Innovation: Singapore Is No. 1

Innovation: Singapore Is No. 1, Well Ahead of the U.S.

Singapore's emphasis on science education and a highly talented workforce puts it well ahead of the U.S. in a new global ranking of innovation leaders

By Bruce Einhorn

For anyone interested in working in an innovative environment, the U.S. has long been the top destination. The U.S. has the culture to support innovation: the best universities, the biggest venture capital funds, the most supportive financial markets. American companies from Silicon Valley are among the world's most inspiring success stories for entrepreneurs in China china, India india, and other emerging markets, with startup business leaders looking for inspiration to the likes of Hewlett Packard (HPQ), Intel (INTC), Apple (AAPL), and Google (GOOG).

According to a new report by Boston Consulting Group, though, the center of innovation nnovation is not in the U.S. BCG, working with the Manufacturing Institute of the Washington-based National Association of Manufacturers, last week released a survey of 110 countries worldwide looking at the ones with government policies and corporate performance most encouraging to innovation. The U.S. came in No. 8, ahead of Japan (No. 9) and Germany (No. 19) but well behind the two leaders, both of them so-called tiger economies from Asia: Singapore at No. 1 and South Korea at No. 2. (For more on how BCG conducted the survey, and the ranking of the top-performing countries, see the accompanying slide show.)

What accounts for the relatively lackluster performance of the U.S. compared to the Asian tigers? James P. Andrew, the leader of BCG's global innovation practice and co-author of the report, says "the quality of the workforce" in the U.S. is the biggest problem that many respondents had. As part of the survey, BCG questioned some 800 high-level executives at U.S. companies, and many put concerns about human resources at the top of the list of concerns. "Are we developing the skills at the high school level?" asks Andrew, explaining the responses researchers often encountered. "Are we making it easy for the best and brightest to study and stay in the U.S.?"
Lagging U.S. Workforce

The questions are becoming more urgent now as debate heats up surrounding U.S. immigration policy. American multinationals have been among the most vocal in calling for the government to allow highly-skilled people from other countries to work in the U.S. However, data released last month showed that many of the 65,000 H-1B visas went to Indian outsourcing companies that have used the program to send low-cost engineers from India to the U.S. With the U.S. economy worsening and the unemployment rate rising, lawmakers in Washington are calling for more restrictions on H-1B visas. That's leading to a potential backlash in India, where anger at the U.S.is growing at the same time a growing number of Asian graduates of U.S. schools are returning to India and China.

The top-performing country in BCG's list, Singapore, has long focused on trying to attract foreign workers—and encourage locals to go abroad in order to boost their skills. It has little choice: The city-state has a population of just 4 million, and without importing top talent it would be hard-pressed to achieve bureaucrats' outsized plans to make Singapore a hub for the electronics, semiconductor, pharmaceutical, and biotech industries. For instance, every year Singapore gives 100 scholarships to science and engineering students, funding their doctorate programs in foreign universities. "In order to do well, you need people trained abroad," says Beh Kian Teik, director of biomedical sciences at the Singapore government's Economic Development Board. The $650 million program, launched in 2000, is now seeing its first PhDs return to Singapore, where they work in government research labs or local universities for several years.
Singapore's Excellent Science Education

Government commitment to education is one reason many large drugmakers have made Singapore a base for their manufacturing and research. In January, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced plans to invest $65 million to expand its Singapore operations. Schering-Plough (SGP) is opening a center to conduct research and clinical trials in the country, and Novartis has made Singapore the center for company researchers investigating treatments for malaria, tuberculosis, and dengue fever. "Science education is very good here," says Thierry Diagana, project manager for Novartis' malaria research team. "There's a nice constant flow of young graduates."

The global recession threatens to halt the flow of talent. The Singapore economy, which relies heavily on exports, is suffering badly. The country's gross domestic product is likely to fall 4.9% this year, according to a government survey of economists released on Mar. 16, and the unemployment rate is likely to double from that of a year ago, to 4.4%. Credit Suisse (CS) predicted last month that Singapore would see an outflow of foreign workers, with the population declining by 160,000. The pharma and biotech industries, two of the few industries expected to create jobs in the city-state, are now facing renewed uncertainty following the announcement of several large mergers, including Merck's (MRK) proposed acquisition of Schering-Plough.

Still, BCG's Andrew believes governments and companies are not going to retreat on their commitment to innovation. The crisis, he argues, makes it even more apparent that there's no turning back. "There is always somebody out there who can make the same thing cheaper," he says. In hard times, he adds, "the imperative is to become more innovative, not less." For companies, that means "doing anything humanly possible to avoid scaling back on innovation budgets," says Andrew. "Governments are going to be in much the same situation. If you want to attract and position companies in your countries, you have to continue to do the things that make you an attractive destination."

Reports about an exodus of foreign workers from Singapore don't worry Andrew. With the economy contracting, many low-skilled workers are leaving, he says, but that doesn't mean Singapore's attractiveness as an innovation hub is declining. "If I'm losing my PhDs, scientists, technologists, that's one thing," he says. "For other types of foreign workers, that's something different."

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24441.1

Price Of Prawns

Singapore leapt 5 places to 10th costliest city in the world in just 6 months, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) survey of 140 cities.

The EIU’s index, which measures the prices of 160 products and services such as food, clothing and utilities, is designed to help companies calculate the pay packages they give to their expatriate employees.

Michael Rigby, 30, an exhibition specialist from Oregon who claims to come to Singapore regularly for work, was apparently not fully apprised of the cost of eating out, especially at National Environment Agency (NEA) run Newton hawker centre. His group of 6 Americans racked up a bill of $491, including a charge of $239 for 8 tiger prawns, which works out to be about $30 per prawn. They chose to eat from stall 43, Tanglin Best BBQ Seafood because their helpers assisted in securing a table at the crowded eatery. One of his guests, a Mr Rubio from Arizona thought the prices were comparable to those of an American restaurant and thought nothing of it. But Rigby decided to lodge the first ever complaint of over-charging against the stall at Newton, on which NEA had just lavished $4.8 million (down from $48 million reported in Straits Times, Tuesday Mar 17) in spruce-up works.

Rigby and his wife Dewi had originally set out to show his friends, all here for the first time, “how safe, clean and honest this island city was.” Actually Rigby should be grateful there was no 7% GST or service charge on the bill. And when the stallholder had returned with four others, in their 40s and well built, to impress upon him that “they didn’t want us to leave without paying,” there was no further altercation that might have be deemed as Voluntarily Causing Hurt under Section 323 of the Penal Code, which is designated as a non-seizable offence. In layman terms, Rigby and his companions could have been pummeled to a pulp, and his unidentifiable assailants could have walked smugly away as they usually do at Boat Quay punch-ups.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24448.1

local sports and national development

Why certain local sports and national development are like oil and water

SINGAPORE - Quah Ting Wen’s record-breaking swim at the National Age Group Swimming Championships gave our local sports fans plenty of reasons reasons to cheer. Ditto for Wan Lay Chi’s setting his personal best of 47.74 m in winning the discus event at the 3rd All-Comers Athletics Meet. Singaporeans have every reason to be proud of the exploits of our aforementioned two native born sportsmen and sportswomen.

Logically, sports should come hand in hand with a country’s national development. It is some sort of unspoken universal language that bypasses language, racial, political and social barriers. The enduring image of the Iranian soccer team exchanging momentos with the United States soccer team and posing together for a group photo before their match during World Cup’98 epitomizes this universal language that is sport, bearing in mind the differences between the two countries.

