics. Maybe something to do with the brain scans.

Neuromarketing

2005-03-05T10:32:00.000+08:00

Rob at the BusinessPundit.com explains why he believes in neuromarketing.

Because you can’t fool a brainscan... Everyone has a different worldview based on his or her past experiences, and while listening and engaging them may help us understand how they think, we can never be totally sure we are getting the truth. Why not? Because we ourselves don’t always know the truth. We don’t always know what we want. We can’t even explain our own actions sometimes.

To understand more about neuromarketing, Rob gives the following references:

In Search of the Buy Button

Inside the mind of the consumer

What is neuromarketing?

Maybe neuromarketing can be part of Singapore’s arsenal in developing Singapore brands. So that Singaporean companies don’t have to rely just on trade shows or exhortations to Singaporeans to buy Singapore-made goods to sell their products.

I can also see other uses for brain scans. Maybe Singaporeans entering Singapore’s proposed casino could be subjected to brain scans to filter out those who are likely to become addicted to gambling.

Yet more views on the casino

2005-03-04T18:53:00.000+08:00

Singaporeans have had their chance to have their views aired on the casino debate.

Casino debate gets a public airing on TV
THE casino debate was given a concerted public airing yesterday, with Singaporeans seemingly still torn on whether having one would be good for the country...

MediaCorp put the seal on a multi-platform national debate through an hour-long programme called High Stakes: The Casino Debate, aired last night on Channel NewsAsia (CNA). The programme featured a studio panel hosted by Ms Diana Ser, with Today CEO and editor-in-chief Mano Sabnani and Institute of Policy Studies research fellow Dr Gillian Koh as panellists.

Letters from Today readers, comments from NewsRadio listeners, online postings and emails to CNA’s website were read out during the show.

Viewers also followed two Singaporeans who visited the casino at Genting Highlands recently...

Andy Mukherjee of Bloomberg thinks that Singapore will have its casino anyway.

Singapore’s trump card
Las Vegas casinos can’t wait to come to Singapore. And although groups like Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore and the National Council of Churches of Singapore are putting up a strong protest, they will probably lose...

The decision appears to be a foregone conclusion, especially since the government has already planned safeguards for the local population...

What’s important is that legalized gambling is one of the few businesses left where Singapore has an edge over other Asian nations, because casino operators are forced to choose their locations not based on the size of the market, wage costs or availability of raw materials, but purely based on which place is open enough to receive them, warts and all...

Maybe Andy Mukherjee only watches Bloomberg, not Channel NewsAsia.

Why companies don't get more this year, budget crunch or not

2005-03-03T18:36:00.000+08:00

Among those who had asked for handouts from the government during the budget debate, I thought that businesses were among the least deserving. Businesses may need more structural reform to sustain them for the long term, but in what looks like a relatively good economic year, fiscal handouts appear out of place.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong appears to agree.

PM Lee explains why companies did not get all they wanted in Budget
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong gave reasons why business did not get as much as they hoped in Budget 2005. He said part of the reason was because major tax changes in the last five years have already saved companies at least $1.8 billion a year. Mr Lee said the government had also adopted a conservative fiscal policy stance this year because the Singapore economy has been expanding within its long-term sustainable growth rate.

Singapore’s economy grew an impressive 8.4 percent last year, but that was coming from a low base in 2003 when SARS hit. On average, economic growth over the past two years was 3.4 percent — well within Singapore’s long-term sustainable growth rate. Mr Lee said that is why Singapore’s economy does not need further stimulus this year.

Even though Budget 2005 may be less expansionary than last year’s, Mr Lee notes that the government’s total expenditure is still higher than its operating revenues. “We are now able to balance the overall budget only because of the contribution from net investment income, and even then we expect to have only a thin buffer — a surplus of 0.5 percent to 1 percent of GDP in the medium-term. Our fiscal objective is to achieve an overall budget balance, or a modest surplus, on average over the business cycle,” he said.

There’s that thing again about achieving a balanced budget, which I had touched on in my post on the so-called budget crunch.

I think the view of Morgan Stanley economist Daniel Lian on Singapore’s budget is pertinent here. Here’s an excerpt:

The long-term fiscal and government wealth positions of the republic remain very strong. The broad fiscal trend continues to be structurally healthy and, at the same time, the government directly and indirectly is controlling huge corporate and financial wealth... The structural fiscal latitude and vast government wealth mean there is considerable financial and policy scope for Singapore to further slash its tax rates and strengthen its pro-business environment in the future.

Adding to the views of Standard & Poor’s, I think the message on the real state of the government’s fiscal position is pretty clear.

Good? Bad? Protectionism?

2005-03-02T10:43:00.000+08:00

What do you say when a writer from The Straits Times makes statements like these?

Good protectionism allows market forces to play out in the larger arena, but targets specific sectors, or jobs, with measures.

Bad protectionism, in contrast, seeks to impose blanket bans or requirements which stymie the profit motive or work incentive.

[T]o require those vying for government contracts to hire older workers, is another example of bad protectionism, because it imposes an additional cost on contractors which will ultimately be passed on to the purchasing Government.

Good protectionism, in contrast, will reward companies for hiring older workers.

Repeated criticism gets monotonous and sounds churlish after a while.

Budget crunch?

2005-03-01T14:44:00.000+08:00

The Singapore Budget 2005 parliamentary debate has begun. Channel NewsAsia reports: “MPs have called for help for local businesses as well as the elderly and the poor on the first day of parliamentary debate on the 2005 Budget.”

Everyone wants a handout, it seems. Not everyone would deserve one though. The Singapore government has limited fiscal resources and has to prioritise its expenditure.

As least, that seems to be what Chua Mui Hoong of The Straits Times is saying. She writes in today’s edition:

[Y]esterday, the first day of debate on the Government’s Budget philosophy. Most chose to speak on policies close to their hearts... When it comes to financial policy, though, it’s hard to gainsay the facts. And they show that the Government faces a Budget crunch.

As [Tanjong Pagar GRC MP] Prof Koo [Tsai Kee] notes, the Government is collecting less in revenue... [T]ax rates have been falling... Even as it’s collecting less, the Government is facing pressure to spend more. Why?

For one, the population is ageing, and medical spending is likely to rise... Also, as the economy restructures, a large segment of the population won’t be able to cope and will need help when they lose their jobs or fall into poverty.

In 2000, there were 12.6 per cent or 116,300 households with incomes below $1,000 a month. That translates into about half a million people who need some form of support in cash or in kind.

Harvard economist Dani Rodrick, in the book Has Globalisation Gone Too Far?, found a correlation between government spending and openness of an economy in the 1980s: the more globalised and open an economy, the greater the level of government spending. He postulates that citizens in a globalised, open economy can’t be shielded from competition...and so need more social assistance like the dole and welfare.

Singapore has an open economy, but has so far kept its spending low. But, as Prof Koo notes, it may not be able to hold that line for too long...

The fiscal future is a serious, if rather, boring issue. It deserves far more attention than it received yesterday.

The priorities mentioned above look about right to me. I’ve posted on some of these issues on this blog (see, for example, “Unemployment woes for mature graduates”).

So yes, the Singapore government has many pressing fiscal concerns to address. However, is it actually facing a “budget crunch”, as claimed by Chua?

I know that in The Straits Times front page report by her colleague on the budget debate, an MP was cited as saying that “operating expenditure was still higher than operating revenue”. But I have never personally seen actual figures showing such a thing. It is only total expenditure — operating expenditure plus development expenditure — that has exceeded operating revenue. This is how the government defines its basic balance (the overall budget balance adds in special transfers and investment income). See, for example, the Ministry of Finance’s (outdated) figures for the 2003 budget on its website.

Comparing operating revenue against total expenditure is hardly apple-to-apple comparison. So the deficit figures that are mentioned actually don’t give an accurate picture of the fiscal outlook for the government.

Now I’d be the first to admit that omitting development expenditure wouldn’t either. The fact is, getting an accurate picture of the government’s fiscal position takes some work. Thankfully, credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s has done some of that work and here’s how UPI quoted it in a report last year:

“Singapore...may benefit from a re-examination of some of its fiscal principles, especially in light of its strong performance during the difficult past 6 years,” [ said analyst Ping Chew.] “In particular, it may be useful for the government to examine whether its already ample resources are sufficient for further rainy days, and whether funds could be more efficiently managed if they are released into the private sector.”...

... [O]ver the past 6 years...Singapore managed to stay in the black with an average general government surplus of 5.8 percent. S&P figure contrast with that of the government which said in its last budget it was running a small budget deficit of 0.45 percent of GDP.

“Most governments around the world go to some trouble to re-jig their numbers to present deficits as surplus. Singapore tends to disguise surplus as deficit. If you look at the numbers in an international standardize way, Singapore is actually delivering a very large surplus once again,” Paul Coughlin told reporters. “This leaves open the question of whether the government could have done more to cushion its economy from the shocks,” he added.

So before anyone concludes that the Singapore government is facing a budget crunch, better go crunch the numbers again.

Whither The Straits Times?

2005-02-26T11:03:00.000+08:00

In view of the interest in the Singapore blogosphere over the recent decision by The Straits Times to charge for its online content, I think this is pertinent.

Whither The Wall Street Journal?
The Wall Street Journal is not only the best-written, most elegantly edited newspaper to cover business, it may be the best paper period... Nevertheless, the Journal faces an intractable problem. Because you have to subscribe to access both current news articles and the archive, the Journal is leaving only a faint footprint in cyberspace... Since most people refuse to pay for WSJ stories, most bloggers are reluctant to link to them... As a result, there is a meme that has begun to take hold that questions the Journal’s long-term relevancy...

Regular readers of this blog would have noted that, with one previous exception, I hardly link to The Straits Times Interactive. I will be even less likely to from now on.

Has the Health Minister changed his mind?

2005-02-26T10:50:00.000+08:00

A few months back, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan was quoted by the media as saying he was “relaxed” about the exodus of doctors from the public sector. His latest views are as follows:

Doc brain drain not OK
THERE are some in his ministry who think that the migration of doctors from the public to the private sector is “not a loss”, as long as they continue to practise here. But Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan disagrees.

With a record exit of 247 doctors — 87 of them specialists — from public healthcare last year, those who lose out are not just subsidised patients, but also young doctors who would miss out on the teaching and mentoring of senior doctors, said Mr Khaw. The loss is also Singapore’s. Teaching hospitals or academic medical centres — not solo practice — is where progress is more likely to be made in acquiring “new capabilities” for competing globally.

