Top Heavy Management
Singapore's Prime Minister had a pretty busy week last week playing musical chairs. The cabinate saw a reshuffle in which the Defense Minister was promoted to Deputy Prime Minister and three up and a deputy prime minister was moved up to becoming Senior Minsiter in the Prime Minister's Office. Further to that, an additional minister was added to the Prime Minister's office (The local media had a field day making the most of the fact that is the first woman in history to make it to full minister). In addition to that, another former navy man was made the Minister in charge of - Information, Communications and the Arts. Singapore, a land of 4.6 million not only has the highest paid government ministers in the world but also the most top-heavy government. As of writing, we have 1 Prime Minsiter, 1 Minister Mentor, 2 Senior Ministers and 3 Ministers in the Prime Minister's Office - all this in addition to the Ministers who have a Ministry to run.
One has to wonder why the Singapore government has decided to add on a few extra C-level executives when every other organisation in the world is shedding management? Is there a method in this apprent maddness? Well, you can't discount the Singapore government from making a bet that proves to be right. The very idea of an indepdepdent Singapore is thanks to a contrarian bet. Nobody said we could make it and we did (did we have a choice?) So, does the Singapore government know something that the rest of the world does not when it comes to increasing top-level management?
This does not make economic sense. Our Ministers do not come cheap but this argument is easily countered by the fact that we need to pay top-dollar to the get the top brains. I can see how this works when we talk about the various ministers running ministries. The Singapore government is by most standards highly clean, efficient and effective in what it does and it benefits the majority of the citizens. Having said that, it does not explain why we need another three ministers to be sitting in the Prime Ministers office. One arguement is that these Ministers do run "Special Projects," such aging. Then, if that's the case, why don't we just give them a title that matches or perhaps assign the portfolio to a Minsiter in charge of a ministry. Yes, it would be hard work but anyone ambitious enough to be a minister will surely be glad for the chance to take on more responsability.
This leads to the Minister Mentor and two Senior Ministers. What exactly are these jobs and how do they benefit the running of the government? These jobs are effectively consultant positions. The Minister Mentor as the name implies exist to "Mentor" the rest of the cabinate, while the Senior Minister as the name implies is the most "Senior" of all the Ministers. However, neither the senior or minister mentor have executive control - that remains the job of the Prime Minister.
The theory is that senior and minister mentors provide "Guidence" and lend their "Experience" to the Prime Minsiter of the day. So far, the system has worked. Senior Minsiter Goh Chok Tong in particular has been in asset to the Prime Minister in areas like opening Saudi Arabia and running relations with the Islamic world. But what of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and why do we need Professor Jayakumar as another Senior Minister? Both men have served Singapore with distinction but are they in danger of overstaying their welcome?
Look at Minister Mentor Lee. As far as Singapore is concerned, Lee Kuan Yew has created a miracle. The nation owes its very existence and prosperity to him. Having said of all of that, what exactly is his value to the nation by continuing to stay in the cabinate. In Singapore Mr Lee will remain exceedingly powerful and that power comes merely from being who he is. In theory, Mr Lee is hanging on in the cabinate because he's supposed to provide wisdom and experience to the rest of the Minsiters. Surely Mr Lee is capable of doing that without being in the cabinate. All he has to do is to give lectures and write books and Singapore will notice. As things stand, there's an arguement that Mr Lee's continued presence in the cabinate harms the Prime Minister - it provides the impression that the Prime Minister takes orders from him - hence Mr Lee has to tell the world that "I am NO LONGER in CHARGE." Nearly two decades in since he stepped down from the Prime Minsitership, the question remains in Singapore - can Singapore go on without Mr Lee?
Both the Prime Minsiter and Minister Mentor should take a lesson from the late Deng Xiaopeng and his relationship with former Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Mr Deng was regarded as the most powerful man in China right til the day he died. Yet, the only title he held was "President of the Bridge Club," and allowed President Jiang to run the show. So, when Mr Deng died, it was ...a non-event. China did not fall appart as many pessemist were suggesting. This is a lesson both Mr Lee's could do well to follow - The Elder will secure his legacy while the younger will be allowed to form his. In the mean time, the elder can continue to wield quite influence by his mere presence and as the younger Mr Lee's father.
So much is said about Mr Lee and the need for him to follow the examples of other great CEOs who have gone to pasture and left their companies to carry on. So what about Professor Jeyakumar? Why do we need another senior minister, particularly one who has never been prime minsister? Could it be anything to do with the fact that the good professor comes from an ethnic minority? If it were, it would be shame. The last thing the ethnic miniroties need is another token with little real influence and little real necessity. Ethnic minorities control significant ministries - Finance, Law and the Environment and Water Resources. Do we need a senior minister to oversee these Ministers? The last time anyone checked, the respective ministers were doing quite well without anyone to look over their shoulder. Surely Professor Jeyakumar could serve the nation more effectively (a nation he has served exceedingly well) by sharing his experiences from the sidelines?
We live in age where we try not to create work for the sake of it. It's an inefficient thing to do and yet, it seems to me that we are creating high-level jobs for the sake of it. People like Minister Mentor Lee and Senior Minister Jayakumar can continue to add value to the nation without being in cabinate. If they don't volunteer to do it, the Prime Minister should persuade them that this is the best course of action.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25525.1
Monday, March 30, 2009
Reaching the needy? More publicity needed
Reaching the needy? More publicity needed
Monday, 30 March 2009
Leong Sze Hian
The media recently reported that those seeking financial assistance at the five Community Development Councils (CDCs) have increased by about 40 per cent. Comcare also dished out financial assistance to about 24,000 needy families, a 4 per cent increase compared to the same period in 2007.
The numbers are a little confusing. Do they refer to the 24,000 needy families for the whole of last year as reported in Parliament in February, or the 23,500 for the last six months of last year as reported now in March?
Since there were 40,681 applications for the various Comcare financial assistance schemes last year, does it mean that about 16,681 applications were unsuccessful? (Straits Times) (See chart below).
The ministry should perhaps tell us how many of the 24,000 needy families were new applications approved in the year - and how many were existing cases being given assistance since 2007?
In this connection, the latest data shows that there were 3,483 applications for the month of January 2009, compared to 2,470 in October 2008.
In reply to a question in the March parliamentary session, it was disclosed that about 50 per cent of applications for Public Assistance under the Public Assistance Scheme were rejected.
From data provided, it would seem that the amount spent on public assistance was $50 million.
This would mean that, for the 24,000 families, the average amount received per needy family per month was about $174.
According to the Department of Statistics data, the per capita household monthly income of the bottom 10 per cent of employed households was only $340. This 10 per cent constitutes an estimated 100,000 households. The 24,000 families under the Comcare scheme seem to be quite small in comparison.
Moreover, there may also be some unemployed households who may also need financial assistance. There were 73,200 unemployed residents in December 2008 and about 80,000 retiree households.
I think the Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports, may have hit it right on the nail when she remarked that many may not be aware of Comcare’s financial assistance schemes.
Only about $1.57 million of the $6.25 million budgeted for the Comcare CCC Fund has been given out after nine months. (See chart below) Also only 31 per cent of the previous year’s budgeted amount was disbursed (”The needy still lack awareness of help schemes, CNA, Feb 3).
The above $1.57 million disbursed for the nine months from April to December 2008 was despite the substantial increase in Comcare funds. “Between July and December 2008, ComCare gave out 67 per cent more from its Citizens’ Consultative Committee-ComCare Fund,” a report by Channelnewsasia said. “That is almost $400,000 more than the same period in 2007.” (CNA, Mar 21).
I think the Comcare needy versus the demographic needy statistics, may indicate a need for the awareness of Comcare schemes to be made more widely known to needy Singaporeans.
I often see advertisements in the media encouraging Singaporeans to top-up their CPF, the importance of family ties, go for re-training under SPUR or PSP, etc.
Why not advertise about Comcare too?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25521.1
Workers’ Party hit by latest spate of resignations
Workers’ Party hit by latest spate of resignations
Four party cadres, including two candidates from GE 2006, resigned in the past one week but renewal process is on track, says Organizing Secretary
“Salim has the idealism and passion to pursue what he feels strongly about,” said Mr Yaw Shin Leong, the Workers’ Party Organising Secretary and Mr Salim’s team leader in Ang Mo Kio GRC in the last elections. “I wish him well.”