The Grand Old Lady, our National Stadium, was the setting of such scenes of unity. Filled to the brim on most occassions when our national soccer team from the Fandi-Malek-David era and before were playing, spectators from all walks celebrated together when the outcome of the game was in Singapore’s favor. At the same time, they mourned together when our national team suffered a heartbreaking loss.

Thus, the question to ask is what is the impact of this scheme on our national development? Sadly, the verdict is that while the sporting successes is floating high like oil at the top, our national development is relegated to the bottom like water underneath the oil.”

Fast forward to the recent years, certain sports saw the implementation of the Foreign Sports Talent Scheme in a bid to produce instantaneous results at the highest level. A foreign prospect deemed to have good medal winning chances at the international level would be automatically fast-tracked to gain Singapore citizenship. Obviously, the desire for instant sporting success was the raison d’etre of the scheme. And this has culminated in a certain extent of tangible success in prestigious competitions, most notably a silver medal showing by the table tennis team.

Thus, the question to ask is what is the impact of this scheme on our national development? Sadly, the verdict is that while the sporting successes is floating high like oil at the top, our national development is relegated to the bottom like water underneath the oil.

First and foremost, the Foreign Sports Talent Scheme is promoting the philosophy that “there is always a shortcut to success”. And shortcut is the right word. Seems like a quick fix for instant sporting success, isn’t it? I remembered my soccer coach cum mentor always drumming this fact into my head:”Talent allows you to pick up essential elements quickly. If you find that you lack talent in any area, spend more time working extra hard in that area”. What I was taught by my coach was basically the meaning of sports - work hard and better myself. In our sports authorities’ insatiable thirst for success, rather than rely on our local sportsmen, they basically chose the shortcut - importing qualified foreign guns. What happens was that they basically invested in the scouting and subsequent development of these foreign talents. The cynical ones would call that “buying your way to success”. Whatever we want to call it, one thing for sure is that this scheme promotes an unhealthy “there is a shortcut to success” ethos which is detrimental to our national mindset. This ironically defeats the purpose of sports, which is to train hard and reach new heights at every competition.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24447.1

Times really are tough.

I know that the cost of living has gone up and it is very difficult to make a living as a hawker. So if you want to earn extra money from tourists, I think it is alright to charge them more money for tiger prawns. In fact, you should charge American tourists even more because they caused our recession and made our poor GIC and Temasek lose face!

But please do it with more intelligence. This is not some clueless minister ordering mee siam hum- who thinks $491 is peanuts (or tiger prawns). These are tourists who have traveled through South East Asia and know the tricks of our Malaysian and Thai brothers. Our elder brothers in Malaysia and Thailand do it with much more subtlety and sophistication. They overcharge tourists by only 50%; not 500%!

No wonder they think Singaporeans are not street-smart and will laugh when they hear this story. $239 is too much for 8 tiger prawns. Even an idiot will notice such a mistake. Next time just charge $99.95 okay...? You have a better chance of not getting caught!

Please understand that I am not scolding you. I understand that Singaporeans are not very good at counting money. We think a 2% return from CPF is 'wonderful'. We 'rent' a HDB apartment by paying the full price of a house upfront. Our MPs think an 8 month bonus is not a lot... Even our elites at Temasek Holdings think a 30% loss is acceptable.

Yes, the ability to understand numbers is not in our DNA so it is not really your fault. But please don't show your stupidity to the rest of the world. If we keep acting stupid, the Americans would stop teaching 'Singapore Math' to their children.

So my dear friend. If you want to cheat, please cheat properly. Our reputation is at stake.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24446.1

A look at S'pore's Healthcare

A look at S'pore's Healthcare

Saying that healthcare is expensive or cheap in Singapore is nearly a non-statement. Firstly, healthcare is such a general term that it should be neatly cut out for surgical analysis. Healthcare can range from basic illnesses such as cough and flu to catastrophic illnesses like cancer. Healthcare can also be necessary, cosmetic or even luxurious.

Healthcare consumers are also increasingly differentiated; bear in mind Singapore is no longer a fishing village but a teeming city of locals and foreigners. Consumers can range from the extreme poor to the middle class to the uber-rich, and the type of demand races an entire spectrum – foreign medical tourists want luxurious healthcare, while the middle class may demand ‘aesthetic treatment’, and the poor thinks hospital wards with air-conditioning and television sets are no big deal.

Then healthcare providers are specialised too, working in either public or private sectors. People aspiring to join the healthcare sector need not just be doctors; they can be speech therapist, occupational therapist, pharmacist, nurse, intellectual disability psychiatrist…and the list goes on.

In addition, there are also the GPs, the polyclinics, specialist centres and public and private hospitals supplying the demand by consumers. For the GP industry, it is clearly a monopolistically competitive market: large number of small clinics, low barriers to entry and little market power. For the polyclinics and public hospitals markets, there is a duopoly – Singhealth and National Healthcare. But both are managed like not-for-profit organisations, and heavy subsidies are provided for consumers. In the private sector, Raffles Medical Group and ParkwayHealth dominate, with a few other smaller private healthcare suppliers.

Reasonably enough, the private sector will be the one drawing the richer international consumers. However, the government believes Singapore can be a medical hub – and so it allows the Singhealth and National Healthcare to set up international desks. Hence international consumers have a range of choices. What this means for local consumers will be dealt in Part 2.

Interestingly, we do not know for sure if provision of healthcare is a comparative advantage which Singapore enjoys. It makes little economic sense if Singapore tries to be a ‘medical hub’ without ensuring the relative opportunity cost is lower than that of other countries in the region. Some surgeries, and lasik comes to mind, are relatively cheaper in other countries. Foreign consumers will doubtfully come here for treatment.

As healthcare is such a heterogeneous good and service, in some areas Singapore will enjoy comparative advantage; in others, not so. Some sectors such as splitting up Siamese twins have attracted foreign consumers. But it is unsure if the opportunity cost of splitting Siamese twins is indeed relatively lower than that of, say, the UK or US. Hence it is very difficult to judge if Singapore has comparative advantage even in these few sectors where Singaporean surgeries have attained worldwide attention.

However, that being said, it is true Singapore is seen as a symbol of safe and quality medical treatment, and its accessibility, convenience and other facilities (which probably can help to speed up recovery?) are heavy plus points. On the whole, this seems that Singapore has relatively lower opportunity cost in providing healthcare services, and so theoretically it should specialise on being a medical hub, leveraging on its comparative advantage. But as mentioned, there are so many types of healthcare that Singapore cannot enjoy comparative advantage in all.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24445.1

F1 to F9......where are we headed?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80CqcwHR-UA

This video interview of Leong Sze Hian highlights a number of problems with healthcare, housing and transport faced by ordinary Singaporeans. If you have been reading my blog for the past few years, these problems have been highlighted here many times with the hope that the PAP govt will do something to improve the lives of ordinary Singaporeans. However, little has been done and it is not where we have gone but where we continue to head that worries me most. Why isn't the PAP govt motivated to solves these problems? Why is it so hard for the PAP govt to solve these problems? It is not possible for the PAP govt to be unaware of these problems ...then why have things been allowed to deteriorated so badly in the past 10 years...? Lets go through the root cause of each of these problems and I will show you a consistent pattern behavior and thought of on the part of this govt.