So, to ensure a “critical mass” of talent in the public sector, Mr Khaw is targetting to retain the top 20 to 25 per cent of each cohort of 300 doctors in the sector until they retire...

If the Health Minister has changed his mind, I’m not necessarily critical of him for that. But is he actually aiming to cream off the entire top 20 to 25 percent of each cohort for the public sector?

Public transport fare formula reviewed

2005-02-24T12:30:00.000+08:00

A new public transport fare formula has been drawn up for Singapore.

New public transport fare adjustment formula recommended
Putting the brakes on untimely public transport fares hikes. This is one of the thrusts of the recommendations tabled by the Committee on the Fare Review Mechanism... The committee said the new proposed fare adjustment formula would mirror the changes in the cost of living and wages more accurately.

Ong Kian Min, Chairman of the Committee on the Fare Review Mechanism, said: “If this formula had been in operation since 1998, you can see that in some years in applying this formula, it will produce a negative maximum adjustment value which means that in those years conditions were such that the fares should be reduced or rebates should be given by the PTC.”...

Earlier, the Department of Statistics had released figures showing scant inflation in Singapore.

Singapore’s Jan consumer prices up 0.3% month-on-month
Singapore’s consumer prices rose 0.3 percent in January as prices of everything except clothing rose from the month before, the Department of Statistics said on Monday... Seasonally adjusted, the January consumer price index was however flat from December, confounding market forecasts for a rise.

Over the longer term, the consumer price index in January is just about 3 percent higher than in 2000, according to figures provided by the Department of Statistics. In fact, prices actually fell in 2002 from the previous year.

Price indices compiled by the Department of Statistics show that in the fourth quarter of 2004, the import price index was half a percent lower than in 2000, while the export price index was a whopping 16 percent lower than in 2000. In other words, prices that are set in the international market have tended to decline, not rise, no doubt thanks to the dampening effect on prices of low labour costs in emerging countries like China and India. No wonder Singapore workers who face this competition are worried.

In the face of such statistics, prices in Singapore that move in only one direction — up — look out of place. The latest proposal by the Committee on the Fare Review Mechanism appears to be a recognition of the current reality. Hopefully, the lesson is not lost on other price-regulating committees.

Digital Life on specialisation and Dell

2005-02-22T12:57:00.000+08:00

Today’s cover story for Digital Life is on IT skills. It emphasises the importance of continually picking up new skills to stay relevant in the industry.

It also has a novel definition of specialist:

Specialists are well-rounded professionals...

If specialists are well-rounded professionals, what are generalists? Not well-rounded? Not professionals?

Of course, you should read the rest of the passage — and article — for context. It still probably won’t make the phrase look quite right, but at least you should be able to understand where the writer is coming from.

Digital Life also interviewed William Amelio, the head of Dell Asia-Pacific and Japan. According to the article, Dell is reputed for being “a slavedriver employer” while Amelio himself is said to intimidate his employees.

Amelio disagrees.

It’s important that the leader shows a human side of him. It makes it that much easier for people to say that I want to stay in this company and make Dell a great place because it has many great people and leaders that behave appropriately and are role models for others.

So when somebody sees you, whether it’s doing charity work, having a work/life balance, spending time with children or being a good role model parent... that sends the right kind of message across the organisation.

Amelio claims to have improved himself as a leader as a result of feedback that he has received. But he also adds:

We are direct. We set tough goals. We don’t allow anyone to make any excuses. We leave our egos at the door.

It seems to me that good leaders should manage egos, not get people to abandon them. Employees without egos are often employees without motivation.

Maybe Amelio’s views have something to do with his reputation for intimidating his employees. With such a leader, followers have to leave their egos at the door — or leave.

The Straits Times gives its take on funding for biomed

2005-02-21T10:31:00.000+08:00

The Straits Times carries a report today entitled “Ignorance closes door to biomed funding” which claims that the lack of local biomedical funding is the result of ignorance on the part of the financial sector.

[O]ne crucial ingredient for a successful [biomedical] hub is sorely missing: funding and support from the financial sector. Local biomedical firms say venture capitalists, financial institutions, the Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX) and investors here generally have a limited understanding of the sector's unique characteristics and funding needs. Few appreciate its special traits: enormous capital costs, long development periods, high risks — and potentially immense returns.

If the biomedical sector is characterised by enormous capital costs, long development periods and high risks, why not blame the lack of funding on these characteristics, rather than ignorance? If anything, the financial sector may be reluctant to invest in biomed precisely because it is well aware of these sector traits. Not everyone — even venture capitalists — can afford to take the risks that some biomedical investments entail.

The report seems to lack balance. While it quotes several people from the biomedical sector, the closest it comes to quoting someone from the financial sector was when it mentions Dr Beh Swan Gin, director of the biomedical sciences group with the Economic Development Board — which provides some biomedical funding — as saying that “there are very few [venture capitalists based in Singapore] with expertise in biomedical sciences”.

The report also mentions a group called BioSingapore which, among other things, aims to help biomedical firms get access to finance. It says:

With about 30 new members in the past three months, the group is plugging away to sell this message: it’s worth putting your faith and money in Singapore’s biomed future, even if lucrative returns take time.

Anybody who knows anything about financial advisory knows that you don’t make such a blanket recommendation on investment without knowing the specific financial circumstances of the target of the recommendation. As far as I can tell, BioSingapore itself does not make such an explicit recommendation in writing. Even if it did, the newspaper is not obliged to parrot what the group says.

If The Straits Times is intent on putting out a piece of advocacy, I guess this report is a passable one. Otherwise, it should stick to maintaining some sense of journalistic balance.

Women make poor leaders, 20-somethings make poor advisers

2005-02-20T12:00:00.000+08:00

Okay, the title is deliberately provocative. But it’s what you might conclude after reading The Sunday Times today.

A feature entitled “Wonder Women...or Wicked Witches” cites a survey which shows that most people prefer working under male bosses. It goes on to list the following stereotypes of women bosses:

Maternal and nurturing

Demanding and fastidious

Unable to see the big picture and take a gamble

Possesses both high IQ and EQ

Emotional and takes everything personally

Susceptible to PMS

The article, however, quotes Kamal Kant of career and training consultancy Next Transition as saying: “It is the personality, upbringing and life experiences that determine whether a boss is rational and realistic or ruthless and rough in his approach.”

And yet, stereotypes do create problems for the victim. Effective leadership relies to a certain extent on the confidence that followers have in their leadership. Insofar as stereotypes undermine this confidence, they can affect the leader’s ability to lead and therefore be self-fulfilling.

The article cites the ouster of Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina as putting the limelight on women bosses. It could also have highlighted the case of Lawrence Summers, the Harvard University president who created a furore by suggesting that innate differences between men and women may help explain why fewer women work in the academic sciences.

The Summers case raises the question of whether there are indeed innate differences between men and women that may account for the difference in their behaviour and level of success at work. I’ll leave this question for the experts to sort out.

But in the Harvard University case, it is not so much what Summers said but how he said it that caused the furore. And that essentially reflects a failure in leadership — ironically, in a man.

Not that I want to pick on Summers. No man — or woman — is perfect. Everybody makes mistakes. And Summers was “man enough” to admit that he made a mistake.

Which leads me to the second part of this post.

The Invest section of The Sunday Times today carried the story of an investor in his 60s who seems to have done rather well on his own through staying close to the news. The story says of him:

Having invested in Singapore stocks for most of his working life, he has acquired an intuitive feel for markets... These days, the last thing he wants is advice from bank advisers who are “too young”, or 20-something, he says.

He cites a case where one of them kept persuading him to hold on to his US dollar deposits. Going against his own conviction that the US dollar is headed down, [he] held on for a few months until he decided he had lost enough and closed his account.

The US dollar has fallen over the past few years, so his adviser made a mistake in recommending it. Is the mistake necessarily because of his age or lack of experience? It did occur to me on reading the article that a few years ago, many older and supposedly more experienced analysts also thought that the US dollar was a good investment. Age may not be as important a factor as he implies.

And yet, my own personal experience does suggest that in Singapore, organisations often do put young people in positions of responsibility for which they are not sufficiently qualified. I know Singaporeans in their 20s in specialist appointments who know less on their specialty than generalists from western countries. Of course, the latter are often in their 40s or even 50s.

The first point is: Experience counts. And this is important in the light of the ageism being experienced in Singapore.

In Singapore, good performers are more often than not promoted to managers. While they may also perform well as managers, this practice often means that they stop doing what they are known to be good at while possibly depriving their profession or vocation of their accumulated skills and experience (so it wouldn’t entirely surprise me to see unqualified 20-somethings giving incorrect investment advice). And for those who get promoted to managers but don’t perform well, the problem only gets compounded.

The second point is common with the first part of the blog. Many people carry and act on perceptions that have not been properly thought through. Whether it is prejudices against women, against the old or against the young, such perceptions, when carried to extremes, not only negatively affect the objects of the prejudices but also prevents society from fully utilising the resources that are actually available to it.

It is society’s loss. Therefore, it is in society’s interest to correct such prejudices.

Singapore 2005 budget

2005-02-19T10:59:00.000+08:00

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong presented the government’s budget for 2005 yesterday.

Budget aims to create opportunity, build community: PM Lee

Singapore Budget 2005

Conscription in Singapore

2005-02-18T12:24:00.000+08:00

Redrown has an interesting series of posts which essentially questions the value of conscription in Singapore. It comes in five parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5.

Huichieh and Olorin of From a Singapore Angle have excellent responses to the posts, especially on the military aspects.

The posts and responses are long and involved, and I think excerpts won’t do them justice. So those interested should just read the original posts.

As for me, I think that conscription does add value to Singapore’s defence capability. The question is whether it is worth the social and economic costs. Unfortunately, I have not seen anything that answers this question to my satisfaction, either in blogs or anywhere else — not even in the aforementioned posts. And realistically, I probably never will.

Nevertheless, the value of analyses like those in the above posts is that they lay out the issues involved so that policy makers can try to maximise the positives and minimise the negatives, while individuals can be made aware of the issues, arrive at their own conclusions and preferences, and act — write, analyse, advocate, vote etc. — accordingly.

Good arguments should not be wasted.

Singapore Air Force reviews US training despite royal treatment

2005-02-17T18:49:00.000+08:00

The following news was taken from the Portales News-Tribune.

Singapore Air Force reviewing training
The entire Singapore Air Force training operations in America are under review, officials from the Singapore Ministry of Defense and the U.S. Air Force said Wednesday. But no decision has been made about what will happen to the 428th Fighter Squadron at Cannon Air Force Base, which is comprised of about 100 Royal Singapore Air Force personnel, officials said.