27 year old Mr Abdul Salim Harun’s resignation from the Workers’ Party is not totally unexpected. Rumours had been going around about his wish to leave the party since last year. His presence at the Singapore Democratic Party’s Hong Lim Park protest, during the IMF/World Bank meeting in September 2006, was believed to have raised some eyebrows within the party.
While his resignation may not affect the party significantly, observers have noted that it might put a spanner in the works for the party’s rejuvenation process, especially since his is not the only resignation since GE 2006. Mr Chia Ti Lik and Mr Goh Meng Seng, both in their 30s and who had been members of the party’s previous Central Executive Committee (CEC), have also since resigned.
When the party elected its new CEC after the elections in 2006, it was touted as a rejuvenation. Party secretary general, Mr Low Thia Khiang, was reported to be “very pleased” with the new and younger CEC. 9 out of the 15 members were below the age of 40 then. “The process of renewal is on track,” Mr Low said to the Straits Times.
Will Mr Salim’s leaving signal further resignations from the party, especially of younger members who might be unhappy with the party’s non-vocal stand? Mr Chia had cited his “frustration” with the party as a reason for his resignation. Mr Goh explained that he left the WP because of “misinformation” put out by the Today newspaper which reported that he had allegedly made a threat against an Internet forummer. He resigned because the report had done damage to “WP’s public image”, he said. (Link) However, it is believed that he too was unhappy with the party. Three more party cadres have also resigned in the past one week, including Mr Salim’s running mate in Ang Mo Kio GRC, Ms Lee Wai Leng.
Part of the process?
The leadership may, however, see such resignations as “norming processes”, as party chairman Ms Sylvia Lim had said when Mr Chia resigned in November 2006. (Link)
Mr Yaw also does not see Mr Salim’s resignation as any kind of setback for the rejuvenation process. “The renewal process was set in motion since 2001,” he said. “[These] resignations won’t set back the process,” he added.
Agreeing with Mr Yaw is Mr Tan Kian Hwee, also a member of the Ang Mo Kio team in 2006. “Resignations have occurred in every party including the PAP - even in the period from 2006 until the present,” he said. “An organisation would be seriously problematic if the ‘loss’ outstrips the ‘gain’, which I do not see [in] the WP’s case.”
Mr Salim himself seems to agree. He told The Online Citizen (TOC) that his resignation “will not affect the party in one way or another.”
Half of the party’s current CEC is below the age of 40, with three new faces in Mr Koh Choong Yong, Ms Lilian Lee and 47-year old Mr Png Eng Huat. Mr Salim was not a member of the current CEC.
The bad news for the party, however, may be the negative publicity these resignations may give – especially when the next general elections is rumoured to be around the corner. After all, resignations of younger members, who are naturally the next generation of leaders for the party, perhaps indicate a restlessness within the organization. The leadership will have to pay more attention to the aspirations of these members if more resignations are to be prevented.
Mr Tan is of the view that the WP, like any other organization, has to consistently reflect on where it can improve. He said, however, that “this would be more in its approach and policy.” He also feels that it is both its leaders and members together that have to remain relevant to the public.
“Personally, I don’t agree that a party’s leadership needs to meet its members’ expectations in areas where it does not meet the people’s expectations,” he added.
Outreach expanding online
Mr Yaw is confident that the party’s plans are in place. “There are people joining the party, and our groundwork continues as we are going about house-to-house visits” he explained. He added that he was heartened that new members have chosen to enter the party even during the “lull periods” between elections.
Mr Yaw also cited the WP’s outreach efforts online, which include Twitter and Facebook. He also noted that “the WP has the largest amount of leadership figures who blog amongst the alternative parties”. He pointed to a new WP online initiative called Hammersspeed which aggregates all articles relating to the WP. [Correction, 31 March 09: The WP has clarified that these online sites are not official party websites.]
The Workers Party was the best-performing opposition party in the last elections. It scored 43.9 per cent in Aljunied GRC and is generally seen as the opposition party with the best hope of breaking the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) monopoly on GRCs.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25520.1
Four party cadres, including two candidates from GE 2006, resigned in the past one week but renewal process is on track, says Organizing Secretary
“Salim has the idealism and passion to pursue what he feels strongly about,” said Mr Yaw Shin Leong, the Workers’ Party Organising Secretary and Mr Salim’s team leader in Ang Mo Kio GRC in the last elections. “I wish him well.”
27 year old Mr Abdul Salim Harun’s resignation from the Workers’ Party is not totally unexpected. Rumours had been going around about his wish to leave the party since last year. His presence at the Singapore Democratic Party’s Hong Lim Park protest, during the IMF/World Bank meeting in September 2006, was believed to have raised some eyebrows within the party.
While his resignation may not affect the party significantly, observers have noted that it might put a spanner in the works for the party’s rejuvenation process, especially since his is not the only resignation since GE 2006. Mr Chia Ti Lik and Mr Goh Meng Seng, both in their 30s and who had been members of the party’s previous Central Executive Committee (CEC), have also since resigned.
When the party elected its new CEC after the elections in 2006, it was touted as a rejuvenation. Party secretary general, Mr Low Thia Khiang, was reported to be “very pleased” with the new and younger CEC. 9 out of the 15 members were below the age of 40 then. “The process of renewal is on track,” Mr Low said to the Straits Times.
Will Mr Salim’s leaving signal further resignations from the party, especially of younger members who might be unhappy with the party’s non-vocal stand? Mr Chia had cited his “frustration” with the party as a reason for his resignation. Mr Goh explained that he left the WP because of “misinformation” put out by the Today newspaper which reported that he had allegedly made a threat against an Internet forummer. He resigned because the report had done damage to “WP’s public image”, he said. (Link) However, it is believed that he too was unhappy with the party. Three more party cadres have also resigned in the past one week, including Mr Salim’s running mate in Ang Mo Kio GRC, Ms Lee Wai Leng.
Part of the process?
The leadership may, however, see such resignations as “norming processes”, as party chairman Ms Sylvia Lim had said when Mr Chia resigned in November 2006. (Link)
Mr Yaw also does not see Mr Salim’s resignation as any kind of setback for the rejuvenation process. “The renewal process was set in motion since 2001,” he said. “[These] resignations won’t set back the process,” he added.
Agreeing with Mr Yaw is Mr Tan Kian Hwee, also a member of the Ang Mo Kio team in 2006. “Resignations have occurred in every party including the PAP - even in the period from 2006 until the present,” he said. “An organisation would be seriously problematic if the ‘loss’ outstrips the ‘gain’, which I do not see [in] the WP’s case.”
Mr Salim himself seems to agree. He told The Online Citizen (TOC) that his resignation “will not affect the party in one way or another.”
Half of the party’s current CEC is below the age of 40, with three new faces in Mr Koh Choong Yong, Ms Lilian Lee and 47-year old Mr Png Eng Huat. Mr Salim was not a member of the current CEC.
The bad news for the party, however, may be the negative publicity these resignations may give – especially when the next general elections is rumoured to be around the corner. After all, resignations of younger members, who are naturally the next generation of leaders for the party, perhaps indicate a restlessness within the organization. The leadership will have to pay more attention to the aspirations of these members if more resignations are to be prevented.
Mr Tan is of the view that the WP, like any other organization, has to consistently reflect on where it can improve. He said, however, that “this would be more in its approach and policy.” He also feels that it is both its leaders and members together that have to remain relevant to the public.
“Personally, I don’t agree that a party’s leadership needs to meet its members’ expectations in areas where it does not meet the people’s expectations,” he added.
Outreach expanding online
Mr Yaw is confident that the party’s plans are in place. “There are people joining the party, and our groundwork continues as we are going about house-to-house visits” he explained. He added that he was heartened that new members have chosen to enter the party even during the “lull periods” between elections.
Mr Yaw also cited the WP’s outreach efforts online, which include Twitter and Facebook. He also noted that “the WP has the largest amount of leadership figures who blog amongst the alternative parties”. He pointed to a new WP online initiative called Hammersspeed which aggregates all articles relating to the WP. [Correction, 31 March 09: The WP has clarified that these online sites are not official party websites.]
The Workers Party was the best-performing opposition party in the last elections. It scored 43.9 per cent in Aljunied GRC and is generally seen as the opposition party with the best hope of breaking the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) monopoly on GRCs.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25520.1
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Employers still discriminating against older workers
Employers still discriminating against older workers
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Gilbert Goh
Having met more than a dozen unemployed Singaporeans either through my unemployment support site transitioning.org or my own personal contacts, I observed that there are two main issues that frustrate them.