Housing. HDB continues to insist that housing is affordable even as more people default on their HDB loans. Among the solutions being explored to make housing "more affordable" is to put Singaporeans in no-frills housing or downgrade to smaller flats. If HDB flats are truly affordable, how did we get here? Rightfully, the rise of HDB prices has to be kept in line with the household income and the sustainability of this income but this is hardly the case as the rise in HDB flat prices have outstripped the rise of median income. HDB claims that it merely priced its new flats relative to the resale market. But how did the price of flats escalate to such levels? Is market price simply the reflection of demand and supply? There were 2 things that resulted in the escalation of housing prices - the 1st is the liberalisation of CPF for housing[research paper : Link] which caused a large jump in housing prices sometimes termed euphemistically by the PAP govt as 'asset enhancement'. The 2nd is the lengthening loan tenure and expansion of household debt to keep the property price rising - HDB flats used to be paid up in 7-8 years now they take 30 years to pay up. The end result is insufficient funds for retirement and a high household debts that make Singaporean households vulnerable during recession. But who are the prime beneficiaries of high housing prices? Housing loans are wildly profitable for banks, our govt land sales to HDB rake in billions which go into Temasek Holdings for investments and big developers. Our housing market is hardly healthy due to the high levels of debt incurred by Singaporeans for a roof over their heads. During the boom times, people who need a home have to take on huge debts as prices go up and when recession comes, defaults mount and a large number of people get into trouble with the bank.....and Singaporeans have to go through these gyrations 3 times in the past 10 years.




Healthcare. If you're asked to design a healthcare system for Singapore, would you learn from the number 1 healthcare system or the number 20 healthcare system in the world? Before I answer that question lets take a look at the rising cost of healthcare in Singapore. We have been told that cost of healthcare will rise and keep on rising fast so we have to purchase insurance to cover ourselves and set aside sufficient funds should we get sick. Have you asked why healthcare costs have gone from highly affordable to barely affordable -read about the case of the cancer patient needing to raise hundreds of thousands[link] because her insurance only covers $30K of her $400K treatment. Some people who have not had relatives or close ones who got sick still thinks that serious illness can be treated for around $50K- that is just not the case. You sometimes wonder what happens to people who cannot afford to pay up - the hospital will hire debt collectors to chase after these people for payment - some have to take up bank loans or sell their homes to pay for treatment.

Singapore aims to be a medical hub and the goal is to attract 1 million medical tourists by 2012 [link][Link]. This ambition to be a medical hub for rich arabs and millionaire Indonesians have strained our resource tremendously because it caused private hospitals to expand to serve these medical tourists and the pay packets of specialists and surgeons to escalate. There is a case being fought today involving healthcare provider Parkway and one its ex-employees whose job was to market medical services in middle-east and Europe [Link to be provided] - he is suing for $2.2M in commissions for bring patients to Singapore. When it comes to medical services, Singaporeans now have to compete with pocket books of millionaires from around the world. The govt remedy to all this is to make us buy insurance. However, if you listened to Leong Sze Hian's interview carefully, an insurance based approach leaves out hundreds thousands of Singaporeans who cannot be covered or cannot afford the insurance. To find out where we will be in a few years we just have to look at the US which has a similar system. Such a system is prone to cost spirals in which medical costs go up causing insurance premiums to go up. Such a system has also left millions Americans uninsured and the cost of healthcare per American has escalated to be among the highest in the world as the profits for insurance companies and hospitals went up. What we are beginning to adopt is a healthcare system that promises to generate higher and higher profits for various businesses and passes the cost to Singaporeans who become sick.

Now to the question...why did the PAP copy the healthcare system from a country that is ranked 20th (USA) instead of the country that is ranked No. 1 (France)? ....The answer is simple - the French system results in a healthcare cost that is among the lowest per person in the society in developed countries but generate little or no profits for insurance companies, hospitals (which are mostly govt owned).....the choice is obvious for the PAP....

Public Transport. Our main public transport companies (SMRT, SBS) are public listed companies with shareholders who have invested in these companies for profits. If I'm a SMRT shareholder, I would be concerned if the trains are not packed like sardines every morning and the human beings in the train actually have space to swing their arms. I will demand SMRT lower its costs by reducing its frequency so that the utilisation per train goes up and profit goes up. If I were an SMRT shareholder, for the past 5 years I would be smiling because SMRT pays out good dividends and its profits increases year after year[Link]. Last quarter they reported rising profits apparently the recession that is hurting Singaporeans does not hurt SMRT's profits.



Singapore being an island state means that there is no place to run to when cost of living escalates. Yes, our concerned govt encourages us to put our old parents in Johor so save money and they are considering the use of Medisave for overseas medical treatment because many cannot afford to be treated locally anymore. However, what the PAP will not do is change the system to lessen the financial burden on Singaporeans because our debts translate to profits for many business entities and our govt with its complex interests in GLCs and its pro-business ideology simply cannot work solely for the benefit ordinary Singaporeans. So their message to Singaporeans is work harder, work longer and never retire.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24439.1

CDC Bonuses: Take it Back

It has been a year since Bear Stearns, one of the largest global investment banks and trading firms went under in dramatic fashion, sending global financial markets and economies into a seemingly never-ending tailspin. The massive capitulation expected from another spectacular failure of a globally interconnected institution forced the U.S. Government to step in and rescue AIG, the world’s biggest insurer, with a US$85 billion bailout in September last year.

Six months on from the dramatic bailout of AIG, details of bailout money use are made known but are far from being transparent. We now know that US$53 billion went to paying off its debts to foreign banks. Controversially, AIG felt compelled to pay US$165 million in bonuses to its staff in the financial products division – the very division that sunk the conglomerate, and the rest of the world with it, to its knees.

In the grand scheme of things, US$165 million is peanuts compared to the billions that have been poured into economic stimuli, rescue plans and t-loans. But the principle of the matter cannot be overstated. When individuals take unprecedented risks and are later rewarded for their failures through bailouts form the average citizens who do not have the luxury of such safety nets and exorbitant payouts, we are effectively rewarding incompetence and greed. The Merril Lynch bonus fiasco is another case in point.

I have written previously that when taxpayers’ monies are involved, we as taxpayers rightfully are entitled to some amount of accountability and transparency. I harp on this topic again as controversies across the Pacific Ocean are rearing their ugly heads in Singapore.

We have now learnt that two Northwest CDC staff were allegedly given 7 months of bonus and 1 month of AWS for their 2008 performance. We were also informed that only staff at the lower-end of the salary range who will receive a higher performance bonus range. If this were true, then perhaps the majority of us would be able to accept a structure that compensates for lower wage with more varying bonus structures. But alas, the Government and government-linked individuals are once again using their text-book “everything is aboveboard”, “this is not an NKF” reasoning, only to be found wanting later.

Eugene Yeo of the Wayangparty Blog has exposed the fact that the recipients of these bonuses were in fact senior managers; thus altering the structure from sensible to downright excessive.

CDCs are quasi-governmental bodies with the primary role of initiating, planning and managing community programmes to promote community bonding and social cohesion. No doubt some of their work is commendable; but they are ultimately responsible for managing the use of public taxpayer money to finance their activities such as community events and the dispersement of financial aid to the needy. Therefore, their key performance indexes should correlate with their bonuses and be the tied to the efficacy and accessibility of their social safety nets that they provide (i.e. public assistance, comcare…etc). Excessive reward for senior management that concoct elaborate schemes which are increasingly difficult to qualify for let alone survive on is ludicrous and has to be put to a stop.

President Obama is looking into legal options to rescind the bonus payouts of AIG. I hope our own President Nathan or PM Lee would do the same. Can we really do that? I say, in the spirit of Obama, yes we can!