“We are not discussing about the detachment in Clovis (exclusively). We are re-evaluating our overall, overseas detachment training needs,” said Col. Bernard Toh in a telephone interview from Singapore. Toh, a spokesperson for the Singapore Ministry of Defense, said it is standard procedure to re-evaluate training missions in America every few years...

An official statement from the media operations center at the Pentagon underscored the Singaporean message. “The Royal Singapore Air Force is reviewing the force structure of their overseas detachments and is in consultation with the U.S. Air Force,” the release showed.

Randy Harris, president of Bank of Clovis and member of the Committee of Fifty that promotes and supports Cannon operations, said he was aware of the review process going on, but said there is no way to know the ultimate outcome... While in Clovis, the Singaporean families have been active in the community, Harris said. “I think the families have enjoyed tremendously being out west here, and especially the reception the community has given them,” Harris said...

Something’s brewing at the Republic of Singapore Air Force.

The little red dot hosts the prestigious Red Dot

2005-02-16T10:06:00.000+08:00

Singapore will be hosting one of the Red Dot design Awards.

Singapore lands Red Dot Award
SINGAPORE has beaten out other Asian countries to serve as host to one of the world’s most prestigious design awards. Into its 50th year, the Red Dot Design Award is introducing a third category, Concept Design, which will overseen in Singapore. This is the first time the Award will be administered outside of Germany, where the other two categories of Product Design and Communication Design will continue to be held.

It looks like former Indonesian president B J Habibie was quite prescient after all in his description of Singapore.

The opinions of others

2005-02-15T13:53:00.000+08:00

Salman Rushdie was introduced into the Singapore blogosphere by Mc Dermott’s blog, and his comments on the right to offend people in the name of a free society was picked up by caustic.soda and From a Singapore Angle as well.

I won’t bother to reproduce Rushdie’s comments. You can find them in the above blogs. Or in the full essay. Suffice to say that he believes that getting offended is part and parcel of a free society.

That seems fair enough. But I would add that getting offended should be incidental to the ultimate aim of free speech, which is to generate ideas and have them contested so that the best ideas prevail. Unfortunately, creating offense can be counterproductive to that goal.

Rushdie’s recommended method of argument:

You never personalise, but you have absolutely no respect for people’s opinions. You are never rude to the person, but you can be savagely rude about what the person thinks.

This is hyperbole, or at least, it should be treated as such. Taking it at face value raises a few questions.

Firstly: Why should one have absolutely no respect for people’s opinions? Especially if the opinions are well-argued? If you have absolutely no respect for others’ opinions, how do you integrate them into your own views?

In my opinion — and you can choose not to respect it if you wish — while some people may be overly respectful of the opinions of certain authority figures, there are also many who have too little respect for others’ views, have problems seeing issues from others’ perspectives (see “Perspective, please”) and are too quick to dismiss their opinions, especially those that don’t tally with their own. Be mindful of both tendencies.

Secondly: How likely is it that you can savagely attack a person’s idea without the person feeling offended? And if he does feel offended, how is he likely to react? Happily admit that he is wrong and embrace the opposing point of view? Or harness his aroused emotions to put up a more coherent argument? And what do you do with those sensitive souls sitting on the sidelines waiting for a chance to throw in their own ideas, but seeing instead the fate that may befall them? Tell them that if they are so sensitive, their opinions must be useless and they can go fly a kite instead?

Rushdie’s method may work for an academic sitting in an ivory tower mulling over an idea in his own mind or with other academics in a private setting, but it can be inflammatory and counterproductive in a public discourse, as Rushdie should well know.

However, Salman Rushdie is not a leader of men, and probably just as well. A leader would keep the end in mind and not be fixated on the means. But perhaps that’s beside the point; to Rushdie, free speech is apparently an end in itself.

Talking of leadership, Koh Buck Song, leadership guru at The Straits Times, has a commentary today on the importance of communication in society, which seems relevant to the foregoing. The commentary was written in the context of the Singapore government’s call for greater participation by the youth in Singapore. He says:

Rousing the young has its inherent benefits. There is no doubt about the cohesive value of allowing people just to feel they have a place and platform to say their piece.

Beyond that, many will also be looking to see how ideas will be processed, and the best ones implemented.

An abiding challenge is how to tackle scepticism, founded on observations that previous consultation exercises left good suggestions floating but not fulfilled.

Tackling scepticism shouldn’t be the problem. It’s an unfortunate choice of words. In an earlier paragraph, he had used the word “cynicism”, which seems more appropriate.

In fact, scepticism is what Singapore may need more of, and is probably the correct approach to evaluating others’ ideas. Scepticism means to retain doubts on something. It means not to be too quick to believe, but not necessarily to disbelieve. After all, as someone once said, disbelief is belief with a minus sign in front of it.

Budget airline may sue Singapore

2005-02-14T11:10:00.000+08:00

Indonesian budget carrier AWAIR, the Indonesian arm of Malaysian budget airline AirAsia, has been in the news lately. First, it had its planned flight between Singapore and Jakarta cancelled after a delay in approval by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. Now, it seems that the airline is considering seeking compensation from the Singapore government.

AWAir To Seek Compensation From Singapore
AWAir, a unit of Malaysia’s budget carrier AirAsia, will seek compensation from the Singapore government for blocking the Indonesia-based airline’s flights to the city-state from Jakarta, AirAsia said on Tuesday.

“We have suffered financial loss and should be compensated. We are looking at all possible avenues,” AirAsia’s executive director, Kamaruddin Meranum, said. He did not rule out the possibility of legal action. “We have not gone to that stage yet,” he added...

AWAir has dropped plans for flights between Indonesia and Singapore after failing to secure landing rights from the wealthy city-state... Kamaruddin said... “I strongly feel this is a case of protectionism by the Singapore government”...

In Singapore, CAAS officials were not immediately available for comment...

Not for the first time in this saga, the CAAS has shown itself to be not very keen on explaining its position. In the meantime, the bad press on it is piling up. Note how The Star Online reported this — the CAAS side of the story was hardly mentioned — and how the story was subsequently picked up by Forbes.com.

Operation Flying Eagle

2005-02-13T16:03:00.000+08:00

Lzydata of Singapore Ink looks at the story of Operation Flying Eagle — the Singapore Armed Forces’ tsunami relief deployment — and wonders how the SAF would perform in a large-scale overseas deployment.

[T]he larger issue here may be the lack of “jointness” in our SAF as a whole - they “have never trained together before” & all that. ... One wonders how the “landlubbers” most of our Army may be would cope in the event of a large-scale overseas deployment. In a less peaceful operational environment than Meulaboh, to what extent will their capability be affected because of lack of experience in training & familiarity with the Navy & Air Force? Surely we can expect our people to, at the very least, hitch a ride without becoming sick, especially when their real work awaits them at their destination. What about food for not just 470, but thousands? Would we airlift NTUC foodfare people in? Do they even expect to be deployed militarily like this?

... I can think of one response to my doubts: the bulk of our Army is not intended to be an expeditionary force; it only needs to defend & proceed from our ground. That is quite possible, but the merits of such a doctrine is questionable. Even as the success of Operation Flying Eagle is laudable, it exposes some institutional problems we may have to think about.

Huichieh of From a Singapore Angle is more sanguine.

I’m not all that surprise at the supposed “lack of jointness” exhibited (people not having trained together). Training for rapid deployment on LSTs overseas is still comparatively new to us, and besides, what kind of message would our neighbors be getting if we are always practicing for that.

In any case, this is hardly the usual combat deployment. But that said, there is certainly much that the SAF could work on, and I’m sure Operation Flying Eagle gave it the golden opportunity to evaluate existing equipment, methods, prodecures, etc, in ways that more set piece exercises would not be able to. All in all, the men and women of the SAF are to be commended for pulling it off...

One thing that really struck me about the (professional) SAF personnel--they embodied the very “initiative” and “thinking out of the box” that our education system tries so hard to cultivate (with debatable success).

I agree with Lzydata that there is much that the SAF must learn to build up a credible expeditionary capability. In fact, in view of its general lack of combat experience, that is true of many other operational aspects as well.

But as Huichieh points out, that is where experiences like Operation Flying Eagle can help. And his comment on initiative and thinking out of the box is also worth highlighting; in real operations, things seldom go according to plan, so such abilities are often critical.

On a more general note, my own view of the SAF is that it is not as good as it claims to be — but then, which army is? What may be more important is not whether the SAF is good but whether its potential adversaries are worse.

Year of the Rooster

2005-02-09T10:37:00.000+08:00

Today marks the start of the Year of the Rooster according to the Chinese calendar.

While the Chinese or Lunar New Year will primarily be celebrated in East Asia, it is also having some impact in other countries — and not necessarily because there are Chinese there.

Is Chinese New Year a desi festival?
Till about a year ago, Chinese New Year celebrations and the ensuing long holidays in the Far East were inconsequential to India. But this is no longer the case.

As China, a growing trade partner of India, heralds in Year 4,702 — the Year of the Rooster in the Chinese calendar — from Wednesday, various governments and most companies in China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan will come to a standstill for well over seven days.

At the same time, many Indians are also enjoying a holiday, especially those employed in trading, shipping, commodities, business process outsourcing (BPO) services related to the Hong Kong, Singapore and Shanghai markets... Employees of many shipping companies and general agents have gone on holidays, since the entire month is seen as a lean season. “Nothing much happens during February, thanks to the Chinese New Year...” says an official from Transworld...

Meanwhile, in Chinese-majority Singapore, families are also doing their bit to spread the festival overseas.

More Chinese families spending Lunar New Year overseas
More and more Chinese families are spending the first two days of the Lunar New Year away from home. Helped by the long weekend, some have left Singapore as early as Saturday afternoon.

For those who stay behind, fret not. There are still places to visit and things to do over the rest of the festive period.

Happy Lunar New Year.

Income risk — Part 2

2005-02-08T13:32:00.000+08:00

I title this post as “Income risk” but this AFP/Yahoo! News story also ties in a few themes that I have explored recently. Excerpt:

Curse of part-time work shatters Japan’s middle-class dreams
After a decade of corporate restructuring, a third of Japan’s workforce is now in part-time or contract jobs, a trend policy makers worry will erode contributions to the social safety net and further discourage people from having children in a rapidly ageing society.

A phenomenon known as ‘freeters’, workers who are free-minded but financially unstable, began at the peak of the 1980s economic bubble when young Japanese shunned the regimented corporate world in favour of the more flexible hours offered by part-time work.