One is the huge influx of foreigners into our labour force during the past few years and the other is the age bias in seeking employment that seems to have gotten worse recently.
A weekend visit to Han’s restaurant at Harbourfront shocked me as the four staff working there were all Filipinos. From the person that took my order to the cashier and chefs, they were all foreigners happily going about their jobs. The only thing that stood them out from the former Han’s staff that I had seen previously, was the age difference. All of them appeared to be in their twenties. I found myself paying for my order grudgingly.
Are mature Singaporeans not able to fill such positions even if they were much older and were a little slower? Must employers continue to fill in service positions with foreigners while claiming that locals refuse to work longer hours for miserable pay? Are all the employers’ complaints valid? I am sure that for every Singaporean’s refusal to work at such service jobs, there should be another who do not mind such work. This is especially so in this time of economic downturn. Let us not generalise and condemn the working attitude of Singaporeans just because of a few black sheep.
I share the sentiments of the unemployed on both concerns. At the age of 47, I too face mammoth pressure in securing employment in a hiring practice that borders on discriminatory.
Some employment agents have told me in private that employers continue to look at candidates below the age of 35 years old. Some unemployed who responded to advertisements for face to face interviews were often rejected when they revealed that their age is above 40.
If you called in a recruiter and said that you are 40 years old, they would reply that they want someone below 40 years old. If you called in and said that you are 38, they will reply that they prefer someone below 35 instead!
Our labour hiring laws do seem to allow such discriminatory employment practices to prevail. Amazingly, employers seem to get away with such archaic third-world hiring practices in a first world, developed country.
Many I spoke to lamented that they have nowhere to turn to now as they face massive obstacle in being rehired due to their age (40-50 years old). Many who are able are seriously considering the idea of applying for emigration to countries such as Australia or Canada - countries which have strong laws against age-bias hiring practices. I do not blame them for taking such a drastic move because if you cannot find employment in your own country, due to your age, then it makes sense to venture abroad where there is at least some legal protection against discriminatory hiring. The future does look bleak for those who are matured in age in Singapore.
The Aussies have very strong anti-discriminatory hiring practices. When a jobseeker send in his resume, he can choose not to accompany it with his address, race, gender, age, religion and photograph. The employers only decide to interview the candidate based on his working experience and qualification.
As Singapore continues to grabble with the severe downturn and an ageing workforce, let us hope that the government will tighten hiring practices so that our local workforce will be able to face the future with confidence and, most importantly, pride.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25376.1
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Gilbert Goh
Having met more than a dozen unemployed Singaporeans either through my unemployment support site transitioning.org or my own personal contacts, I observed that there are two main issues that frustrate them.
One is the huge influx of foreigners into our labour force during the past few years and the other is the age bias in seeking employment that seems to have gotten worse recently.
A weekend visit to Han’s restaurant at Harbourfront shocked me as the four staff working there were all Filipinos. From the person that took my order to the cashier and chefs, they were all foreigners happily going about their jobs. The only thing that stood them out from the former Han’s staff that I had seen previously, was the age difference. All of them appeared to be in their twenties. I found myself paying for my order grudgingly.
Are mature Singaporeans not able to fill such positions even if they were much older and were a little slower? Must employers continue to fill in service positions with foreigners while claiming that locals refuse to work longer hours for miserable pay? Are all the employers’ complaints valid? I am sure that for every Singaporean’s refusal to work at such service jobs, there should be another who do not mind such work. This is especially so in this time of economic downturn. Let us not generalise and condemn the working attitude of Singaporeans just because of a few black sheep.
I share the sentiments of the unemployed on both concerns. At the age of 47, I too face mammoth pressure in securing employment in a hiring practice that borders on discriminatory.
Some employment agents have told me in private that employers continue to look at candidates below the age of 35 years old. Some unemployed who responded to advertisements for face to face interviews were often rejected when they revealed that their age is above 40.
If you called in a recruiter and said that you are 40 years old, they would reply that they want someone below 40 years old. If you called in and said that you are 38, they will reply that they prefer someone below 35 instead!
Our labour hiring laws do seem to allow such discriminatory employment practices to prevail. Amazingly, employers seem to get away with such archaic third-world hiring practices in a first world, developed country.
Many I spoke to lamented that they have nowhere to turn to now as they face massive obstacle in being rehired due to their age (40-50 years old). Many who are able are seriously considering the idea of applying for emigration to countries such as Australia or Canada - countries which have strong laws against age-bias hiring practices. I do not blame them for taking such a drastic move because if you cannot find employment in your own country, due to your age, then it makes sense to venture abroad where there is at least some legal protection against discriminatory hiring. The future does look bleak for those who are matured in age in Singapore.
The Aussies have very strong anti-discriminatory hiring practices. When a jobseeker send in his resume, he can choose not to accompany it with his address, race, gender, age, religion and photograph. The employers only decide to interview the candidate based on his working experience and qualification.
As Singapore continues to grabble with the severe downturn and an ageing workforce, let us hope that the government will tighten hiring practices so that our local workforce will be able to face the future with confidence and, most importantly, pride.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25376.1
Recent Cabinet Changes and Camelot
Recent Cabinet Changes and Camelot
Farquhar again demonstrated that he is one of the only three or four insightful writers in ground breaking The Online Citizen. He made a learned although not really revisionist version of succession and power play with regards to the latest Cabinet change. On April Fools' Day, Teo Chee Hean, Defence Minister, will also become the DPM. Nevertheless, it is not that simple in reading the tea leaves on succession.
Tradition and Succession
Traditionally and generally, the defence, education, foreign and home affair ministries are arguably the seats of those who have the political potential to achieve at least Deputy Prime Minister appointments.
Goh Chok Tong was the Minister of Defence before he became DPM and then PM. Lee Hsien Loong was also (second) Minister for Defence prior to becoming DPM and then PM. Before becoming DPM, Goh Keng Swee was from the Education Ministry. When Tony Tan became DPM, his last appointment was Minister for Education. Both S Jayakumar and S Rajaratnem headed the Foreign Ministry before becoming DPM. When Wong Kan Seng became a DPM, he was already steering the Home Affairs Ministry.
Despite being acting-PM when Lee Hsien Loong is out of Singapore, Teo Chee Hean would not become PM because his age is too close to the current PM. Once rumoured as a contender as the next PM, Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Education, might also be out of the race for PM as he was also born in the 1950s. Political pundits reminded all that the current and 3rd PM of Singapore earlier mused he wanted someone really younger to succeed him, bringing back the idea that a PM could even be someone in his 40s. Albeit under a different world and tribulations in 1965, Lee Kuan Yew was 42 when he became the PM of Singapore. That means the future PM is someone born in the 1960s possibly. With Singaporeans perceived by our own political leaders as racist implicitly and despite already having non-Chinese as the Elected President and head of state, and a DPM and thus second in command to the head of government, the PM for Singapore would still be Chinese supposedly.
Yet going against tradition, there is now the first female minister, Lim Hwee Hua, regardless if she is running her own ministry or not from April Fools' Day.
Reading Beyond Tokenism
Assuming this is more than political tokenism, it means a new age of king-making. Singapore is a parliamentary system and it is the party elected into power that chooses who would be PM, not the citizens per se. By keeping ethnic prejudices because of imagined voter preferences, the cabinet has tied its own hands especially if a next PM is one born in the 1960s. The party might decide to unfetter itself and consider a non-Chinese PM next. Furthermore, transcending sex bias in the choice of a minister could herald the commencement of the general eradication of old prejudices about where the DPM and PM could come from in terms of ministry background. The next PM might not necessarily have headed the defence, education, foreign or home affairs ministries.
The appointment of Teo Chee Hean shows that the current leadership is sticking to its traditional doctrine of electing DPMs and PMs with certain ministries as a career map for now. However, the appointment of Lim Hwee Hua on the other hand shows that the cabinet is at a crossroad. If a female minister can be appointed, it also perhaps portends that the cabinet is rethinking its whole cabinet line-up formula. Thus how a DPM first and consequently how a PM can be appointed and other old mindsets are being repacked.
Returning to king-making, it doesn't matter if he is a noble or not, as long as the One can pull the Sword out of the Stone. If that is the case, for example, Vivian Balakrishnan, is still in the game.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25365.2
All about BONUS!
All about BONUS!