The AIG staff had pre-existing contracts (prior to bailout) that mandated the payment of bonus. But so too did the U.S. auto workers that had to renegotiate their terms all in order to ensure they have an industry to return to after collecting their bonuses and pay checks. Similarly, CDC staff were paid for performances in 2008. But given the severity of the recession we find ourselves in, wouldn’t a larger reduction in the bonus pool and a lower cap for senior management be more prudent? Could the savings in 2008 bonus payout be then channeled into community programmes for the truly needy and these self-sacrificing servers of the community be judged and rewarded on how they alleviate the financial strains of the pre-existing poor and newly created poor? Otherwise taxpayers are made to fund these projects and salaries during booming times and even more so during trying times.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24416.1

Alleged 8-Month Bonus

Ah… bonus, bonus, bonus.

I suspect I am in no position to complain about another person getting his bonus when I was earlier protesting in another blog post and justifying why I should get mine. After all, my current employer got a bail out from the government gahmen of its home country and they wisely decided against giving out a hefty bonus. In my case, it didn’t matter that the branch here was have a record year [in profits], and the foul up was in other locations. That’s not even mentioning that not all of my employer’s funding come solely from donations or gahmen funding.

So if you consider that I am being hypocritical for flaming the North West Community Development Council [NW CDC for short] for allegedly giving out a 8-month bonus to its staff ^{[citation needed]} while I justify my right to a bonus, perhaps you should look at some of these facts that I gathered from the Annual Report FY 2007 downloaded here.

See the above? The gahmen gives the NW CDC an annual grant of $1 per resident living in its district for funding its programmes, and the gahmen matches every dollar with $3 or $4 depending on how that money is raised. The gahmen also funds the operations of the CDC offices.

In other words, all of these money are donations and state money. Now recall our outrage when we heard the kind of pay and bonus TT Durai, former CEO of NKF, is getting? (And no, I am not implying or saying that there is any kind of misconduct such as those of Durai and the old NKF here.)

Now, let us take a look from which ministry did the gahmen fund the CDCs. Perhaps it is from the MCYS [see below]?

Hmm.. the MCYS. Isn’t this the very same ministry which decided that it was good enough for the needy taking grants to just have $1 more a day? If they are indeed financing the CDCs, perhaps they don’t have to be so tight with their purse strings anymore if they can look at how they can reduce their expenditure with regard to the CDCs.

You might be concerned that doing so might be of impact to operations of the CDC since the gahmen is where most of the money is coming from. So, let’s look at just how much money does the CDC have. According to figures for FY 2007, they have a whopping S$49.1 million in reserves. That means, for someone to get a 8-month bonus, the figures below would have substantially risen for FY 2008.

So why the heck should the gahmen still give them money considering their current reserves and when even the gahmen itself has cut salaries and bonus to reduce expenditure? In fact, while town councils justify their sinking funds by arguing that it is needed for emergencies, and perhaps even upgrading projects, what are these CDC reserves for? Isn’t part of the money the gahmen pays into these reserves an unnecessary burden the people like you and I have to bear? Perhaps the gahmen should consider giving the money back to all Singaporeans in the form of GST rebates or even, more job credits!

But all of above isn’t any more infuriating than the following:

Dr Teo Ho Pin said: “The mayors do not decide on the salaries, the increments, the bonuses of all our staffs at the CDC… We chair the CDCs, to spearhead the CDCs… I do not know the salaries, I do not know the bonuses of all my staff.”

[粤] 十问九唔知! [Cantonese: Sup Mun Gau Um Zee / Translation: 10 Questions, 9 Don't Know.]

I was actually expecting Teo Ho Pin to give the usual elitist Tali-PAP answer to justify just how outstanding these people are to deserve a 8-month bonus. I also wondered, when outstanding performance gets a 8-month bonus, then how much is average performance getting?

Sadly, Dr “Don’t Know” Teo doesn’t even tell us who might know. Perhaps he doesn’t even know who is the person we can ask either. In fact, It makes me wonder, is there anything he actually bothers enough to know? Even when there is no wrong doing here, it brings to mind former NKF Chairman Richard Yong, who during cross examination in court was exposed for not knowing what he signed when he awarded TT Durai with more money. Is he not required to even approve any of these things when both my branch and HR managers are required to sign on my bonus letter?

It is my considered opinion that this is a dereliction of duty when a person didn’t even consider it his responsibility to watch over the expenditure of something he chaired and spearheaded when it takes money from the gahmen. It is a gross failure to the very people who voted him. Thankfully, this time round he didn’t tell us to be grateful for these individuals, just as we should to the town councils which invested and lost money, even though “Don’t Know” Teo possibly also does not know who made the decision to invest that money. i.e. 凭父拢不知 [Hokkien: Lim Peh Nong Um Zai / Translation: Your father me all also don't know.]

But does he really not know, or simply just plain ‘bo-chup’ [Translation: Can't be bothered]? Here’s another piece of his ‘Teo-isms’:

Dr Teo Ho Pin then said: “The economy only start to worsen during the last 3 months of 2008. The performance of the economy during the first 9 months is still not bad. We have to look at the matter from the entire year’s perspective. Hence, it is not unreasonable for CDC staff to receive 8 months of bonuses.”

Familiar argument here! Because this is what some unhappy traders overseas used as argument when they tried to justify their ‘right’ to their bonus.

So do you not or do you know now, Dr Teo? Make up your mind!

Whatever the case is, as one of my netizen friend said, the Tali-PAP needs a new publicist. If the Tali-PAP does not want to consider that, then they should consider asking Dr ‘Toxic Asset’ Teo to retire before the next election. He clearly isn’t cut to be in whatever position(s) he is in now. Of course, they shouldn’t forget to ask ‘Wua Kan Seng’ to join him too when they are at that!

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24415.1

Look how disconnected they are

I shake my head when I see the whole story unfold before my very eyes.

It started off with an open letter to Dr Teo Ho Pin about Northwest CDC staff getting 8 months bonus in 2008. I also blog about it saying that its a good opportunity for the government to engage the new media. After several attempts to get official comments, Dr Teo finally replied saying that it’s confidential.

What kind of nonsense is that? We are not asking you to name who got exactly how much bonus. We just want to know if some staff got 8 months bonus. No need name the person out.

Then on Sunday, Dr Teo Ho Pin spoke to the media and said he don’t know the salary and bonus of the staff of North West CDC. OK, brilliant. From “confidential” to “I don’t know”. Perhaps “Confidential” is the new word for “I don’t know.” His interview with the media was very well drafted. Check out his interview with the media.

And Dr Teo squandered an opportunity to engage the New Media. (Gee…. I think I remember that phase from somewhere.) He could had reply directly to the source of this rumors which is the new media. But instead, he kept his silent until the mainstream media spoke to him. I thought you guys are going to leverage on the New Media? Well, I guess not.

So, it’s the People Association or Workforce Development Agency who decide on the salary and bonus of community development council staff. Not the Mayor. Then why didn’t you say so earlier Dr Teo? And now that it has been brought to your attention, don’t you, as a Mayor of North West CDC and a Member of Parliament of Bukit Panjang, feel that it is your duty and obligations to find out what exactly is going on in the CDC that is under your charge? Why are some of the staff getting such high bonus, especially during a recession?

No, it seems like you don’t know and you don’t care. All you want is this issue to get off your back. OK, since it is none of your business, everybody turn their attention at People Association and Workforce Development Agency.