But according to a 2003 government survey, 70 percent of freeters aged 15 to 34 would now prefer to have full-time jobs...

Traditionally in Japan people have found the most stable job opportunities only at graduation from high-school or university.

This means it is hard to join the workforce at any other time as a full-time worker, and the practice of hiring new graduates for long-term employment is fading, said Reiko Kosugi, senior researcher at the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training...

Jobs offered to high school graduates now total only 200,000 a year, down sharply from an average 1.68 million in the early 1990s, while offers to university graduates have declined to two-thirds of the levels seen a decade ago...

With the widening income gap, a mindset of winners and losers is developing in a workforce that once largely thought of itself as a middle-class mass. “I think the sense of inequality is growing among those in the workforce,” said Fumio Otake, associate professor, Institute of Social and Economic Research at Osaka University...

Many young people turned off by the job hunt rely on their parents, but such support is not a long-term option...

Economic uncertainty and income risk is a worldwide phenomenon, not just an American one nor a Singaporean one. Note how the story brings in the problem of falling birth rates and perceptions of economic inequality, which are also of concern in Singapore. And with the difficulty in getting stable jobs, even for graduates, the role of agencies that facilitate employment — like the Workforce Development Agency — and the availability of long-term financial support take on added significance.

So the story has relevance to Singapore, and it is no surprise that The Straits Times also carries a version of the report today.

WDA travels half the world to make inquiries in Person

2005-02-07T13:29:00.000+08:00

Personnel from the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) visit the United States to find new ways to help Singapore workers upgrade and retrain themselves. Excerpt:

Singapore delegation takes pointers from PCC
Given that its country is facing training and worker education challenges akin to those here in the United States, a delegation from Singapore’s Workforce Development Agency visited Piedmont Community College this week to learn what the college is doing to prepare Personians for jobs of the 21st Century.

The group of five seemed impressed by what they heard from PCC Continuing Education staff and Roxie Russell, branch manager of the Person County Employment Security Commission.

The Singapore delegation asked questions Thursday throughout a three-hour presentation in which PCC staff and Russell explained the tools used here to help dislocated and unskilled workers find and keep jobs...

The WDA seems keen enough to improve itself. See also a previous post.

High expectations and cost of living

2005-02-04T13:59:00.000+08:00

The Straits Times today reproduced an article by Ling Chien Yien that had first appeared in Lianhe Zaobao. An excerpt:

Several bread-and-butter issues were discussed at length in Parliament recently. The conclusion drawn was that since per capital income had grown faster than the cost of living from 1998 to 2003, it is not true that middle-income families are worse off than before. Rather it is Singaporeans’ rising expectations, among other reasons, that have led them to complain.

The writer, however, disputed this conclusion.

Singaporeans have for years heeded the call of the Government and worked hard to create economic wealth. It was the common hope of both the Government and the people to see their standard of living rise. Therefore, to hint now that Singaporeans’ rising expectations are not absolutely necessary, and are even asking for trouble, would be an injustice to the middle- and lower-income groups

In fact, we should ask whether, in the process of raising the standard of living, we realistically identified and addressed the high expectations of the people and the price to be paid to meet these expectations.

Given people’s current income levels, did we consider whether they could afford these expectations?

The writer then went on at length to describe how costs have gone up in Singapore.

The article drew a rebuttal from Chen Hwai Liang, press secretary to the Prime Minister.

It would not be correct to blame the difficulties that households face on the high cost of living, which in turn has resulted from government policies. Some prices have indeed risen, while other have come down. To households, no cost increase is welcome, especially in tough times. But we have to look at the overall impact of the price changes, to see how significant they have been... If we examine the facts more carefully, we will find that for most Singaporeans, the cost of living has not risen by much.

Mr Chen concluded as follows:

All Singaporeans hope and strive for a better life. We have achieved this for many years, even though the last few have been difficult. While costs have gone up modestly, they have not been the main reason that households have felt pressure. Nobody wants to turn back the clock to the days before air-conditioners or handphones, or when only a small minority could afford overseas travel, even though costs might have been lower then. The way forward is to create more prosperity and growth, so that Singaporeans can get better jobs, and attain the higher standards of living that we all aspire to.

First, let’s frame the issue properly. In my opinion, it is the frustration experienced by some Singaporeans from unmet expectations.

The argument that this frustration can be blamed on the government’s failure to curb rising costs is one that is commonly forwarded but is difficult to defend when confronted with the full set of economic data.

There are two components to rising costs: inflation in prices and increased consumption volume.

For price inflation, a sense of realism is needed. Singapore’s economic development depends on integrating itself into the global economy. An internationally-integrated economy must reflect international prices, adjusted for local conditions. Apart from certain exceptions, Singapore’s local prices are generally comparable to international prices and are not obviously out of line.

Prices of certain domestic goods and services may have risen rapidly over the past few decades. Hawker food is commonly cited. Actually, this rapid rise in prices is to be expected in a fast-developing economy. To put it simplistically, Singapore’s rising per capita income reflects the bidding-up of the price of labour in Singapore. All products and services produced by Singapore labour would tend to go up correspondingly. Any service whose price lags would tend to get bid up with rising affluence while at the same time, workers abandon that service to seek more lucrative trades, creating scarcity.

The point here is that prices tend to be pulled along with income. While there may be some areas of inefficiencies which give rise to unduly high prices, the fact is that real per capita income in Singapore has risen almost continuously over the past few decades.

So blaming unmet expectations on price inflation has relatively little obvious implication on policy. While some Singaporeans’ aspirations are possibly being frustrated by a perception that inflation is eroding income gains, as a matter of policy, it is not clear exactly how much more the government can do or could have done to reduce general inflation without creating other conditions that frustrate the aspirations of Singaporeans as a whole even more.

Which brings me to the other component of increasing costs: increased consumption volume. Singaporeans are consuming more, which is why their cost of living has gone up. Higher living costs resulting from higher consumption can hardly be depicted as bad (although Ling did allude to the possibility that part of the higher consumption could be the result of deficiencies in national income/expenditure accounting).

So if Singaporeans are consuming more but their expectations remain unsatisfied, doesn’t that mean it is their own fault for raising their expectations excessively?

Perhaps. But Singaporeans are humans. And humans base their expectations not only on absolute needs but on relative needs as well. In other words, the need to keep up with their neighbours.

And this phenomenon is hardly unique to Singapore. Take, for example, the following excerpt from a review by The Economist of a book entitled Happiness: Lessons from a New Science by Richard Layard, a professor of economics at the London School of Economics:

FOR the past half-century, those lucky enough to have been born in a rich country have had every prospect of growing richer. On average, incomes in Britain, America and Japan, adjusted for inflation, have easily doubled over that time. On top of this come the benefits of longer lives of better quality, thanks to advances in medicine and to a plethora of consumer goodies making living easier and more enjoyable. You might, even, expect folk to be a great deal happier today than in the 1950s.

You would be wrong, according to many surveys taken in rich countries. These tend to show that, once a country has lifted itself out of poverty, further rises in income seem not to create a meaningful rise in the proportion of people who count themselves as happy...

Lord Layard devotes a good portion of the book to a summary of what is known about how to be happy. Much of it will appear self-evident: cultivate friendships, be involved in a community, try for a good marriage. But his big idea is controversial. It is that a zero-sum game of competition for money and status has gripped rich societies, and that this rat race is a big source of unhappiness. Put simply, one person’s pay rise is another person’s psychic loss. To make that loss worse, says the author, there are only so many top rungs on the ladder of status...

And this suggests that press secretary Chen’s assertion that the “way forward is to create more prosperity and growth” may not necessarily be correct.

Rather, one should ask, as Ling did, whether, in asking Singaporeans to work hard to create economic wealth, the government had “realistically identified and addressed the high expectations of the people and the price to be paid to meet these expectations”, not so much because inflation increases that price but because the very process of wealth creation raises expectations and, in the words of Lord Layard, effectively puts people “on a treadmill that brings less advance in happiness than we expected”.

Casino: It’s about money versus money

2005-02-03T15:19:00.000+08:00

In my post “Parliamentary debate chokes on values”, I had mentioned Member of Parliament Tan Soo Khoon saying that the casino debate is about “money versus values”. Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan has a different take.

Too early to decide if Singapore should have a casino: DPM Tan
Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan has said he feels it is too early to decide if Singapore should have a casino...

Dr Tan said: “It is a complex issue and we can look at it in many dimensions. I think it is good that people should be given time to give their views. A lot of debate has been going on for this issue for quite some time. It has been framed in various ways I think.

“One discussion has been to look at it from value against money. Do we sacrifice our moral values for economic gain? There is a lot of talk on that issue. Another way to look at it is some people have tried to frame it as an issue of whether Singaporeans are mature enough. Can they look after their own money? Are they responsible? Are they grown up?

“My own view on the casino debate. I would tend to take a very hard-headed practical view of the casino, pragmatic. To me the essential question is on balance. Is having a casino in Singapore an economic plus or an economic minus for Singapore?”

In other words, it is not so much “money versus values” but “money versus money”.

That’s not too surprising. After all, for those who talk in terms of values, what exactly are the values that are usually mentioned in relation to the casino debate? Freedom from the vice of gambling, working hard for a living. What is the point of these values? Accumulating and retaining money. So it has always been money versus money.

You can also argue that it has always been values versus values — and I’m not just referring to the accumulation of money as a value. A casino brings money to Singapore. But it does this by allowing free enterprise. And in the process, it creates jobs — jobs that allow Singaporeans to better provide for their families, something that the “values” group can probably relate to.

So at the end of the day, money and values are merely means to ends. But different people connect with the issue in different ways depending on how the issue is framed.

Some people connect better when the issue is framed in terms of money; Dr Tony Tan is a case in point. Others connect better when the issue is framed in terms of values. If the pros for having a casino are cast in terms of money while the cons are cast in terms of values, the latter would tend to oppose allowing a casino, and vice versa.

The Singapore government is generally pragmatic and would probably not limit itself to thinking in just monetary or values terms. As Dr Tan says, the issue can be looked at in many dimensions, although in this regard, Dr Tan’s own statement quoted at the end of the Channel NewsAsia report is revealing.

Of course, personal circumstances also matter. Those who know people who are addicted to gambling, for example, would tend to oppose it. Those who are unemployed might welcome it.

Huichieh has also posted his own take (see “The Prince and the People”) on how the Singapore government handles issues like the casino, as did Han earlier.