10 years ago, I received a call from a ex-classmate who told me that he was going to backpack around the world for 6 months. The reason being he received 12 months bonus for the previous year from his company which was in the semi-con business but the cyclical business had turned down and he decided to quit before the company retrenched him. The company had record profits and everyone was rewarded with huge bonuses. He did work hard but the bonus was on top of the OT pay he received for that year. I was happy for my friend but wondered what he did right other than to join the right company at the right time - not that he had extraordinary foresight that the sector/company would have such a blockbuster year -it was all a total surprise to him.
Recently there has been a lot of talk about the bonus received by certain people. AIG which blew up and took more than US$100B of taxpayers' money to stay alive caused an outrage when it was revealed that it was paying executives including those in its derivatives dept US$100+M in bonuses. Ordinary Americans found it hard to accept. Its CEO Libby who was employed after the govt rescue to fix the company explained that the bonuses had to be given out because they were based on employment contracts signed more than a year ago before the financial mess started and these employees can sue the company for double the payment if AIG did not meet its legal obligations. That explanation wasn't enough...contract or no contract, Americans just simply couldn't accept what was seen as unfair compensation. AIG had to increase the security for its staff and advised them not to wear their employee pass in public. The outrage subsided a little when AIG executives volunteered to about half of bonus. In Britain, the home of former RBS CEO Goodwin was vandalised[Link]. Goodwin has become a hated figure seen as a symbol of greed that caused the current crisis. He refused to give up his hefty pension and that enraged many Britons.
"We are angry that rich people are paying themselves huge amounts of money while ordinary people r unemployed, destitute & homeless."
- Group calling themselves BankBossesAreCriminals (BBAC)
In Singapore we have had 2 cases that raise some eyebrows - CDC staff who were paid 8 months (anyone knows what happened to JohnLaw2012?) bonus and the CapLand CEO who received $20M in bonus. It was explained that the CDC staff performed very well at the job and CapLand CEO deserved his bonus because the company had profits of $2B in 2007.....
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25370.1
10 years ago, I received a call from a ex-classmate who told me that he was going to backpack around the world for 6 months. The reason being he received 12 months bonus for the previous year from his company which was in the semi-con business but the cyclical business had turned down and he decided to quit before the company retrenched him. The company had record profits and everyone was rewarded with huge bonuses. He did work hard but the bonus was on top of the OT pay he received for that year. I was happy for my friend but wondered what he did right other than to join the right company at the right time - not that he had extraordinary foresight that the sector/company would have such a blockbuster year -it was all a total surprise to him.
Recently there has been a lot of talk about the bonus received by certain people. AIG which blew up and took more than US$100B of taxpayers' money to stay alive caused an outrage when it was revealed that it was paying executives including those in its derivatives dept US$100+M in bonuses. Ordinary Americans found it hard to accept. Its CEO Libby who was employed after the govt rescue to fix the company explained that the bonuses had to be given out because they were based on employment contracts signed more than a year ago before the financial mess started and these employees can sue the company for double the payment if AIG did not meet its legal obligations. That explanation wasn't enough...contract or no contract, Americans just simply couldn't accept what was seen as unfair compensation. AIG had to increase the security for its staff and advised them not to wear their employee pass in public. The outrage subsided a little when AIG executives volunteered to about half of bonus. In Britain, the home of former RBS CEO Goodwin was vandalised[Link]. Goodwin has become a hated figure seen as a symbol of greed that caused the current crisis. He refused to give up his hefty pension and that enraged many Britons.
"We are angry that rich people are paying themselves huge amounts of money while ordinary people r unemployed, destitute & homeless."
- Group calling themselves BankBossesAreCriminals (BBAC)
In Singapore we have had 2 cases that raise some eyebrows - CDC staff who were paid 8 months (anyone knows what happened to JohnLaw2012?) bonus and the CapLand CEO who received $20M in bonus. It was explained that the CDC staff performed very well at the job and CapLand CEO deserved his bonus because the company had profits of $2B in 2007.....
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25370.1
The man who would be king
The man who would be king
Saturday, 28 March 2009
A not uninteresting Cabinet reshuffle
There was little to fuss over Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s latest Cabinet reshuffle, which was announced on 26th March 2009 with minimal fanfare. That’s the norm in Singapore, where the ruling cabal prides itself on an orderly succession without the hoopla that usually accompanies similar transitions in other countries. Most of the changes have long been speculated on, but this masks what might be rather momentous implications for the political landscape.
Even so, for all its supposed banality there was still some surprise and not a little rancour over the “promotion” of Deputy Prime Minister S Jayakumar to the post of Senior Minister, a position that has traditionally carried little responsibility save that of a big-wig roaming ambassador. Some observers have panned the appointment as superfluous – in fact Mr Lee was breaking new ground by having two Senior Ministers, the other one being ex-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong – considering that the position is largely seen as a means of gracefully retiring elder ministers. The conspicuous exception of course is Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who held the position from 1990 to 2004 and continues to exert a visibly heavy influence on policy.
Mr Jayakumar was long thought to be due to retire, but since the last election in 2006 he appears to have made himself too indispensable to be eased out of the Cabinet just yet. He is also thought to have earned some credit for Singapore’s win in the Pedra Branca dispute with Malaysia at the International Court of Justice, which was also a reminder of the need for his legal expertise in complex international issues such as climate change.
What his appointment also points to is the outsized centralisation of policy-making prerogative in the Prime Minister’s Office, a trend underscored by the appointment of yet another minister there, in the form of Mrs Lim Hwee Hua as Singapore’s first female minister. This partly reflects the government’s oft-stated mantra of the need for better coordination amongst disparate agencies, but it does raise questions about whether the office can be streamlined and the portfolios of its various inhabitants better defined. Already, the wage bill for the politicians in the Prime Minister’s Office is just slightly less than that of all the other ministries put together.
Mrs Lim’s appointment as full minister, while long expected, came with the twist that she is still not helming any ministry of her own. One reason is that there is simply no ministry up for grabs. But it is also possible that Mrs Lim’s promotion is meant to beef up the Aljunied constituency, which was the weakest ward for the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) in the last election. This is particularly since the party’s helmsman in Aljunied, Foreign Minister George Yeo, has floated the possibility of retiring from politics. Furthermore, Mrs Lim would be a convenient foil for Ms Sylvia Lim of the Worker’s Party, who is the opposition’s only female heavyweight of note and had led her party’s team in Aljunied in 2006.
Heir today, gone tomorrow
But the real story of the reshuffle is essentially the tale of two admirals: one who would be Deputy Prime Minister, and another who, for all intents and purposes, would be heir-apparent to the Prime Minister.
The ascension of Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean (a former navy admiral) to the position vacated by Mr Jayakumar has been hypothesised since his entry into politics in 1992. He was immediately inducted into the Cabinet, where he has since turned in steady and competent performances, the most prominent of which was the military’s much-lauded mobilisation to aid Indonesia in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami. Mr Teo is also thought to be a better grassroots man than the other obvious candidate for the deputy premiership, Mr George Yeo, who had some difficulty defending his ward the last time round in 2006.
The Prime Minister seems to recognise Mr Teo’s utility in this aspect. Asked about his new responsibilities, Mr Teo told reporters that one of his tasks was to ensure that the government remained connected to the ground. Surprisingly, he also said that he was to help strengthen Singapore’s ties with other countries. It’s hard to see how he would play a bigger role in this regard when Singapore already has two Senior Ministers, one Minister Mentor and another deputy premier and not to mention a foreign minister; in any case, Mr Teo already does a lot of travelling in his capacity as Defence Minister.
Yet Mr Teo’s appointment is still rather bold in a way: his real contribution might be to provide a slightly contrarian tack to a ruling cabal whose members seem overly like-minded at times. Mr Teo is known to be independent-minded with the gumption to back it up; moreover, unlike younger ministers like Vivian Balakrishnan or Raymond Lim, as deputy premier he will now have the heft to push his views.
Nevertheless there is little chance of Mr Teo becoming prime minister, short of something untoward happening to PM Lee. The two men are simply too close in age – given the ruling cabal’s proclivity for long-term planning, the ideal candidate is someone about a decade or so younger than PM Lee. And the only one in Cabinet who fits the bill is Rear Admiral (NS) Lui Tuck Yew, who was given the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts portfolio with the retirement of the incumbent.