And interestingly enough, before we can make enough noise, Mr Lim Boon Heng (hey, that’s my MP) steps out and defended the need for Community Development Councils (CDCs) to have flexibility in rewarding staff, pointing out that is how companies around the world operate. He stated that fixed monthly pay is kept down and the bonuses vary according to performance to motivate people to perform, because if a person does badly, he will not get the same high bonus. So this ensures that the reward system is fair and responsive to the needs of the organisation. He also advised people ‘not to begrudge the few people who got very high bonuses’.

Mr Lim, perhaps you don’t know that a lot of people in the private sector are having their salary and bonus cut because of this recession. (Some even lose their jobs) Are they not performing well? Nope, they got a pay cut because of the economic situation. I’m sure there are people in the private sector who are performing just as well as your staff in North West CDC. And if the people in the private sectors are getting their pay and bonus cut, why is the government sector getting excessive bonus? It’s shocking to see you defending the 8 months bonus. Are you so disconnected from the rest of Singapore to the extend that you think 8 months bonus is perfectly alright?

And come to think of it, now that we are in a recession, isn’t it about time we relook into the Minister’s salary?

In the mean time, the People’s Association said that salaries are in line with the National Wages Council’s guidelines, and that the association had moved to performance-based pay to reward and incentivise staff fairly and responsively.

Wow, for the past week, everyone kept quiet, saying it is confidential. Now everyone come out and talk about it. Although they never confirm or deny if any of the North West CDC staff (or staffs) got 8 months bonus, I think the answer is pretty clear already.

Now, the Salary and Bonus is based on National Wages Council’s guideline. If that is correct, then the high performance staffs in the private sectors should at least get 6 months bonus right? How can that be wrong? You mean the private sector don’t follow the NWC’s guideline meh? But if you think about it, if every private sector follow the NWC’s guideline and give their high performing staff 8 months bonus, I think some of them will be in financial problem soon.

And if PA and WDA really follow the NWC’s guideline and give 8 months bonus to their staff, I think we seriously need to relook into the NWC’s guideline. How the heck did someone get 8 months bonus? Even if we are not in a recession, 8 months bonus is a lot of money.

So can someone please justify why some of the staff at North West CDC received 8 months bonus? Did someone managed to find to cure to Singapore’s unemployment rate or something?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24414.1

News Blackout

News Blackout

Since the online outcry has broken out over two staff from the Northwest Community Development Council (CDC) received bonuses of eight months last year, including the 13th month bonus, the ST and CNA have imposed a News Blackout over the following 2 news reports:
CDC bonuses explained
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_350846.html
Northwest CDC mayor says PA, WDA decide on staff pay, bonuses
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/415302/1/.html

Fortunately, the 2 news reports still can be found at: CDC bonuses explained
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&msg=24248.1
Northwest CDC mayor says PA, WDA decide on staff pay, bonuses
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&msg=24080.4

What is the reason for blacking out the news reports? How low can the 154th ST and CNA go?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&msg=24335.1

A classic Singaporean reaction

A classic Singaporean reaction to Singaporean streakers:

"Streaking 'fun' can lead to other crimes"
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_350495.html

I'll post his comments in full (since he hardly said anything and the ST may not archive this to the end of days like the BBC does):

AFTER reading last Thursday's report, "Undergrad streakers expelled from NUS hostel", I would like to remind students that NUS stands for "National University of Singapore", and not "Naked University of Singapore".

I have nothing against drinking and having fun. However, running naked from one hostel to the next is something all schools and universities must prevent. Such "fun" can lead to other crimes.

Ace Kindred Cheong



This guy seems to possess future ministerial qualities ...

First paragraph - trying to impose his "authority" by "reminding" people of a useless piece of fact. Everyone knows NUS does not stand for the "Naked University of Singapore" ... your sarcastic remark does not tell anybody anything useful.

Second paragraph - Mr Cheong does the classic "fear factor" tactic of the ruling party - unsubstantiated paranoia about "other crimes". What other crimes are you alluding to, Mr Cheong? How are they related to streaking? Where do you get your crime statistics from that relates streaking to these "other crimes"?

As usual the Mainstream Media laps this kind of drivel up while rejecting other more thoughtful and interesting letters (you can see some of those on The Online Citizen or Wayang Party - I don't always agree with them, but I find those letters far more thoughtful about the issues we face as Singaporeans).

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24451.1

CDC bonuses explained

March 16, 2009

CDC bonuses explained
By Jessica Lim

Mr Lim said that reward system motivate people to perform, because if a person does badly, he will not get the same high bonus. -- ST PHOTO: STEPHANIE YEOW
COMMUNITY development councils (CDCs) need the flexibility to pay deserving staff bigger bonuses, People's Association (PA) deputy chairman Lim Boon Heng said on Monday.

Responding to questions about the online buzz generated after some staff at the Northwest CDC were reportedly paid up to eight months' bonus last year, Mr Lim said such payouts 'vary according to performance'.

VIDEO
Minister defends flexibility in rewarding staff
(1:18)
He did not touch on exactly how much the CDC's staff were paid, but said bonuses 'help to motivate people to perform, because if a person does badly, he will not get the same high bonus. So this ensures that the reward system is fair and responsive to the needs of the organisation'.

Mr Lim, who is also Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, added: 'In good times and in bad, there are good performers. And I think that particularly in bad times, we need people who give of their best and show example to the rest about what they can do to help the organisation.'

Pointing out that only a select few get high payouts, he said: 'I think we should not begrudge the few people who get very high bonuses.'

Several blog posts and threads dedicated to the issue of Northwest CDC's payouts have sprung up recently.

Many question the justification for such payouts, especially in light of the recession. Others say they are absurd in a time of growing retrenchments.

However, most ignored the fact that the bonuses were paid last year, when the economy was humming along right up till the last quarter.

When contacted, the PA, which decides bonuses and salaries of CDC staff, said its payments are in line with the National Wages Council's guidelines, and that it moved to performance-based pay in order to reward and incentivise staff fairly and responsively.

The PA added that only staff at the lower end of the salary range receive high performance bonuses. Such payments, it said, also help the organisation retain outstanding performers.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&msg=24248.1&search=y

Teo Ho Pin: Not “unreasonable” for the two CDC staff to receive eight months of bonus

Teo Ho Pin: Not “unreasonable” for the two CDC staff to receive eight months of bonus

Translated from Sin Ming Daily, 15 March 2009

According to an earlier report by 938live, a writer by the name of johnlaw2012 posted on the Channelnewsasia forum on the first of this month that two employees of Northwest Community Development Council received bonuses of 8 months last year, including the 13th month bonus.

In reponse to queries from radio958, Northwest CDC Mayor Dr Teo Ho Pin clarified that the pay of CDC staff is determined by the People’s Association.

He said: “The economy only start to worsen during the last 3 months of 2008. The performance of the economy during the first 9 months is still not bad. We have to look at the matter from the entire year’s perspective. Hence, it is not unreasonable for CDC staff to receive 8 months of bonuses.”

The People’s Association did not confirm or refute the rumors circulating on the internet. Earlier, PA also said that the salaries and bonuses of its staff are within the guidelines set by the National Wage Council.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25048.1

First World, Third World

We've been busy working on a new project about migrant workers in Singapore. To call the last three weeks intense, would be an understatement. It's been an eye-opener. A real shocker. We've met more scumbags than we've ever met in our entire lives put together.

We've been yelled at and threatened, we've seen what it means to be in an unequal power relationship, we've heard truly horrendous stories of abuse, exploitation and torture, and we've had the police on us not once, but twice. We know our rights, so we are fine - a legal background helps - but each incident leaves us angrier and sadder than before.

We can't say much more right now (wait for the film), but there is something we want to share.