2005 Work-Life Innovative Excellence Award

2005-02-03T15:16:00.000+08:00

Singapore’s efforts at work-life balance has gained recognition abroad.

Singapore wins 2005 Work-Life Innovative Excellence Award
Singapore has become the first Asian country, and also the first outside the United States, to win the prestigious Work-Life Innovative Excellence Award. The annual award by the US-based Alliance for Work-Life Progress is to recognise development and advancement of work-life effectiveness.

It is given this year to the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports for efforts by its Work-Life Unit to promote work-life harmony and create family friendly workplaces in the country...

Awards are nice, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As I have pointed out in previous posts (“What working women want”, “Perspective, please” and “More innovative businesses, fewer babies”) there is still little indication that the Ministry’s efforts are getting the results where they matter.

Entrepreneurship: Fools rush in where angels fear to tread

2005-02-03T15:02:00.000+08:00

If the Singapore government wants to encourage entrepreneurship, maybe it should try to make more Singaporeans overconfident of their abilities. Rob at the BusinessPundit points to an article in BusinessWeek entitled “Ego Makes Entrepreneurs?” which suggests that it’s not risk tolerance that separates entrepreneurs from the rest but “overconfidence in their ability”. Excerpt:

While conventional wisdom assumes entrepreneurs have great risk tolerance compared to the rest of us, in controlled experiments that tracked attitudes to risk, we consistently found that they aren't really that different. In some cases, they're even more risk averse [than the norm], and yet they continue to bear risk...

Entrepreneurs, like everybody else, hate uncontrollable risks, but on the other hand, they're overconfident in their own abilities -- they think they can control their abilities in a random drawing of people...

Entrepreneurs appear to be risk seeking with respect to their ability. For example, if there are two industries and one has a high cost of ability uncertainty and the other has a low cost of ability uncertainty, the entrepreneur will choose the first case because of his overconfidence.

Without looking at the study’s results in detail, I can’t be sure exactly how valid the conclusion is. It is intuitively attractive, though. Entrepreneurs are generally doers, and any trait that promotes action — and overconfidence obviously would — seems a natural fit with entrepreneurs, although of course, there will always be exceptions.

The conclusion does suggest that the government’s efforts to promote risk-taking among Singaporeans may not get the payback it hopes.

Government to be more open to extreme sports in Singapore
Thrill seekers in Singapore may have more avenues to leap, dive or climb in the future. Acting Community, Youth and Sports Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan says the government plans to take a more open approach towards extreme sports...as the government takes a renewed look at the possible benefits from risk management, which is part and parcel of any extreme sport... “What I am signalling now is a receptiveness to new ideas, new proposals for sports, even extreme sports which build up positive attitudes to risk taking in young Singaporeans, build up team spirit and ultimately, national spirit.” said Dr Vivian...

The key, rather, may be to habituate people to success. That would require them to spend most of their time doing things that they are good at.

Unemployment woes for mature graduates

2005-02-01T10:57:00.000+08:00

The Ministry of Manpower reported yesterday that Singapore’s unemployment rate rose to 3.7 percent in December. It also reported that employment rose by 27,500 in the fourth quarter and 66,200 for the whole of 2004.

In spite of such encouraging news, a letter published in The Straits Times today points out that many graduates remain unemployed.

With all the talk about jobs, unemployment and working till a “ripe old age”, it is indeed strange that I have been increasingly meeting qualified individuals who have been left on the shelf. These people are usually past 35, 40 years of age and have post-graduate degrees... [Many] I have spoken to are left jobless, some for more than a year!

I am baffled as to why these qualified individuals are jobless... It seems that the mindset in the corporate world in Singapore is to hire young/younger graduates, leaving these very qualified batch of people out in the cold. If this trend continues, it looks like experience counts for nothing and upgrading of skills is useless...

For older workers, getting them to fit into an organisation is often the main challenge, not qualification. In fact, high qualification sometimes means high employee expectation that may be difficult to meet. Experience sometimes means entrenched mindsets that may be difficult to change.

Furthermore, much of the experience gained by workers is intangible and difficult for prospective employers to assess. That is why networking is so important in getting jobs. Someone who knows you is much more likely to offer you a job than someone who does not.

One alternative for the mature unemployed is entrepeneurship. High qualifications and experience may come in handy in setting up a consultancy.

The plight of the unemployed is made worse by the lack of unemployment benefit in Singapore. Unemployment benefit, unfortunately, would not be a panacea either. To prevent abuse, most countries that provide unemployment benefits have introduced or are introducing conditions on their disbursement. This can lead to situations like that in the following Herald Sun report (also reported in The Straits Times):

Just lie back and think of dole
A 25-year-old woman is risking her unemployment benefits after refusing to be a prostitute.

The woman, an unemployed information technology worker, was contacted by her local job centre telling her an employer was interested in her “profile”, Britain’s Daily Telegraph reported. She was not told who the employer was... Only when she phoned did she discover she was being recruited by a brothel...

Under Germany’s welfare laws, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit...

Singapore’s unemployed don’t face this problem. I’m not sure they’re thankful for it, though.

Ho Ching meets her match while Cisco meets CISCO

2005-01-27T18:06:00.000+08:00

William Mellor of Bloomberg News looks at Temasek Holdings — in particular, its performance under Ho Ching. Excerpt:

An investor meets her match
Since Ho became Temasek’s chief in 2002, the group’s returns have soared... “Historical returns in Temasek-linked companies have not been impressive,” says Prabodh Agarwal, CLSA’s Singapore-based head of research. That has changed, he says. “Temasek-linked companies are much better investment propositions than ever before.”

CLSA estimates that total returns to shareholders of Temasek’s publicly traded companies were 15 percent over two years and 33 percent in the year that ended in August, compared with a 1.6 percent decline during the decade that ended in August. Temasek...says its own returns on its entire portfolio...were 3 percent over 10 years, 8 percent over two years and 46 percent in the year that ended in March...

Ho’s plan to double Temasek’s presence in Asia outside of Japan and Singapore to 33 percent of its total investments from the current 16 percent may cost 24 billion Singapore dollars over 10 years, says Lim Jit Soon, head of Singapore research at Citigroup Global Markets. Greg Pau, S&P’s Singapore-based director of corporate ratings, says, “Any company going into unfamiliar territory typically pays a tuition fee.”

Alan Cockshaw, a director of CapitaLand, says that not expanding might be even riskier, particularly with a small domestic market such as Singapore’s...

One recent investment that soured was China Aviation Oil, which in November reported $550 million of losses from trading oil derivatives...

Temasek’s own companies stumble at times. “They’re very smart guys at Temasek, and you have some well-run companies in the stable, but you also have some not-so-great ones,” says Hugh Young, the Singapore-based managing director of Aberdeen Asset Management. Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing, a Singapore and Nasdaq-listed company that has not made an annual profit since 2000, is one such example, Young says.

The government’s dominant role in running companies may also be to blame, says Linda Lim, a Singaporean who is professor of corporate strategy and international business at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

“Temasek’s overall rates of return may have been dragged down by the kinds of things they invested in for national strategy rather than pure financial return,” Lim says. “The role of the state in business has become at best unnecessary and at worst dysfunctional.”

On a lighter note: Somebody seems to have confused Singapore’s CISCO with US network equipment provider Cisco Systems.

Singapore Nationalizes CISCO
CISCO is getting nationalized into a new company, wholly owned by the Singapore government. It’s true. And those CISCO uniforms will be changing as well, to a new design that won’t include the insignia of the Singapore police force...

“CISCO” happens to be the name of the auxiliary police force in Singapore, an organization established in 1972. This CISCO deals in bodyguards, armored cars, alarm systems, and the like -- not to be confused with the U.S.-based networking equipment provider, Cisco Systems Inc. Last summer, Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs announced plans to corporatize CISCO, freeing it of the restrictions placed on government agencies; the change in uniforms was announced yesterday.

A Cisco Systems spokeswoman says she’d never heard of CISCO and was initially taken aback upon seeing the story in the Singapore press. “I thought: My goodness, who is this?” she says. “I would think we would have come upon that group before.”...

That may be more likely if CISCO decides to follow in Temasek’s footsteps and expand overseas.

Gallup highlights leadership deficiencies in Singapore

2005-01-26T18:54:00.000+08:00

A recent survey by The Gallup Organization has provided clues as to why Singapore workers are not engaged in their work: Deficiencies in their leadership. Excerpt from a report in The Straits Times today.

WHY are Singaporean workers “bo chap”, or uninterested? For the answer, look no further than their bosses.

Employees who get no feedback, don’t see their best ideas implemented, and also do not get grooming to become the next generation of leadership, simply “disengage” from their jobs.

And that is what Singapore bosses and leaders need to fix — and fast, says the latest poll by The Gallup Organization, the Gallup Leadership Institute at the University of Nebraska and the Singapore Institute of Management...

Frankly, though, this shouldn’t be news to anyone who has been following the management scene in Singapore. It just hasn’t been given the same publicity in the local media as, say, “poor worker attitude” or “poor customer service”. It’s useful to remember, though, that the performance of the worker is often linked to the kind of leadership that he gets.

More innovative businesses, fewer babies

2005-01-25T14:29:00.000+08:00

Singapore saw more innovative businesses being set up last year.

Singapore attracts more innovation-driven enterprises from a rich diversity of industries & geographies
Last year, 3,664 new high-tech businesses and companies were formed in Singapore, of which 624 were foreign. This high level of innovation-driven enterprise formation affirms Singapore's pro-enterprise environment.

However, Singapore also saw fewer babies being produced last year.

New record low of 36,900 babies born in 2004, but trend reversing
The number of babies born last year has hit a new historic low. According to the Health Ministry, there were 700 fewer babies born last year as compared to 2003.

I guess Singaporeans can only afford to do one or the other, but not both.

Job descriptions

2005-01-23T09:49:00.000+08:00

Andre Cheong, regional director of PSD Group, an international executive search organisation, had this to say in an article for the Recruit section of The Straits Times yesterday.

Before I came to work in executive search, I did not believe in the use of job descriptions. I used to think that job descriptions were dangerous because of their tendency to limit an employee’s work, responsibility, and most important, his imagination...

All this changed when I once had to handle a large project... I asked [three executives] to write single-page descriptions of what they were going to do... There were, to say the least, a significant number of overlapping issues, contradictory viewpoints... I could not help thinking about the chaos that would have ensued had I not asked for the job descriptions.