In this regard PM Lee seems to have anointed an heir-apparent by promoting RAdm Lui to head his own ministry. Unlike other much talked-about candidates, such as Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, RAdm Lui has the right pedigree. He is the quintessential product of the establishment, having followed the same route of advancement through the military as PM Lee. He can therefore be counted on to protect the interests of the establishment – his Bill to regulate political films, for instance, is classic PAP doublespeak and tighter regulation in the guise of liberalisation. RAdm Lui’s new ministry is an important player in the government’s bid for control over burgeoning political discourse in cyberspace.
Dr Balakrishnan, on the other hand, was a private sector figure and an activist who was co-opted into the ranks. And unlike Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, RAdm Lui is of the right age and the right ethnic group – just a few months ago Mr Lee had said that Singapore was not ready to be led by someone from a minority group. The other advantage that RAdm Lui has is simply a dearth of competitors: unlike Mr Teo, who could count Mr Yeo as a peer, RAdm Lui doesn’t have any contemporaries who advanced as quickly as he has, with the other MPs from the batch of 2006 still lagging considerably.
But as the tragic tale ending in Kipling’s parable of the same title goes to show, nothing is set in stone, and Singapore’s political history is littered with promising figures who have fallen by the wayside. However, the ruling cabal seems to have taken a step closer to solve the vexing question of who should succeed PM Lee. If RAdm Lui turns in a decent performance, the odds are that he will be rotated quickly to head more heavyweight ministries, and there have been rumours that the trade and industry minister is also slated to retire. At this point, the prize seems very much his to lose.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25365.1
Saturday, 28 March 2009
A not uninteresting Cabinet reshuffle
There was little to fuss over Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s latest Cabinet reshuffle, which was announced on 26th March 2009 with minimal fanfare. That’s the norm in Singapore, where the ruling cabal prides itself on an orderly succession without the hoopla that usually accompanies similar transitions in other countries. Most of the changes have long been speculated on, but this masks what might be rather momentous implications for the political landscape.
Even so, for all its supposed banality there was still some surprise and not a little rancour over the “promotion” of Deputy Prime Minister S Jayakumar to the post of Senior Minister, a position that has traditionally carried little responsibility save that of a big-wig roaming ambassador. Some observers have panned the appointment as superfluous – in fact Mr Lee was breaking new ground by having two Senior Ministers, the other one being ex-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong – considering that the position is largely seen as a means of gracefully retiring elder ministers. The conspicuous exception of course is Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who held the position from 1990 to 2004 and continues to exert a visibly heavy influence on policy.
Mr Jayakumar was long thought to be due to retire, but since the last election in 2006 he appears to have made himself too indispensable to be eased out of the Cabinet just yet. He is also thought to have earned some credit for Singapore’s win in the Pedra Branca dispute with Malaysia at the International Court of Justice, which was also a reminder of the need for his legal expertise in complex international issues such as climate change.
What his appointment also points to is the outsized centralisation of policy-making prerogative in the Prime Minister’s Office, a trend underscored by the appointment of yet another minister there, in the form of Mrs Lim Hwee Hua as Singapore’s first female minister. This partly reflects the government’s oft-stated mantra of the need for better coordination amongst disparate agencies, but it does raise questions about whether the office can be streamlined and the portfolios of its various inhabitants better defined. Already, the wage bill for the politicians in the Prime Minister’s Office is just slightly less than that of all the other ministries put together.
Mrs Lim’s appointment as full minister, while long expected, came with the twist that she is still not helming any ministry of her own. One reason is that there is simply no ministry up for grabs. But it is also possible that Mrs Lim’s promotion is meant to beef up the Aljunied constituency, which was the weakest ward for the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) in the last election. This is particularly since the party’s helmsman in Aljunied, Foreign Minister George Yeo, has floated the possibility of retiring from politics. Furthermore, Mrs Lim would be a convenient foil for Ms Sylvia Lim of the Worker’s Party, who is the opposition’s only female heavyweight of note and had led her party’s team in Aljunied in 2006.
Heir today, gone tomorrow
But the real story of the reshuffle is essentially the tale of two admirals: one who would be Deputy Prime Minister, and another who, for all intents and purposes, would be heir-apparent to the Prime Minister.
The ascension of Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean (a former navy admiral) to the position vacated by Mr Jayakumar has been hypothesised since his entry into politics in 1992. He was immediately inducted into the Cabinet, where he has since turned in steady and competent performances, the most prominent of which was the military’s much-lauded mobilisation to aid Indonesia in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami. Mr Teo is also thought to be a better grassroots man than the other obvious candidate for the deputy premiership, Mr George Yeo, who had some difficulty defending his ward the last time round in 2006.
The Prime Minister seems to recognise Mr Teo’s utility in this aspect. Asked about his new responsibilities, Mr Teo told reporters that one of his tasks was to ensure that the government remained connected to the ground. Surprisingly, he also said that he was to help strengthen Singapore’s ties with other countries. It’s hard to see how he would play a bigger role in this regard when Singapore already has two Senior Ministers, one Minister Mentor and another deputy premier and not to mention a foreign minister; in any case, Mr Teo already does a lot of travelling in his capacity as Defence Minister.
Yet Mr Teo’s appointment is still rather bold in a way: his real contribution might be to provide a slightly contrarian tack to a ruling cabal whose members seem overly like-minded at times. Mr Teo is known to be independent-minded with the gumption to back it up; moreover, unlike younger ministers like Vivian Balakrishnan or Raymond Lim, as deputy premier he will now have the heft to push his views.
Nevertheless there is little chance of Mr Teo becoming prime minister, short of something untoward happening to PM Lee. The two men are simply too close in age – given the ruling cabal’s proclivity for long-term planning, the ideal candidate is someone about a decade or so younger than PM Lee. And the only one in Cabinet who fits the bill is Rear Admiral (NS) Lui Tuck Yew, who was given the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts portfolio with the retirement of the incumbent.
In this regard PM Lee seems to have anointed an heir-apparent by promoting RAdm Lui to head his own ministry. Unlike other much talked-about candidates, such as Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, RAdm Lui has the right pedigree. He is the quintessential product of the establishment, having followed the same route of advancement through the military as PM Lee. He can therefore be counted on to protect the interests of the establishment – his Bill to regulate political films, for instance, is classic PAP doublespeak and tighter regulation in the guise of liberalisation. RAdm Lui’s new ministry is an important player in the government’s bid for control over burgeoning political discourse in cyberspace.
Dr Balakrishnan, on the other hand, was a private sector figure and an activist who was co-opted into the ranks. And unlike Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, RAdm Lui is of the right age and the right ethnic group – just a few months ago Mr Lee had said that Singapore was not ready to be led by someone from a minority group. The other advantage that RAdm Lui has is simply a dearth of competitors: unlike Mr Teo, who could count Mr Yeo as a peer, RAdm Lui doesn’t have any contemporaries who advanced as quickly as he has, with the other MPs from the batch of 2006 still lagging considerably.
But as the tragic tale ending in Kipling’s parable of the same title goes to show, nothing is set in stone, and Singapore’s political history is littered with promising figures who have fallen by the wayside. However, the ruling cabal seems to have taken a step closer to solve the vexing question of who should succeed PM Lee. If RAdm Lui turns in a decent performance, the odds are that he will be rotated quickly to head more heavyweight ministries, and there have been rumours that the trade and industry minister is also slated to retire. At this point, the prize seems very much his to lose.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25365.1
Is “rejuvenation” possible for a cabinet filled with oldies?
Is “rejuvenation” possible for a cabinet filled with oldies?
In an interview with the Straits Times, Dr Lee Boon Yang on Friday said his retirement from Government, where he has served for 24 years, is ‘necessary and timely as the process of rejuvenation must be sustained’.
‘The new Cabinet appointments will forge a stronger team to lead Singapore,’ said the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica), a day after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced changes to the Cabinet and new appointments as part of a leadership renewal.
I do not see how this cabinet shake-up can be construed as any form of “rejuvenation.”
According to the Longman Dictionary, rejuvenation means a return to a completely new state or to make young or strong again.
Besides Dr Lee Boon Yang, no other ministers has relinquished their portfolios. It is the essentially the same team of ministers which Prime Minister Lee inherited from his predecessor.
As the Chinese saying goes - “change the soup but not the medicine”. The four oldies who should have made way for younger leaders a long time ago are still lingering around:
1. MM Lee Kuan Yew (86 years old): became MP in 1959, Prime Minister from 1965 - 1991.
2. SM Goh Chok Tong (68 years old): became MP in 1976, Prime Minister from 1991 to 2003.
3. SM Jayakumar (70 years old): became MP in 1980, Deputy Prime Minister from 2004 - 2009.
4. Wong Kan Seng (63 years old): became MP in 1984, Deputy Prime Minister from 2005 - now.
Nowhere in the world other than in dictatorships and military junta do we see two former Prime Ministers and one former Deputy Prime Minister remaining in the cabinet.