Two weeks ago, we discovered a cluster of containers off Jurong Port Road. Some workers had taken us there - this little settlement had been their home for almost a year.

The place was filthy and stank of urine and rotting garbage. There were rats and mosquitoes everywhere. The workers told us they were housed, 20 men to a container. Each container was ventilated by an air-conditioner that often broke down.

More than 200 men had to share five toilets. There were no shower stalls - just a big tank filled with water covered by a thin film of scum. The kitchen had 13 individual stoves but not all of them worked. The workers told us they often had to wait hours for their turn to cook.

Our friends paid their employer, Ocean Marine Engineering, $100 for the privilege of living in this dump. That's $2,000 for each container. Someone's clearly raking it in.

These so-called dormitories broke health, environmental and safety rules on so many levels, the mind boggles to comprehend. Yet it was - still is - operating here, in law-abiding Singapore. We learnt a little later that it had in fact been around for four years. FOUR YEARS. How on earth did the authorities miss this one?

Several days after our visit, a volunteer reporter from a community blog went to the same site and wrote an excellent story about it. We thought we'd finally see some action. We even heard that the Ministry of Manpower was on the case and cracking down. We hoped the workers who had been conned into paying so much for so very little, would get some compensation.

This past weekend, we went back to take a look. The containers were still there, still occupied by dozens of workers. A dead rat lay decomposing next to the kitchen where a young Bangladeshi man was fixing himself some lunch. The stench was awful - clearly, the situation was so bad the occupants had stopped noticing something as trivial as a dead rat.

Two workers told us they paid their employers $50 a month each. A third had only just arrived and wasn't sure how much he was going to be charged. They said some Ministry officials had visited. We're waiting to see what happens next.

For anyone interested in taking a look (yes, journalists from the local press, we're looking at you), the containers are located right next to the Singapore Press Holdings Print Centre. And yes, the irony does not escape us.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24536.1

don’t fight in a three way cul-de-sac

don’t fight in a three way cul-de-sac, do it one on one, please.

A cul-de-sac (plural: culs-de-sac), close, or court (American and Australian English) is a dead-end street with only one inlet/outlet.

As usual, the ST engaged in their usual speculations about the opposition moves for the imminent elections(in my view) in their Insight post. I must commend the ST on a good job done. After all, lifting and copying from online sources, alongside baseless speculation are something they regularly engage in.

They have said nothing new except a confession from a PAP activist that electoral boundaries are redrawn to PAP’s advantage. Look at the quote as below. Thanks for the admission in gerrymandering. If I am to interpret this, its as good as PAP saying: we love to gerrymander and we can, so what can you do?

‘Since the PAP did not do well in Aljunied GRC in 2006, the weakest link there could be moved out and put into Ang Mo Kio GRC – which, no matter what, is still much stronger’.

But their usual arrogance aside, I personally urge all opposition parties to sit down once again and work things out. I’ve written before about the need for opposition unity. History has shown us clearly that divide-and-rule is the best method for controlling opposition, and time and time again, our opposition has fallen into PAP’s trap, no thanks to the shameless newspaper known as the Straits Times.

I am well-aware before the article came out that the Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC is eyed by more than 2 opposition parties. Hence I would like to urge the opposition parties to NOT fight amongst themselves along with the PAP. Sit down, make concessions and work things out, or the opposition parties will lose as a whole, and PAP will continue in its dominance and arrogance. Attacking an inept Minister like Mr Wong Kan Seng is easy, and easily replicated by all the opposition parties. You just need to say the magic words “Mas Selemat”. However, winning against his party isn’t, especially when there are more than one opposition competing for the already limited opposition vote. The same goes for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC. Do not be petty. If you guys are truly sincere about winning entry into Parliament for Singaporeans, it does not really matter who gets in, as long as a GRC is taken down.

I will admit that I will most definitely vote for the opposition, no matter who they put there, even a monkey. PAP needs to get out of my non-elite but caring face. What I will not admit is that if there is more than a two way contest, I will not be surewho to vote for so as to help the opposition cause, and I am sure lesser mortals, who cannot wait to remind the greater-mortals about whose really the boss, will also face the same dilemma.

Once again, please. Listen to MM Lee, for once, and meet him one v one in a cul-de-sac. Not meet him and his party, along with the other opposition parties in a three-way or four-way cul-de-sac. In such a scenario, the only losers will be Singaporeans who genuinely hope for change, and if you, as a member of the opposition,are really working for Singapore and Singaporeans, that’s something you will not want to see, right?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24172.1

Northwest CDC mayor says PA, WDA decide on staff pay, bonuses

Northwest CDC mayor says PA, WDA decide on staff pay, bonuses
By Satish Cheney, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 March 2009 2049 hrs

	Photos 1 of 2 Dr Teo Ho Pin (file pic)
	Video Northwest CDC mayor says PA, WDA decide on staff pay, bonuses

SINGAPORE: An online outcry has broken out over rumours that two staff from the Northwest Community Development Council (CDC) received bonuses of eight months last year, including the 13th month bonus.

It all started on March 1 when someone raised the matter on channelnewsasia.com's forum. Soon enough, it was hot news on various blogs.

When asked about the matter at an event for needy families on Saturday, Northwest CDC's mayor, Dr Teo Ho Pin, said bonuses and salaries of CDC staff are decided by the People's Association (PA) and, in the case of officers, the Workforce Development Agency (WDA).

He explained that this is because all CDC staff are seconded from the PA and WDA.

"I want to clarify that the mayors do not decide on the salaries, the increments, the bonuses of all our staff at the CDC.

"The mayors are political appointment holders. We chair the CDC to spearhead the CDC, to build a social safety net and help the people. That is our job. If you ask me, I do not know the salaries; I do not know the bonuses of all my staff," Dr Teo said.

The mayor added that a lot depends on staff performance when it comes to bonuses.

"Of course, the staff performance will be like a bell curve. Some would be top performers, some would be very poor performers. The bulk – maybe average performers. This is quite normal in every organisation.

"In the private sector, it's the same thing. The top performer of the company will normally get better bonuses as compared to the poor performers," said Dr Teo.

PA, in an earlier statement to 938LIVE, would only say that salaries are in line with National Wages Council's guidelines which state that salaries are performance-based and come with variable components based on economic and individual performance.

The People's Association added that only staff at the lower end of the salary range receive a higher performance bonus. This enables such officers to be rewarded similarly to other staff in the same kind of job who are drawing a higher basic monthly salary. It also helps the organisation to retain outstanding performers.

The range of performance bonus and other salary components are reviewed regularly and they go up or down in tandem with economic and market conditions, PA qualified.

Given the current economic climate, the organisation said it has cut its performance bonus pool and is working within a smaller budget.


- CNA/so

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24080.4

Buyer beware

Mar 14, 2009

Buyer beware
By Chan Akya

"There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart's desire. The other is to gain it." - George Bernard Shaw

Central banks across the Group of Seven leading industrialized countries are opening their purse strings with the first wave of quantitative easing (QE) measures seen in the current generation. After the US Federal Reserve started buying eligible corporate debt directly from the end of last year, we now have the Bank of England completing its first wave of QE-related asset purchases this week.

As with the moves by the US Federal Reserve in the past, the Bank of England quickly found itself overwhelmed by sellers who were quite eager to get rid of their UK government bonds (termed "gilts" ), with requests for around 10 billion pounds sterling (US$1.4 billion) against the 2 billion pounds that had been initially expected.