After resisting them early in my career, I have changed my opinion about job descriptions. I now think they are a useful way to:

Identify the number and degree of responsibilities

Agree on the priorities

Discover and resolve areas of conflict

Correct dangerous misconceptions

Establish specific goals, and

Set timelines

Any organisation that has more than a few employees is probably better off with having job descriptions for them. By delineating responsibilities among employees, job descriptions enhance two things that are important in business: accountability and predictability.

Bosses are often averse to job descriptions for their subordinates because they want the power to do what they deem fit. This is especially true for those “doer” types who are attracted to visions and don’t like constraints. For example, Cheong says he did not previously believe in the use of job descriptions because they limit an employee’s “imagination”; a person’s imagination is, of course, limitless.

But smart bosses also know that subordinates who are not unwilling to step out of their job descriptions are usually rule-oriented individuals who would also not be happy to work without one.

PM Lee responds to MPs

2005-01-20T18:20:00.000+08:00

Yesterday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong responded to the issues raised by MPs in Parliament recently.

Singapore govt gives $100m boost to help needy patients
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has addressed the many concerns raised by MPs in Parliament over the past few days... Mr Lee also announced help measures in the form of a new job redesign programme for older workers — injecting $100 million into Medifund — and a $500 million ComCare Fund for the CDCs' social assistance programmes. As for engaging Singaporeans, Mr Lee said the government will devolve more power to the people...

According to The Straits Times, though, PM Lee has ruled out increasing social welfare benefits as requested by opposition member Low Thia Kiang. “Who’s going to pay the bill?” he asked.

Who, indeed?

Entrepreneurial society and economic cycles

2005-01-19T14:34:00.000+08:00

Nominated MP Loo Choon Yong touched on economics in yesterday’s debate on the Presidential Address.

Singapore needs entrepreneurs of all types: big and small, low-tech as well as high-tech. Studies have shown that economies with greater entrepreneurship experience higher growth rates, greater job creation and less severe boom and bust economic cycles.

I agree with him. The Singapore government has tended to put more emphasis on big businesses and high-tech entrepreneurship. But small, low-tech businesses are also important.

Dr Loo’s statement that economies with greater entrepreneurship experience less severe boom and bust economic cycles also raises an interesting question: Does greater entrepreneurship lead to shallower economic cycles? Or do shallow economic cycles facilitate entrepreneurship? Or is there some other causal factor for both phenomena?

As far as I am aware, economies with higher proportions of output contributed by domestic consumption are more likely to experience shallower economic cycles. Export-oriented economies — like Singapore — have more pronounced boom-and-bust cycles.

It is a well-known fact that Singapore has one of the highest — if not the highest — savings rate in the world. The converse of that, of course, is that it has one of the lowest consumption rates in the world.

Both the export-oriented nature of Singapore’s economy and its high savings rate are direct products of government policy. Consider this excerpt from a report by Morgan Stanley economist Daniel Lian:

For a long time now, we have been arguing that Singapore’s domestic demand will remain structurally weak as a result of economic policy... [I]ts three-pronged economic strategy has always had an external spin... [T]he government builds up...the economy through leveraging on global demand.

The emphasis on high savings is the other side to this external orientation. Saving has been encouraged [and] used to feed global asset demand as excess national savings over domestic investment are channelled towards building what is now a vast external economy.

The high beta [i.e. volatile] nature of the Singapore economy is highly apparent. During the period 1997 to 2003, the upswing in the economy (1999 to 2000) was clearly tied to a sharp expansion in external demand, whereas the contractions (1998 and 2001) and periods of relative stagnation in the economy were tied to either a contraction or poor growth in external demand... In our view, Singapore is now the highest-beta economy in Asia in terms of its exposure to and dependence on global demand and its lack of domestic demand initiatives.

Now let’s consider the sectors that entrepreneurs tend to be attracted to. According to the Global Enterpreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2003 Global Report, 61 percent of new firms and start-ups were found in consumer oriented sectors.

Indeed, the GEM 2003 Singapore Report showed that 38.7 percent of new firms and start-ups in Singapore in 2002 were found in retail, hotel and restaurants, dropping to 25.8 percent in 2003 when Singapore suffered from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. This was the sector with the highest level of entrepreneurial activity. In contrast, entrepreneurial activity in manufacturing was the lowest among the main sectors at 0.9 percent in 2002 and 6.1 percent in 2003.

The implication is clear: Entrepreneurial activity tends to be concentrated in sectors catering to domestic consumption. This raises the question of whether Singapore’s bias against consumption might have adversely affected entrepreneurial activity. Indeed, according to the GEM 2002 Global Report, the retail, hotel and restaurants sector took 50 percent of global entrepreneurial activity, a much higher proportion than in Singapore.

So is Singapore’s low consumption rate affecting Singapore’s entrepreneurial activity? Is it the reason that the team that compiled the Singapore Report concluded that “[r]elative to the other 30 GEM 2003 countries, Singapore had lower ratings for attributes related to entrepreneurial opportunities”?

There is another implication from the GEM 2002 Global Report. While 50 percent of overall entrepreneurial activity was in retail, hotel and restaurants, 58 percent of necessity-based entrepreneurial activity — that is, entrepreneurial activity undertaken by people who cannot find other work — is in this sector. In other words, those who are hit in a downturn and need to turn to self-employment or start their own businesses are even more likely to turn to consumption-oriented activities.

Singapore’s economic policy of favouring exports at the expense of domestic consumption may be accentuating its economic downturns, and offering relatively little by way of entrepreneurial alternatives to those adversely affected by such downturns.

Parliamentary debate chokes on values

2005-01-18T15:16:00.000+08:00

Yesterday was the first day of parliamentary debate in Singapore. Two oft-debated issues caught my attention.

On the chronically unemployed, opposition member Low Thia Kiang, calling the New Singapore Shares and the Economic Restructuring Shares “a cup of water to douse a large fire”, asked for a “proper or systematic social safety net to protect the poor people, the workers”.

However, The Straits Times reported that Mr Seng Han Thong rebuked Mr Low for being critical but not providing any solutions himself. He pointed out instead the government’s efforts at job redesign and training.

And in reporting the debate, journalist Chua Mui Hoong of The Straits Times wrote that “Mr Low cavils when he accuses the President’s Address of not saying enough about the plight of the worker”, implying that Mr Low failed to acknowledge the government’s efforts on training and education.

To me, though, both Seng and Chua themselves may have missed the point. It is obvious that Mr Low is actually asking for more substantial welfare benefits to be provided by the government to the chronically unemployed. That is surely a plausible solution, even if one doesn’t agree that it is the best one.

And their apparent faith in training and job redesign is misplaced, in my opinion. Realistically, such schemes can only reduce the number of unemployed to a level that can be handled by other mechanisms. They cannot eliminate unemployment totally.

Which thus leads back to Low’s “social safety net”. It seems fair to me that parliament should debate what that safety net should comprise of, and not casually dismiss it. But a bit more on this later.

The other point that caught my attention was Mr Tan Soo Khoon’s regarding the basis for deciding on the introduction of the casino. Mr Tan suggested that in saying that the decision on the casino would depend on whether Singaporeans can be trusted to behave correctly, the government is being inconsistent, since in the case of the Central Provident Fund minimum sum requirement, the government has already determined that Singaporeans cannot be trusted with their own savings.

Mr Tan’s argument does not seem to be very logical to me, though. Just because the government has deemed that Singaporeans cannot be trusted with their retirement savings does not automatically mean that they cannot be trusted on gambling. They’re not exactly the same, and, as in the case of social welfare, it seems fair that the government should at least consider the possibility that Singaporeans have the requisite maturity with regards to gambling, or that perhaps the consequences may not be as dire as in the case of the CPF’s retirement funds should Singaporeans prove not to be so. After all, remember that in the case of the CPF, the government observed Singaporeans’ handling of their CPF money for several years before deciding to impose the minimum sum, and then to raise that minimum sum.

But Mr Tan also said something that suggests where the problem lies. He said that the casino debate is about “money versus values”.

Most people go into a debate with their own set of values. They then proceed to debate around those values. The values themselves — although they form the bases of their stands — remain inviolate and unexamined. When a debate is among like-minded people with similar values, a consensus can often be quickly achieved this way.

However, when the values held by the debaters differ markedly — as with Mr Low’s belief in social responsibility towards the unfortunate versus the Seng-Chua belief in self-reliance — the chance of a consensus becomes remote.

Unless, as appears to be the case in the casino debate, those values themselves are thrown open for debate. Unfortunately, when people’s much-cherished values are thrown into the pot to be debated, especially together with other base considerations like money, you can be sure that some people are going to be rather unhappy.

Lions win Tiger

2005-01-17T11:13:00.000+08:00

Singapore won the Tiger Cup football tournament yesterday.

Singapore win Tiger Cup with 2-1 win over Indonesia at National Stadium
The Lions have done it, winning the fifth edition of Tiger Cup after a 2-1 victory over Indonesia on Sunday at the National Stadium. In front of a packed home crowd at the stadium, the Lions roared to victory, taking the title convincingly after having won the first leg 3-1 in Indonesia...

Singapore, who scored first at Senayan, again opened accounts after Indra Sahdan beat two defenders and the Indonesian keeper in the 5th minute... Indra [was] brought down in the penalty box five minutes before the break. Agu Casmir coolly converting the spot kick to give Singapore their second goal for the night. [Indonesia’s] Kurniawan's hard work in the 76th minute ended with Eli Aiboy easily tapping in to pull one back for Indonesia...

Congratulations to the Singapore team for the achievement.

I think Singapore, though, should not get carried away with the victory. The standard of play yesterday wasn’t very inspiring. The ball spent too much time in the air and the players spent too much time on their backsides. The tackling was often clumsy, forcing the referee to show the card so often he must have felt like a dealer at a poker table.

The Lions may now be kings in Southeast Asia but they have a long way to go before they can rub shoulders with the best in Asia, much less the rest of the football world.

MAS crackdown draws complaint

2005-01-15T09:38:00.000+08:00

In the wake of recent crackdowns by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) on rebates and freebies being offered by banks to get around rules on housing loans, Ignatius Low complains in The Straits Times today that the MAS is a “party-pooper”.

[S]uch interventions by the MAS can deprive consumers of lower prices and greater choice — which are direct benefits brought about by competition between banks. Consumers are now paying less than ever before for their mortgages, as banks move to compete on not just interest rates, but also a whole variety of freebies and other perks. And they also have a wider range of options... So why stifle free competition that has been proven to benefit consumers?

He then goes on to answer his own question.