Won’t they be more of a hindrance than help to the younger generation of leaders who may not enjoy a free rein in the direction they want to lead the country?
George W Bush was the President of the United States for 8 years. Tony Blair was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for 10 years. When both stepped down from their positions recently, they did so completely without having any more business in government.
Can you imagine Obama making George Bush a senior advisor in his team or Tony Blair being appointed as a senior minister in the British cabinet? (He was made a Middle East envoy for the United Nations).
Former prime ministers and deputies who wish to continue serving Singapore can do so in another capacity which will minimize their influence in the present government.
The first Chief Minister of Singapore, David Marshall was made an Ambassador to France after he retired, a role which he clearly relished.
MM Lee, SM Goh and SM Jayakumar can be appointed as ambassadors or special envoys to promote bilateral ties between Singapore and our major trading partners.
This will allow their successors to implement their ideas, plans and vision for the nation freely without any interference.
The country is in urgent need of a fresh direction. For far too long, there is excessive emphasis on GDP growth at the expense of growing and developing our human capital.
A real leader knows when to retire gracefully to make way for young leaders they have groomed to take their place. Changing the first alphabet of the title from a “P” to a “S” is not rejuventation but degradation of our democracy.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25361.1
In an interview with the Straits Times, Dr Lee Boon Yang on Friday said his retirement from Government, where he has served for 24 years, is ‘necessary and timely as the process of rejuvenation must be sustained’.
‘The new Cabinet appointments will forge a stronger team to lead Singapore,’ said the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica), a day after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced changes to the Cabinet and new appointments as part of a leadership renewal.
I do not see how this cabinet shake-up can be construed as any form of “rejuvenation.”
According to the Longman Dictionary, rejuvenation means a return to a completely new state or to make young or strong again.
Besides Dr Lee Boon Yang, no other ministers has relinquished their portfolios. It is the essentially the same team of ministers which Prime Minister Lee inherited from his predecessor.
As the Chinese saying goes - “change the soup but not the medicine”. The four oldies who should have made way for younger leaders a long time ago are still lingering around:
1. MM Lee Kuan Yew (86 years old): became MP in 1959, Prime Minister from 1965 - 1991.
2. SM Goh Chok Tong (68 years old): became MP in 1976, Prime Minister from 1991 to 2003.
3. SM Jayakumar (70 years old): became MP in 1980, Deputy Prime Minister from 2004 - 2009.
4. Wong Kan Seng (63 years old): became MP in 1984, Deputy Prime Minister from 2005 - now.
Nowhere in the world other than in dictatorships and military junta do we see two former Prime Ministers and one former Deputy Prime Minister remaining in the cabinet.
Won’t they be more of a hindrance than help to the younger generation of leaders who may not enjoy a free rein in the direction they want to lead the country?
George W Bush was the President of the United States for 8 years. Tony Blair was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for 10 years. When both stepped down from their positions recently, they did so completely without having any more business in government.
Can you imagine Obama making George Bush a senior advisor in his team or Tony Blair being appointed as a senior minister in the British cabinet? (He was made a Middle East envoy for the United Nations).
Former prime ministers and deputies who wish to continue serving Singapore can do so in another capacity which will minimize their influence in the present government.
The first Chief Minister of Singapore, David Marshall was made an Ambassador to France after he retired, a role which he clearly relished.
MM Lee, SM Goh and SM Jayakumar can be appointed as ambassadors or special envoys to promote bilateral ties between Singapore and our major trading partners.
This will allow their successors to implement their ideas, plans and vision for the nation freely without any interference.
The country is in urgent need of a fresh direction. For far too long, there is excessive emphasis on GDP growth at the expense of growing and developing our human capital.
A real leader knows when to retire gracefully to make way for young leaders they have groomed to take their place. Changing the first alphabet of the title from a “P” to a “S” is not rejuventation but degradation of our democracy.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25361.1
Soros sees risk of Britain needing IMF bailout
Soros sees risk of Britain needing IMF bailout
Posted: 28 March 2009 2033 hrs
 | ||||||
| ||||||
LONDON : Hungarian-born US billionaire George Soros said in a report on Saturday it was "conceivable" that Britain would have to resort to a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
"It's conceivable," Soros said in an interview with the Times. "You have a problem that the banking system is bigger than the economy... so for Britain to absorb it alone would really pile up the debt."
Soros said that "if the banking system continued to collapse, it's (an IMF bailout) a possibility but it's not a likelihood."
The man who made one billion dollars on selling the pound on Black Wednesday in 1992 described the current recession as a "once-in-a-lifetime event", particularly in Britain.
"This is a crisis unlike any other. It's a total collapse of the financial system with tremendous implications for everyday life.
"On previous occasions when you had a crisis that was threatening the system the authorities intervened and did whatever was necessary to protect the system. This time they failed."
He said he feared the problem in Britain, with its huge financial and banking interests, could be greater than in the United States.
"American memory is seared by the Depression, the German memory is seared by hyperinflation but Britain has a pretty serious problem in many ways worse than America because the financial sector looms bigger and the overvaluation of real estate is bigger than in America."
Soros said the G20 summit in London next week was the world's last chance to avert economic disaster, but he was not optimistic of a breakthrough in efforts to spur the global economy into recovery.
"The odds would favour that it fails because there are such differences of opinion. It's difficult enough to get it right in your own country let alone with 20 governments coming together, but if it's a failure I think then the global financial and trading system falls apart," he said.
"It's really a make-or-break occasion. That's why it's so important."
Increasing IMF funding to allow it to intervene to help troubled economies is one of the main issues on the G20 agenda. - AFP/mshttp://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25354.1
Another NTU death
March 29, 2009
Another NTU death
Another death of a person linked to Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has occurred, making it the third in 25 days.
Last Friday, Mr Hu Kunlun, 29, a research fellow in the Division of Control and Instrumentation from the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE), was killed when he was hit by a car.
According to a report in the Chinese newspaper Lianhe Wanbao, the China national was on his way to work that morning. He was believed to have started work less than a year ago.
A car hit him when he was crossing Pioneer Road North to catch a bus.
He was rushed to the National University Hospital in an ambulance and pronounced dead at 11.20am.
His family has been contacted and will arrive in Singapore tomorrow.
NTU declined to comment on the incident, telling The Sunday Times that the death is not the same as the two that occurred previously.
On March 2, an Indonesian EEE student stabbed his professor before falling to his death.
A few days later, a 24-year-old project officer, a China national who was also from EEE, was found hanged in the balcony of his campus apartment.
Huang Huifen
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25344.1
Another NTU death
Another death of a person linked to Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has occurred, making it the third in 25 days.
Last Friday, Mr Hu Kunlun, 29, a research fellow in the Division of Control and Instrumentation from the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE), was killed when he was hit by a car.
According to a report in the Chinese newspaper Lianhe Wanbao, the China national was on his way to work that morning. He was believed to have started work less than a year ago.
A car hit him when he was crossing Pioneer Road North to catch a bus.
He was rushed to the National University Hospital in an ambulance and pronounced dead at 11.20am.
His family has been contacted and will arrive in Singapore tomorrow.
NTU declined to comment on the incident, telling The Sunday Times that the death is not the same as the two that occurred previously.
On March 2, an Indonesian EEE student stabbed his professor before falling to his death.
A few days later, a 24-year-old project officer, a China national who was also from EEE, was found hanged in the balcony of his campus apartment.
Huang Huifen
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25344.1
Remembering Raffles
Remembering Raffles
I have stopped reading the ST Forum for a long time, because I have considered some of the articles published to be so pathetically stupid. At times, I felt so ashamed at some of the things written, that I felt foreigners who read them must have considered all Singaporeans as either imbeciles or idiots. That’s not mentioning at times I felt the editors may have deliberately published them for nothing more than the purpose of ‘creating some debate’ or to let the writer himself be ridiculed. If not for dk99 talking about this article the other day, I wouldn’t have gone looking up the following:
Don’t go overboard
In his letter on Wednesday, Mr Philip Siow proposed constructing a replica of the Indiana, the ship that brought Sir Stamford Raffles to Singapore in 1819. He suggested displaying it along the Esplanade waterfront ‘to add historical richness and colour’.