What followed was interesting: the immediate decline in the yield of UK government bonds by around 50 basis points (five-year gilts fell to 2.12% from 2.61% at the end of February) made the Bank of England move an unqualified success. About the one thing we know for sure about the world's central banks is that they love to copy each other; therefore in short order it is highly likely that the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan and perhaps even the European Central Bank (more on that later) will start buying up the bonds of their respective governments or member states.

In recent history, the Japanese government embarked on QE in the late 1990s after its policy of cutting interest rates to zero failed to produce any economic bounce: the failure was due to the significant losses on the balance sheets of Japanese banks and companies which rendered the actual interest rate moot as against the painful decline in asset value on the other side of their balance sheets. The QE policy of the Bank of Japan did not succeed in pulling Japan from the depths of its recession, and indeed may have only served to accentuate the deflationary forces that were unleashed by the country's demographic decline.

The UK on the other hand bears watching, for almost alone among the major economies it resembles the US in every respect - a house-price bubble, endemic leverage, bankrupt financial institutions and so on - with the main difference arising from the absence of a reserve currency status. In other words, Americans who wonder about what would happen to their country if the US dollar weren't the world's de facto currency would need to look no further than the UK.

Deliberately pushing down government yields in the UK would serve to push down the value of the currency against its major trading partners: the US and the European Union; which, given a service-oriented economy focusing on areas such as trade, insurance and financial services, would give the UK economy a significant competitive boost.

The move was repeated in Switzerland, which also this week acted deliberately to push down the value of its currency against the euro as it sought to maintain a competitive advantage in areas such as banking, tourism and manufacturing in the face of significant government intervention in neighboring European countries effectively supporting its competitors.

Meanwhile, in Asia, after revealing a current account deficit for the first time in recent memory, Japan has quietly seen its own version of devaluation as the yen now hovers around the 100 level from around 90 to the US dollar in late January - a level that presented tremendous difficulties for the country's exporters and even made the famously conservative Toyota Motor Corp at one stage request government assistance.

By now, readers will have recognized the game that is afoot: competitive devaluations across the G-7 - composed of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US - and the United States as every economy attempts to secure the future of its constituents, albeit at the cost of other major economies.

This phase will continue for a while longer, at least until the hapless European Central Bank (ECB) finally also caves into the demands of its member states and succumbs to the same logic - namely, of effecting a steady erosion of the purchasing power of their own currencies. The ECB is the central bank for Europe's single currency, the euro. According to its own web site, the ECB's "main task is to maintain the euro's purchasing power and thus price stability in the euro area". The euro area comprises the 16 European Union countries that have introduced the euro since 1999.

Who is the fish?
An oft-repeated saying from the game of poker holds that "around the table, you should always know who the fish is. If you don't, it's you." In this case, the "fish" refers to the worst player on the table, the one who is effectively paying for everyone else's winnings.

Non-Japan Asia is the unfortunate fish in the global game of devaluation being played by the major economies: the US, the EU, the UK, Switzerland, Japan and so forth. In particular, export powerhouses such as China, South Korea and Taiwan really have it bad, as do the Southeast Asian economies as we enter the next phase of the economic slowdown in the global economy.

It is not just in terms of currency values that the Asians are being made out to be the fish in this game. Adding insult to injury, it is the savings of Asians that actually help fund the government bonds of the major world economies. As interest rates are pushed down along with a parallel shift in the value of the currencies, savers in Asia are getting the worst possible deal, namely a decline in both current income and future purchasing power.

Central banks around the region are holding on to the bonds issued by the major economies because of fears that a large sell-off - by say, China - would damage the total value of their holdings and cause significant pain. However, this is to forget the longer-term, slow leakage that is currently on the cards anyway; leading as it will to the eventual destruction of values.

On the other side of the ring, we have countries such as South Korea, China and India all creating their own stimulus programs to push up domestic demand. Instead of participating in each other's government bond auctions though, the countries have been busy supporting the activities of the major economies and herein are the main problems for the region as a whole.

China certainly needs the experience of Korean construction companies in its initiative, much as India does too. The easiest way for both these countries to help Korea would be to award contracts to the latter; in return, the Korean government could easily buy infrastructure bonds denominated in US dollars issued by China or India. Similar instances of possible cooperation abound in areas ranging from energy to health.

A lot of this, though, will remain a pipe dream of this writer as Asian central banks continue their slavish purchases of whatever they have always been buying. For the citizens of the region though, the same question that should have been asked 24 months ago arises once again: who do these guys work for: their own citizens or those of the G-7?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25378.1

Email to Dr Lee Wei Ling

To : Dr Lee Wei Ling
c/o Sim Hwee Peng [ hwee_peng_sim@nni.com.sg ]

Dear Dr Lee

I had a hard time trying to find your email address. I gave up eventually and decided just to send my mail to you through your staff. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that Ms Sim will automatically block things that she feels are irrelevant to your work, and protect you from unnecessary disturbances.

I read your article titled “Why compare? Work together instead” featured in the Think-Tank column of The Straits Time today. You believe that people are gloomy because Singaporeans are comparing their wealth and income today to what they had in 2008. Also, the more unfortunate sub group is resentful that there is another group that is “luckier”.

Dr Lee, because I am not a monkey but in fact, someone who believes in a Supreme Being that will one day come and judge me for all the things that I have done on earth, please allow me to share with you my perspective.

We are born who we are and we should learn to live with it. Some people are born pretty and some ugly. Some are born rich and some poor. That is okay with me, because I know if I work hard, network with people, I might be able to improve my situation.

Therefore, if I am ugly, I don’t resent those who are pretty. If I am poor, I don’t resent those who are rich. You might be rich, and I might be poor. That does not matter to me, as long as it does not matter to you. I know of some rich people who are very nice. I also know of some poor people that I would want to stay far far away from.

To some of us, it is not about the poor being unhappy with the rich. Money is all relative and transient. One can be rich today and poor tomorrow. Or poor today and rich tomorrow.

Some of us are gloomy (in fact out right p***ed ) not because of income inequality. It is because we think our government has not exercised leadership, transparency and accountability. All our politicians try to do is to remain in power. There is nothing wrong with that. They should try their best to keep their jobs, and I would do the same thing if I were them too.

The issue here is, while trying to keep their jobs, the politicians and their friends become extremely rich because their pay are linked to “performance”. And now we are asking: Who should be accountable for the economy, loss of reserves, competition of low skill jobs by cheap foreigners, etc?

That is why some of us despair for Singapore.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26051.2

Lee Wei Ling : Why compare? Work together instead

March 11, 2009

THINK-TANK

Why compare? Work together instead

By Lee Wei Ling

RECENTLY, when I looked out of the window of my room at the Singapore General Hospital onto the junction where Chin Swee Road and the Central Expressway cross Outram Road to join the Ayer Rajah Expressway, I saw bumper to bumper traffic between 7.30am and 8.30am.

Isn't Singapore supposed to be in a recession - indeed, the worst recession we have experienced since the Great Depression of the 1930s? Yes it is, and Singaporeans are groaning.

Comment We compare our present to our past, often forgetting the bad times and remembering only the good. We also compare ourselves with our peers. If we see others suffer as we do, we resent our situation less. If a particular sub-group of the population suffers more than other sub-groups, the comparison is invariably noticed by the unfortunate sub-group. RELATED LINKS Why compare? Work together instead

Yet the wealth and income of most Singaporeans today are more rather than less than they were 10 years ago, even after accounting for inflation. So why the rather gloomy mood? The answer is that everything is relative. Singaporeans are comparing their wealth and income today to what they had in the boom years preceding 2008.