Sure, the banks pushed the envelope a bit. Sure, there are rules which must be observed. Sure, the MAS must have felt compelled to act to avert what it feared might be the beginnings of unbridled excesses in the property market.

Although housing prices in Singapore have come down considerably in the past few years, I am ambivalent about any measure taken to loosen credit control on housing purchases. The Business Times reported last month that more than 18,000 private residential homes remained vacant as at the end of September 2004. Borrowers who are taking advantage of the present low interest rates and other goodies offered by the banks may find — in a few years’ time — that they did not get a good deal after all.

If we accept that credit control serves a useful role in stabilising the economy and preventing both borrowers and lenders from overextending themselves, then I think we should allow it to work properly. Allowing banks to circumvent credit control regulation may do more harm than good.

The elderly and perceptions of discrimination

2005-01-14T11:15:00.000+08:00

Financial planner Leong Sze Hian wrote in to The Straits Times to suggest that concessionary rates for travel on public transport and cinema admission for the elderly be extended to peak hours. Excerpt:

I am reminded of a conversation I overhead between two elderly Singaporeans which went something like this: “Why are we being discriminated against in Singapore? To get bus or MRT travel concession, we have to wait for off-peak periods. And it is the same when it comes to cinemas.”

One obvious way to eliminate discrimination is to get rid of the concessionary rates. But I doubt that’s what Leong had in mind.

Personally, I think it makes more sense for the public transport companies and cinemas to reduce the off-peak rates further rather than to extend the concessions to peak periods. Public transport in particular is already jam-packed during peak hours as it is. I’m not sure why we should encourage the elderly to join in the crush.

Singapore Tourism Board sets ambitious targets

2005-01-13T13:11:00.000+08:00

The Singapore Tourism Board wants more tourists to come — many more, in fact.

Singapore aims to double tourist arrivals in next decade
The Singapore Tourism Board has set bold targets for the next decade. It aims to triple tourism receipts to S$30 billion, double tourist arrivals to 17 million, and create 100,000 additional jobs in the tourism industry by 2015.

Today, The Straits Times reported that members of the industry say “all Singaporeans need to get in on the act”.

[E]veryone in the industry agrees on one thing: Singapore needs to brush up on its service. And that requires a change in mindset among Singaporeans...

President of the Singapore Retailers Association Jannie Tay said: “Singaporeans are ambitious and always seek high level positions, but what will be a greater need are entry level, hard-working front-line service staff... The local workforce, by and large, lacks the right attitude and aptitude to fill these jobs.”

Unless the people change their attitude, Mr Rajakumar [Chandra, the Little India Shopkeepers and Heritage Association’s honorary secretary] said, Singapore will have to resort to labour imports.

Labour imports would obviously negate one of the reasons for the Singapore Tourism Board’s plan.

The relatively poor quality of service staff in Singapore is well-known. But it’s not always the workers’ fault. Employers and customers (see a previous post on the latter) have roles to play in their performance. People in the service industry need to do more than just complain about workers’ attitude.

But part of the problem with a top-directed economy is that it often moves off in a direction before all the pieces are in place. In the early 1980s, the Singapore government wanted a higher value-added economy and so it forced up wages, but since Singaporeans couldn’t immediately become more productive, this only helped precipitate a recession in 1985. In the 1990s, it wanted to build up Singapore’s financial industry, but with regulatory oversight lacking, it only helped Nick Leeson bring down Barings Bank in 1995.

This is not to say that the moves were necessarily wrong. Only that when the government tries to move things by pulling people from the top, the experience can be quite hair-raising.

Maybe the Singapore Tourism Board should just be satisfied with the spillover traffic resulting from the tsunami disaster.

Singapore replaces Thailand after tsunami
Following a downturn in business in Southeast Asia, tours to Singapore during the post-tsunami period have increased by 20 to 30 percent, compared to the same time in the previous year, the Youth Daily reported today... “Instead of Thailand, Singapore is now the leader among the Southeast Asia tourist destinations. This provides a profitable opportunity for us,” according to several local famous travel agencies...

Hopefully, Singapore’s tourism industry can handle that.

How to bias articles and influence people

2005-01-11T13:32:00.000+08:00

An article in the Recruit section of The Straits Times today entitled “Leader or manager?” compared the differences between the two leadership/management styles and suggested the following:

Managing and leading are two different ways of organising people. A manager uses a formal and rational method to rule over workers while a leader uses passion and emotions to motivate them.

“Rule” over workers? How about rephrasing the paragraph this way:

Managing and leading are two different ways of organising people. A manager uses a formal and rational method to incentivise workers while a leader uses passion and emotions to manipulate them.

Okay, I’m being mischievous here. Anyway, the writer was trying to lead readers to the conclusion that leaders are superior to managers. To this end, the careful placement of emotionally-laden words can help bias the article in the desired direction.

Leadership means different things to different people. One common feature that most people see in those they perceive as leaders — as opposed to managers — is the ability to inspire others to achieve a desired goal.

Inspiration, however, influences people to varying degrees. Intuitive personality types tend to be influenced by it more. In positions of authority, they also tend to use it more.

Fact-oriented pragmatists tend to be relatively indifferent to emotion-based inspiration. In positions of authority, they tend to be managers rather than leaders and as subordinates, may even resist attempts at inspiring them with anything other than facts.

The bottom line is that the right style should be used in the right setting. One style is not necessarily superior to the other.

Can Singaporeans think?

2005-01-10T14:17:00.000+08:00

Despite having left Singapore, Steven McDermott’s blog continues to generate controversy among Singaporeans.

In a post dated 2 January, McDermott highlighted the lack of criticism in Singapore and cited the case of one of his students in Singapore who, when asked to think about a question, replied: “I didn't come here to think. I came here for you to think, then tell me what to think.”

The description of that incident generated a lot of comments to the blog, which led to another post on how the utilisation of power in Singapore has led to a situation where people lose their capacity for critical thinking.

There is a lot of good stuff in the two posts which, unfortunately, sometimes get lost in the fixation over the remarks apparently made by the student.

Personally, I have long realised that you can’t always take what others say at face value. It is perfectly conceivable to me that the remarks made by McDermott’s student may have been such a case.

I can think of three reasons why what a person says may not reflect exactly what he or she actually thinks.

One is, of course, to mislead. This may involve outright lying. Or it may involve just the judicious omission of facts, obfuscation, the intentional use or misuse of innuendoes and so on. The intention to mislead can be conscious or subconscious.

The second is poor articulation. This can be the case when the person has poor language or communication skills. It can also be the case when a person is rushed into expressing himself. Which is one reason that, whenever I need an opinion or stand on something important which needs follow-through — as opposed to casual verbal jousting — I often prefer it to be given in writing. Writing gives a person a better opportunity — as well as an incentive — to think through what he says.

The third reason is humour. This includes any remark made to elicit a laugh. Here, I include glib remarks made by a person to appear smart.

The other pertinent point is one that several others have also raised: Even if the student’s statements reflect what she actually thinks, there may be a logical basis for it — she needed to find the most efficient and effective way to pass her exams. It does not necessarily mean that she is incapable of critical thinking.

Having said that, she is not my student. She was McDermott’s. He may know her better.

Whatever the case, I think that the underlying message that McDermott was trying to convey remains valid: Critical thinking is important and Singaporeans need to be mindful of the insidious capacity of those in power to erode it.

Social Security versus CPF — Part 2

2005-01-09T19:21:00.000+08:00

A reader commented on my previous post comparing the Social Security system in the United States with the CPF system in Singapore. I thought there were a few points which merits elaboration.

The reader wrote, “Like the US, our government is thinking of privatizing CPF”. But the similarity ends there.

If the Singapore government privatises the CPF, the impact would be relatively limited. But the impact of Social Security privatisation is large. Essentially, it would turn the system from one with an insurance component to one that is essentially a saving and investment vehicle, just like the CPF — which is precisely the shortcoming of Singapore’s system, in my opinion.

The reader also asks why I think the CPF is good at protecting what is already in the fund.

Well, the reasons are mainly those listed in Steven Schlosstein’s article, with the emphasis on the fact that the purposes for which funds from the CPF can be used are relatively limited.

The CPF is a vehicle for overall retirement planning. That includes investment. As an investment vehicle, it is inevitable that some risk be taken. In that context, the risk allowed by the CPF for investment is not generally excessive.

The reader did make the point that the CPF allowed Singaporeans to over-invest in property. Personally, though, I blame overall government housing policy rather than the CPF for the over-investment. In any case, the government appears to have learnt its lesson and modified the rules for property financing. I think we should judge the CPF based on its current rules rather than old ones.

Ultimately, I think that the problem with the CPF concept is that it requires individuals to rely largely on their own savings and investments. If they don’t save enough, they’ll have to invest more and earn better returns. But as the investment adage goes, to get better returns, you have to take more risks.

In other words, when you face the risk of under-saving, the only way that the CPF can help you compensate for it is by letting you take on more investment risk.

There’s a missing link somewhere. No prize to anyone who guesses what I think it is.

Social Security versus CPF

2005-01-07T13:15:00.000+08:00

Which is better for funding workers’ retirement: The US Social Security system or Singapore’s Central Provident Fund (CPF) system?

An earlier post of mine points out the advantages of Social Security in mitigating risk. A commentary by Steven Schlosstein
in The Tullahoma News titled “Thinking about Social Security Singapore has some useful answers” points out the advantages of the CPF.

First, the problem with Social Security according to Schlosstein:

Social Security...relies on contributions from today’s workers to pay the benefits of yesterday’s retirees. And it works fine, as long as there are more people working than retiring. But...today, there are fewer workers paying into the pool to support the retirement claims of yesterday’s retirees. This is why your FICA taxes keep going up.

The Bush Administration is pushing for privatisation of Social Security through the creation of personal accounts to alleviate the increasing demands of Social Security.

Privatization advocates argue that personal retirement accounts, by investing in higher-yielding assets like equities, can provide a higher level of benefits to retirees than any government-administered system can. But opponents maintain that higher returns mean higher risks, and that the government should not let individual, last-resort retirement income be subject to the whims of the stock market.

And that’s where Singapore’s CPF comes in.

The Republic of Singapore dealt with a very similar issue about half a century ago when it created the Central Provident Fund, or CPF. It was created in 1955 as a “save-as-you-earn” program, rather than the “pay-as-you-go” scheme that characterizes our Social Security... [T]hese enforced savings were not funneled into a government-administered pool; the contributions went into individual accounts for each employee... CPF regulations prevent individual accounts from being invested in only one market segment or instrument... Privatization is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing, providing it includes, as the CPF does, adequate safeguards to protect prudence and defend diversification.