Mr Siow described Raffles as one of the ‘two architects who created what is modern Singapore’. The other is Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. I do not agree with this proposal for three reasons.
# First, our colonial past is nothing to be proud of. Those who lived under colonial rule, like me, will tell you that it was not a beautiful experience. Raffles’ statue in front of the Victoria Concert Hall and the buildings, roads and other facilities bearing his name are reminders enough of the inglorious chapter in our history.
# Second, Raffles established Singapore as a trading post not for our benefit but for the benefit of the British Empire. He stayed here for only nine months. Thus, although he drew up plans for ‘a great commercial emporium’ and a ‘free port’, his achievements for Singapore could not have been very significant.
# Third, life in Singapore did not begin with Raffles’ arrival in 1819. Singapore was a vibrant ancient city, teeming with life and trade, as early as the 14th century. We would be going overboard if we accept Mr Siow’s proposal.
On the other hand, Mr Lee Kuan Yew certainly deserves credit for Singapore’s tremendous achievements. He led the charge to topple British colonial rule and orchestrated the transformation of the nation from Third World to First World. Indeed, he and the Old Guard accomplished more for Singapore in one generation than the British did in 140 years.
Anthony Oei
I do not know why it upset Oei so much to have a replica of the Indiana constructed ‘to add historical richness and colour’. I would have expected it to be a museum of sort and yet another tourist attraction for our little island, not to mention it would serve the purpose of educating our children of our nation’s history. After all, even Malacca has its own Maritime Museum. Is it too much to ask for one of our own?
Really, I find it amusing that Oei talks about Singapore’s history preceding the arrival of Raffles and the British, but selectively failed to mention to readers that when Cheng Ho sailed past during his voyages, Temasek (as Singapore was known then) didn’t even warrant a stop. Did it not surprise you that the Ming Dynasty fleet stopped by Malacca but not Singapore? That’s not mentioning that in 1613 the Portuguese set the settlement ablaze and until 1819 it was nothing more than a small fishing village. (You can find a record of the Portuguese attack on Fort Canning Hill.)
Oei may want to diminish Raffles founding of Singapore as merely taking it as a port for the British East India Company, but it was this very pivotal event that changed Singapore’s fate. The British Empire then took full control of the island of Singapore in 1824 and by 1869 it was a colony of 100,000 people.
Still, some may find nothing great or pleasant about British colonial rule. And indeed, even my parents do not remember their childhood days under British rule fondly. However, they also consider their hardships as the aftermath of the Japanese Occupation and the Second World War as much as British mismanagement. Now consider that period between 1945 - 1959, where nationalist sentiments run high and the Communist threat is real, as a part of the British Empire’s entire 137 years of rule. In all those years, did all the investments the British Empire put into building up the colony never in anyway benefited the inhabitants in it, no matter how insignificant?
If that is so, then how is it that British Singapore became a cradle for this nation’s founding fathers like Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, Rajaratnam, the Ministor Mentor? And what about the others like David Marshall and Lim Chin Siong etc, who also contributed to Singapore’s Independence and the PAP’s domination in politics respectively?
In fact, it annoys me that when Oei expressed his gratitude to the Minister Mentor, he forgot the rest of the people who also made their mark in Singapore’s history. Even while what Oei has written nothing idiotic or wrong on their own, it still irks me because he selectively presents only the parts of history acceptable to him to make a point.
Is Oei telling us that because he views our colonial history as something disgusting and painful, it should all be expunged from our memories? While he is entitled to view Singapore’s history anyway he wants, clearly we can do better with a more balanced view of our nation’s history.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25555.1
I have stopped reading the ST Forum for a long time, because I have considered some of the articles published to be so pathetically stupid. At times, I felt so ashamed at some of the things written, that I felt foreigners who read them must have considered all Singaporeans as either imbeciles or idiots. That’s not mentioning at times I felt the editors may have deliberately published them for nothing more than the purpose of ‘creating some debate’ or to let the writer himself be ridiculed. If not for dk99 talking about this article the other day, I wouldn’t have gone looking up the following:
Don’t go overboard
In his letter on Wednesday, Mr Philip Siow proposed constructing a replica of the Indiana, the ship that brought Sir Stamford Raffles to Singapore in 1819. He suggested displaying it along the Esplanade waterfront ‘to add historical richness and colour’.
Mr Siow described Raffles as one of the ‘two architects who created what is modern Singapore’. The other is Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. I do not agree with this proposal for three reasons.
# First, our colonial past is nothing to be proud of. Those who lived under colonial rule, like me, will tell you that it was not a beautiful experience. Raffles’ statue in front of the Victoria Concert Hall and the buildings, roads and other facilities bearing his name are reminders enough of the inglorious chapter in our history.
# Second, Raffles established Singapore as a trading post not for our benefit but for the benefit of the British Empire. He stayed here for only nine months. Thus, although he drew up plans for ‘a great commercial emporium’ and a ‘free port’, his achievements for Singapore could not have been very significant.
# Third, life in Singapore did not begin with Raffles’ arrival in 1819. Singapore was a vibrant ancient city, teeming with life and trade, as early as the 14th century. We would be going overboard if we accept Mr Siow’s proposal.
On the other hand, Mr Lee Kuan Yew certainly deserves credit for Singapore’s tremendous achievements. He led the charge to topple British colonial rule and orchestrated the transformation of the nation from Third World to First World. Indeed, he and the Old Guard accomplished more for Singapore in one generation than the British did in 140 years.
Anthony Oei
I do not know why it upset Oei so much to have a replica of the Indiana constructed ‘to add historical richness and colour’. I would have expected it to be a museum of sort and yet another tourist attraction for our little island, not to mention it would serve the purpose of educating our children of our nation’s history. After all, even Malacca has its own Maritime Museum. Is it too much to ask for one of our own?
Really, I find it amusing that Oei talks about Singapore’s history preceding the arrival of Raffles and the British, but selectively failed to mention to readers that when Cheng Ho sailed past during his voyages, Temasek (as Singapore was known then) didn’t even warrant a stop. Did it not surprise you that the Ming Dynasty fleet stopped by Malacca but not Singapore? That’s not mentioning that in 1613 the Portuguese set the settlement ablaze and until 1819 it was nothing more than a small fishing village. (You can find a record of the Portuguese attack on Fort Canning Hill.)
Oei may want to diminish Raffles founding of Singapore as merely taking it as a port for the British East India Company, but it was this very pivotal event that changed Singapore’s fate. The British Empire then took full control of the island of Singapore in 1824 and by 1869 it was a colony of 100,000 people.
Still, some may find nothing great or pleasant about British colonial rule. And indeed, even my parents do not remember their childhood days under British rule fondly. However, they also consider their hardships as the aftermath of the Japanese Occupation and the Second World War as much as British mismanagement. Now consider that period between 1945 - 1959, where nationalist sentiments run high and the Communist threat is real, as a part of the British Empire’s entire 137 years of rule. In all those years, did all the investments the British Empire put into building up the colony never in anyway benefited the inhabitants in it, no matter how insignificant?
If that is so, then how is it that British Singapore became a cradle for this nation’s founding fathers like Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, Rajaratnam, the Ministor Mentor? And what about the others like David Marshall and Lim Chin Siong etc, who also contributed to Singapore’s Independence and the PAP’s domination in politics respectively?
In fact, it annoys me that when Oei expressed his gratitude to the Minister Mentor, he forgot the rest of the people who also made their mark in Singapore’s history. Even while what Oei has written nothing idiotic or wrong on their own, it still irks me because he selectively presents only the parts of history acceptable to him to make a point.
Is Oei telling us that because he views our colonial history as something disgusting and painful, it should all be expunged from our memories? While he is entitled to view Singapore’s history anyway he wants, clearly we can do better with a more balanced view of our nation’s history.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25555.1
The Quandary of Dr. Lee Wei Ling
The Quandary of Dr. Lee Wei Ling
It is unenviable to be the prestigious and publicity-seeking daughter of an illustrious Minister Mentor father whose "benign" character has to be encountered in order to be appreciated and believed. The daughter is non other than Dr. Lee Wei Ling whose pampered life has seen her ascending to the pinnacle of her career.
She is very fond of writing moral-sounding articles to the press commenting on political and social issues and it is inevitable that, because of her social standing, sometimes she ventures into not insensitive territory like extolling her family characteristics., which may not find consonance with some satirical critics.