Consider a scientific experiment conducted on capuchin monkeys and reported in the journal Nature in 2003. The monkeys were trained to hand a token to a human experimenter in exchange for a cucumber. When two monkeys were able to see that each received one cucumber in exchange for one token, both felt satisfied and happily ate their cucumbers.

But when the experiment was changed so that one monkey received a grape and the other a cucumber, in full view of each other, the second monkey became upset, a grape being more desirable than a cucumber. When both were asked to hand over a token after that, the second monkey became uncooperative.

If one monkey was given a grape without giving the experimenter a token, the other monkey would become even more uncooperative and would toss either the token or the cucumber out of the test chamber. But if the first monkey was removed and a grape placed where it had been, after a while, the other monkey would gradually settle for the cucumber, seeing that no other monkey was getting a grape.

If capuchin monkeys can become dissatisfied comparing themselves to their peers, more so humans. We compare our present to our past, often forgetting the bad times and remembering only the good. We also compare ourselves with our peers.

If we see others suffer as we do, we resent our situation less. If a particular sub-group of the population suffers more than other sub-groups, the comparison is invariably noticed by the unfortunate sub-group. The perceived iniquity would rub salt into their wounds, aggravating the resentment they feel and causing jealousy towards those they perceive to be luckier than they.

A study last year reported in the journal Industrial Relations revealed that employee well-being is dependent upon how their wages compare with those of others in the comparison group, as opposed to the individual's absolute pay. Researchers Gordon Brown, Jonathan Gardner, Andrew Oswald and Jing Qian asked undergraduates to rate how satisfied they would be with the wages they might be offered for their first job after college. Subjects expressed feelings about each potential wage in the context of a set of other wages. The researchers also analysed data from 16,000 employees who reported on workplace satisfaction.

Employees did not care solely about their absolute level of pay. They were more concerned about how their incomes compared to those of the people around them in the workplace. And individuals were not influenced solely by their relative income but rather by the rank-ordered position of their wages within a comparison set.

'Our study shows how ordinal rank has a statistically significant effect upon well-being,' the authors concluded. 'Human well-being depends in a particular way upon comparisons with others.'

The lesson to be learnt by organisations like the one I lead, the National Neuroscience Institute (NNI), is that every employee must know how he has been appraised so he will know his salary, bonus, annual increments and promotions are fair. It is not enough for the system to be fair; the staff must be able to see clearly that the system is fair.

NNI has implemented peer appraisal to supplement the reporting officer's appraisal. When the two diverge, the countersigning officer must try to figure out the reason for the discrepancy and come to a fair decision about the person being appraised. I usually ask both the reporting officer and the peer the reasons for their appraisals.

But I hope everyone at NNI does not judge his or her worth by the remuneration he or she receives. We each contribute to NNI in different ways; yet we all succeed or fail as a team. In addition to the doctors, the administrators, nurses and medical technicians at NNI all play a role in enabling the institute to deliver the best neuro-medical care we can to our patients.

At the national level, it is important that sub-groups in the population that are suffering more than others in the current recession receive more help. At the same time, the entire population must feel that the Government has tried its best to look after everyone fairly. The richer members of our community should not flaunt their wealth. It would be even better if those who can afford it, donate their time and resources to help the less fortunate.

We are all in this economic downturn together, and we should strive as a nation to pull through together. That way, we will emerge from this crisis more resilient and more united than we are now. That is my hope for Singapore.

The writer is director of the National Neuroscience Institute. Think-Tank is a weekly column rotated among eight leading figures in Singapore's research and tertiary institutions.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26051.1

Lee Wei Ling on global economic crisis

Lee Wei Ling on global economic crisis

In 2007, in an end-of-year message to the staff of the National Neuroscience
Institute, I wrote: 'Whilst boom time in the public sector is never as
booming as in the private sector, let us not forget that boom time is
eventually followed by slump time. Slump time in the public sector is always
less painful compared to the private sector.'

Slump time has arrived with a bang.

While I worry about the poorer Singaporeans who will be hit hard, perhaps
this recession has come at an opportune time for many of us. It will give us
an incentive to reconsider our priorities in life.

Decades of the good life have made us soft. The wealthy especially, but also
the middle class in Singapore, have had it so good for so long, what they
once considered luxuries, they now think of as necessities.

A mobile phone, for instance, is now a statement about who you are, not just
a piece of equipment for communication. Hence many people buy the latest
model though their existing mobile phones are still in perfect working
order.

A Mercedes-Benz is no longer adequate as a status symbol. For millionaires
who wish to show the world they have taste, a Ferrari or a Porsche is deemed
more appropriate. The same attitude influences the choice of attire and accessories. I still
find it hard to believe that there are people carrying handbags that cost
more than thrice the monthly income of a bus driver, and many more times
that of the foreign worker labouring in the hot sun, risking his life to
construct luxury condominiums he will never have a chance to live in.
The media encourages and amplifies this ostentatious consumption. Perhaps it
is good to encourage people to spend more because this will prevent the
recession from getting worse. I am not an economist, but wasn't that the
root cause of the current crisis - Americans spending more than they could
afford to?

I am not a particularly spiritual person. I don't believe in the
supernatural and I don't think I have a soul that will survive my death. But
as I view the crass materialism around me, I am reminded of what my mother
once told me: 'Suffering and deprivation is good for the soul.'

My family is not poor, but we have been brought up to be frugal. My parents
and I live in the same house that my paternal grandparents and their
children moved into after World War II in 1945. It is a big house by today's
standards, but it is simple - in fact, almost to the point of being shabby.
Those who see it for the first time are astonished that Minister Mentor Lee
Kuan Yew's home is so humble. But it is a comfortable house, a home we have
got used to. Though it does look shabby compared to the new mansions on our
street, we are not bothered by the comparison.

Most of the world and much of Singapore will lament the economic downturn.
We have been told to tighten our belts. There will undoubtedly be suffering,
which we must try our best to ameliorate.

But I personally think the hard times will hold a timely lesson for many
Singaporeans, especially those born after 1970 who have never lived through
difficult times.
No matter how poor you are in Singapore , the authorities and social groups
do try to ensure you have shelter and food. Nobody starves in Singapore .
Many of those who are currently living in mansions and enjoying a luxurious
lifestyle will probably still be able to do so, even if they might have to
downgrade from wines costing $20,000 a bottle to $10,000 a bottle. They
would hardly notice the difference.
Being wealthy is not a sin. It cannot be in a capitalist market economy.
Enjoying the fruits of one's own labour is one's prerogative and I have no
right to chastise those who choose to live luxuriously.
But if one is blinded by materialism, there would be no end to wanting and
hankering. After the Ferrari, what next? An Aston Martin? After the Hermes
Birkin handbag, what can one upgrade to?

Neither an Aston Martin nor an Hermes Birkin can make us truly happy or
contented. They are like dust, a fog obscuring the true meaning of life, and
can be blown away in the twinkling of an eye.
When the end approaches and we look back on our lives, will we regret the
latest mobile phone or luxury car that we did not acquire? Or would we
prefer to die at peace with ourselves, knowing that we have lived lives
filled with love, friendship and goodwill, that we have helped some of our
fellow voyagers along the way and that we have tried our best to leave this
world a slightly better place than how we found it?
We know which is the correct choice - and it is within our power to make
that choice.

In this new year, burdened as it is with the problems of the year that has
just ended, let us again try to choose wisely.
To a considerable degree, our happiness is within our own control, and we
should not follow the herd blindly.

Lee Wei Ling

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26028.1