Schlosstein is correct: The CPF is good at protecting what is already in the fund (some would say too good). However, the CPF is not good at protecting the retiree from the risk of not having enough in the fund to begin with, something that Social Security is better at.

See also “Retirement risk” and “Planning for retirement”.

Leaders visit tsunami-hit areas

2005-01-05T13:19:00.000+08:00

Singapore’s prime minister Lee Hsien Loong has visited the tsunami-hit areas. So has US secretary of state Colin Powell. Now let’s keep in mind the following report:

Time not on tsunami victims’ side as world launches new aid push
Foreign troops airdropped food and set up clean water supplies Monday as a massive aid effort took shape to help millions left homeless and hungry from Asia’s tsunami disaster, with the death toll creeping towards 150,000...

But aid workers believe many more people are isolated with no fresh water, food or access to medical care. The United Nations and aid groups warned that the threat of a major outbreak of disease such as cholera or diarrhoea could claim tens of thousands more lives.

A contingent of 42 US marines and the British frigate HMS Chatham arrived in Sri Lanka to prepare for military deployment in the island where more than 30,000 people have been confirmed dead. The help could not come soon enough as the first signs of disease began to appear among Sri Lanka’s displaced. Two refugees at a welfare center had chicken pox and were isolated to prevent an outbreak, police said. Flooding in eastern Sri Lanka has also raised fears of water-borne disease, government spokesman Tara de Mel said.

The UN has repeatedly expressed concern that some isolated survivors, particularly in Indonesia, may not receive aid for weeks until roads and bridges that were destroyed in the floods are rebuilt...

No doubt, rescue and aid personnel must have expended valuable time preparing for and briefing the national leaders on the on-going operations. One hopes that the time was well spent and not a distraction from more pressing tasks at hand.

Retirement risk

2005-01-03T14:45:00.000+08:00

In my previous post, I linked to a post by Brad DeLong that looked at rising risk to income in the US.

Today, I read a post by another Brad — Brad Setser — discussing social security and touching on the same income volatility brought up by his namesake. Much of the discussion has little relevance to Singapore. But I think the overview on social security in the US right at the end of his post provides a good comparison to the principle behind the Central Provident Fund in Singapore.

The fact that social security -- unlike many private pensions -- is fully portable limits the risk that lots of "job churn" and income volatility during an individual's working years will translate into limited retirement income. Social security's guaranteed income also protects against too much income volatility after an individual retires. Private pensions once were structured like social security -- they assured a guaranteed income. Not any more. You get just what you stuffed away in your defined contribution/ 401 (k). Some folks may do well (if you bought stocks in 1980s and sold them in 2000). Some folks not so well (Say if you bought the NASDAQ at 5000 ... ).

The fact that social security benefits are not correlated with the stock market -- or the bond/ housing markets for that matter -- is another one of the social security system's key virtues. Most retirees already have plenty of market risk from their private pensions. Social security both diversifies the sources of an individual's retirement income, and insures against a range of other risks: the risk an individual might make less than he or she hoped during their working life, the risk an individual may be disabled and unable to work, the risk an individual may invest their savings poorly (remember Enron employees with all their retirement assets in Enron stock?), the risk an individual might outlive their savings, etc.

The CPF, of course, gives Singaporeans only what they put into it through savings and investment. It is a system that encourages frugality, prudence and self-reliance on the part of the individual.

That Singaporeans also become risk-averse doesn’t seem surprising to me.

Income risk

2005-01-01T17:30:00.000+08:00

While the world is fixated on the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami, it is probably useful to remember that most of us bear risks beyond those of natural disasters.

This post by Brad DeLong is US-oriented and probably politically motivated. Nevertheless, some of the stories here would be relevant to Singaporeans, especially the notion that “rising incomes have been accompanied by rising risk and hence the chance of rapid downward mobility has increased”.

But enough with the pessimism. Singapore’s economy did grow by 8.1 percent in 2004. Let’s look forward to a good year in 2005.

Happy New Year to all readers.

Fear of being wrong

2004-12-31T11:50:00.000+08:00

As part of its coverage on the Indian Ocean tsunami, The Straits Times referred to a report from the Financial Times on the reaction of Thailand’s meteorological department to the impending disaster:

Thai weather officials under attack for lack of warning
Thailand was on Wednesday grasping the magnitude of the tsunami disaster amid criticism that meteorological officials had been too hesitant to warn of the risks of a sea surge in case they were wrong.

Thailand's meteorological department knew by 8.10am (local time) on Sunday about an hour before the first waves hit that a powerful earthquake had struck near Sumatra, and they discussed the possibility that the quake could cause large sea disturbances. The department had already distributed information pamphlets several years ago explaining the risks of tsunamis around southern Thai beach resorts.

But without definitive proof of an imminent tsunami, the meteorological department dared not issue a national warning lest it be accused of spreading panic and hurting the tourism industry if the disturbances did not materialise...

Sins of omission can often be as serious as sins of commission. Unfortunately, whenever we harp on people’s mistakes, we may be unwittingly encouraging a fear of committing mistakes and fostering a culture of timidity. Harm done is usually more obvious than benefits missed.

Sadly, not in this case.

Sudden policy changes

2004-12-30T14:15:00.000+08:00

Yet another Singaporean complains about sudden policy changes made by the government. This time, it is over the new rules involving the cash downpayment for the purchase of HDB resale flats.

The reader sent a letter to The Straits Times saying:

I notice this has been the trend recently — trying to guide how people spend by changing monetary policies. Worse, most of these new policies are to make up for deficiencies in planning, such as allowing too many private condominiums to be built and so creating an oversupply. Such a reactive mode does not help in any way and is detrimental to thousands of Singaporeans financially.

When a government policy proves to be wrong, it is understandable that it should change its policy. But not all changes to policy stem from mistakes. Sometimes, circumstances change; policies then need to be changed along with them. In fact, many policies are actually crafted with subsequent periodic adjustments in mind.

Unfortunately, change is painful for many people. Unfortunately, also, it cannot be avoided. The question is only who gets hurt by change, and who gets the blame for it.

Which leads to a suggestion by the aforementioned reader to let supply and demand “resolve small deviations naturally”. I am sympathetic to this suggestion because I am biased towards free markets myself.

But I doubt this provides a satisfactory solution. Markets, especially asset markets like housing, are naturally prone to bubbles and crashes. People who suggest a totally free, unregulated market appear to have forgotten the panics, crashes and economic misery that prevailed in the past before modern regulatory regimes were put in place. In those days — as in the immediate aftermath of the Enron and WorldCom scandals — governments were criticised for lack of regulation.

This, of course, is not to suggest that things have become perfect with the advent of financial regulation. Only that a reversion to the past, laissez-faire regime may not be the solution either.

Tsunami — Part 2

2004-12-29T13:59:00.000+08:00

The death toll just keeps going up. It’s now over 68,000. Hopefully, it’s near an end, but I somehow doubt it. One official warned that the final death toll could surpass 100,000!

Not surprisingly, a number of bloggers have been posting on the tsunami over the past few days, some providing links to aid organisations. Just following the links and comments from this blog, you get Girl in Bionic Suit, reflexive disorder and mr brown. Blogger itself hosts a blog — The South-East Asia Earthquake and Tsunami — that is dedicated to providing news and information about resources, aid, donations and volunteer efforts.

Realities about living and working in Singapore

2004-12-28T11:08:00.000+08:00

Several letters in The Straits Times today illustrate some of the harsher realities about living and working in Singapore.

Two readers wrote about the inability of mature workers to get scholarships or places in courses in health care. Both remarked that priority is given to fresh “O” and “A” level holders.

This priority reflects the idea that education is an investment, and one that pays the best return when invested in the young. Whether this is true, I am not so certain, since many people actually don’t practise what they learn in school, or practise it only for a short while anyway. As one of the readers point out: “[F]resh school-leavers after their O and A levels...might not know what they want or like.”

Unfortunately, age discrimination is alive and well in Singapore.

Another reader, in responding to another reader, writes that in Singapore, high property prices are the norm, with no exceptions. He compares this with Australia, where similarly-expensive places like Sydney are exceptions, not the norm.

Property prices in Singapore have, in the past, been boosted by the government’s pro-property policies. The government has recognised that this is not sustainable, as Singaporeans lack cash assets for their old age. Since the mid-1990s, measures have been put in place to discourage excessive investment in properties. Partly because of this, property prices have been on a downtrend in Singapore. I doubt that that is making many Singaporeans happy, though.

Having said that, obviously, it should also be said that one should not compare apples with oranges. Singapore is a city, and property prices in cities tend to be more expensive than rural areas, especially when the city itself lacks a natural hinterland. Johor may seem like a hinterland to Singapore, but don’t forget that there is a national border in between, and a border is more than just a line on a map.

The reality is that Singapore is not Australia, and can never be. One has to accept that low property prices, as seen in large countries, are simply not realistic in Singapore.

Incidentally, this particular reader also wrote that, contrary to what the previous reader had written, anti-discrimination laws can be effective, pointing out that organisations in Australia “take their anti-discrimination laws and policies seriously”.

Anti-discrimination laws would probably help mature workers get jobs. However, the problem with anti-discrimination and affirmative-action laws, apart from compliance and enforcement, is the cost of implementing them.

There is the obvious cost of administration. But there is also the cost of having to employ workers just to meet quotas that were set without sufficient regard to the specific needs of an industry or company, and thus the opportunity cost of not employing someone who more closely fits the job requirement.

Having said that, with an ageing population and an economy that no longer promotes life-long employment, the Singapore government may soon have to consider whether the benefits of affirmative action to boost mature worker employment outweigh the costs. Otherwise, the reality of living and working in Singapore may become exceedingly harsh for these people.

Tsunami

2004-12-27T18:21:00.000+08:00

The scale of the tsunami disaster in the Indian Ocean region is simply horrific.

Death toll from Asian quake, tsunami passes 16,000
The death toll from an earthquake off Indonesia and tsunami that it unleashed reached 16,147 Monday as officials reported deaths in eight countries in southern and southeastern Asia. At least 5,880 people, including 70 foreigners, were killed and many more were reported missing in Sri Lanka... At least 5,279 people were killed in southern India... In Indonesia, at least 4,448 people were killed as the country took the full force of the huge earthquake and tsunami that swallowed entire coastal villages...

Plus many more made homeless and left vulnerable to disease.

So much for beachfront property.

Singaporeans can be thankful that Singapore’s geographical position has spared it from this sort of disasters so far.