So it should have come as no surprise, or should it be a surprise, to Dr. Lee that a sharp-witted critic going by the pseudonym of Patriot should have written a pungent letter castigating her for her self-eulogising article of 4 January 2009. What the critic found particulary disgusting was Dr. Lee's reference ;to her mother's talk of suffering and deprivation which was good for the soul which the critic said was utopia to the ordinary people. The writer did not mince his words and his letter was quite understandably rejected by the Straits Times. So he had to post it on the internet. Some heads would have rolled if the Straits Times had the audacity to publish the incisive letter. We are talking about the Straits Times which claims to be the people's mouthpiece without fear or favour but what we are seeing is a mouse sadly lacking in courage when it is most needed.
A letter to Dr. Lee Wei Ling by the Patriot is therefore only available for viewing on the internet. So far there is no response from Dr. Lee and she is not known to be not internet-savvy. She is either irked by internet critics and refuses to lreply or finds her position untenable because the criticisms are too substantial to refute. Either way is not a good reflection of her character, firstly as her own prestigious self and secondly as a daughter of an illustrious father.
This enlightening episode should be a invaluable lesson to Dr. Lee Wei Ling and should curb her enthusiasm of her tendency to moralise her so-called altruistic messianic pursuit which may not go down well with the public if persisted ad nauseam.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=23904.6
It is unenviable to be the prestigious and publicity-seeking daughter of an illustrious Minister Mentor father whose "benign" character has to be encountered in order to be appreciated and believed. The daughter is non other than Dr. Lee Wei Ling whose pampered life has seen her ascending to the pinnacle of her career.
She is very fond of writing moral-sounding articles to the press commenting on political and social issues and it is inevitable that, because of her social standing, sometimes she ventures into not insensitive territory like extolling her family characteristics., which may not find consonance with some satirical critics.
So it should have come as no surprise, or should it be a surprise, to Dr. Lee that a sharp-witted critic going by the pseudonym of Patriot should have written a pungent letter castigating her for her self-eulogising article of 4 January 2009. What the critic found particulary disgusting was Dr. Lee's reference ;to her mother's talk of suffering and deprivation which was good for the soul which the critic said was utopia to the ordinary people. The writer did not mince his words and his letter was quite understandably rejected by the Straits Times. So he had to post it on the internet. Some heads would have rolled if the Straits Times had the audacity to publish the incisive letter. We are talking about the Straits Times which claims to be the people's mouthpiece without fear or favour but what we are seeing is a mouse sadly lacking in courage when it is most needed.
A letter to Dr. Lee Wei Ling by the Patriot is therefore only available for viewing on the internet. So far there is no response from Dr. Lee and she is not known to be not internet-savvy. She is either irked by internet critics and refuses to lreply or finds her position untenable because the criticisms are too substantial to refute. Either way is not a good reflection of her character, firstly as her own prestigious self and secondly as a daughter of an illustrious father.
This enlightening episode should be a invaluable lesson to Dr. Lee Wei Ling and should curb her enthusiasm of her tendency to moralise her so-called altruistic messianic pursuit which may not go down well with the public if persisted ad nauseam.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=23904.6
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Can a Green Party possibly exist in Singapore?
Can a Green Party possibly exist in Singapore?
SINGAPORE - When comparing Singapore’s political scene to the likes of America, United Kingdom or Australia, there is something the latter has which the former lacks - a Green Party (s). The next question to ask is - can such a party really exist in Singapore’s context?
Perhaps, the answer lies in the nature of Singapore’s socio-political climate, i.e. if the soil of Singapore can nurture the seeds of a Green. A Green Party as its name suggests has its agenda revolving around environmental issues. However, it would be a mistake to think that a Green Party is synonymous with environmentalism. The pillars of a Green Party encompasses championing of community participation within the political process in addition to a firm adherence to pacifism and equality among all.
In as far as environmentalism is concerned, there is definitely avenue for a hypothetical Green Party to operate. The haze from forest fires in Indonesia has adversely affected air quality here in Singapore, leading to declining respiratory health among those who are susceptible. Even though the situation is physically out of Singapore’s reach, a Green Party worth its salt would have pushed for greater bilateral cooperation with our Indonesian partners to tackle the forest fire issue. This can range from transfer of new agricultural technology to farmers to the establishment of elaborate information sharing networks to monitor possible sites where fires can break out. If the need arises, a Green Party would be the first to authorize sending logistical aid or even fire fighting teams to help put out the fires.
And who will ever forget Chek Jawa? The Singapore government had originally planned for land reclamation works, but that would mean destroying the rich biodiversity in the area. Any Green Party worth its salt would be at the forefront of efforts in lobbying against the decision to proceed with the reclamation. It turned out that Singaporeans came out in full force to campaign for the preservation of Chek Jawa. They won, and their victory was made all the more sweeter with the government’s support in conservation of the area. Such an achievement would have made many a Green Party cadre proud.
How about the participation of a community in the decision-making process that concerns the latter? Unfortunately, such grassroots democracy is non-existent in Singapore. Local communities have no say over matters concerning them. Take for instance the GRCs that have experienced walkovers for many years. Some of the local communities are badly in need of upgrading. Unfortunately, upgrading in Singapore’s context has a political baggage, and it is not uncommon for communities badly in need of upgrading ending up among the last few in the queue. And if upgrading is done, does the community get to decide on the type of improvement that their area needs? A firm no.
Thus, is there avenue for a Green Party in such circumstances where the local community do not play a part in decisions that concern them? An affirmative yes. In fact, the party can establish active grassroots organizations that function as possible channels which the local communities can turn to. The Party will then lobby on the communities’ behalf and highlight their needs to the government.
Does a Green Party with its pacifist stand have any place in Singapore’s politics? A strong yes. Singapore is involved in some sort of mini arms race with her surrounding neighbors with each side acquiring increasingly sophisticated weaponry. Its defense budget was projected to increase slightly to S$11.45 billion from S$10.8 billion in 2008. Thus, a hypothetical Green Party would advocate slashing the defense budget and spending it on welfare instead. Any pacifist would have shown opposition to a policy that adds further fuel to an arms race.
In addition, the equality and fairness for everyone that a Green Party advocates is after all an important part of our national pledge:”based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.” A Green Party’s vision of a society is one in which justice is served in all aspects, and that individuals and groups are subjected to fair and impartial treatment.
Thus, Singapore definitely has place for a Green Party. After all, it is always good to have some greenery within a concrete jungle, right?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25489.1
SINGAPORE - When comparing Singapore’s political scene to the likes of America, United Kingdom or Australia, there is something the latter has which the former lacks - a Green Party (s). The next question to ask is - can such a party really exist in Singapore’s context?
Perhaps, the answer lies in the nature of Singapore’s socio-political climate, i.e. if the soil of Singapore can nurture the seeds of a Green. A Green Party as its name suggests has its agenda revolving around environmental issues. However, it would be a mistake to think that a Green Party is synonymous with environmentalism. The pillars of a Green Party encompasses championing of community participation within the political process in addition to a firm adherence to pacifism and equality among all.
In as far as environmentalism is concerned, there is definitely avenue for a hypothetical Green Party to operate. The haze from forest fires in Indonesia has adversely affected air quality here in Singapore, leading to declining respiratory health among those who are susceptible. Even though the situation is physically out of Singapore’s reach, a Green Party worth its salt would have pushed for greater bilateral cooperation with our Indonesian partners to tackle the forest fire issue. This can range from transfer of new agricultural technology to farmers to the establishment of elaborate information sharing networks to monitor possible sites where fires can break out. If the need arises, a Green Party would be the first to authorize sending logistical aid or even fire fighting teams to help put out the fires.
And who will ever forget Chek Jawa? The Singapore government had originally planned for land reclamation works, but that would mean destroying the rich biodiversity in the area. Any Green Party worth its salt would be at the forefront of efforts in lobbying against the decision to proceed with the reclamation. It turned out that Singaporeans came out in full force to campaign for the preservation of Chek Jawa. They won, and their victory was made all the more sweeter with the government’s support in conservation of the area. Such an achievement would have made many a Green Party cadre proud.
How about the participation of a community in the decision-making process that concerns the latter? Unfortunately, such grassroots democracy is non-existent in Singapore. Local communities have no say over matters concerning them. Take for instance the GRCs that have experienced walkovers for many years. Some of the local communities are badly in need of upgrading. Unfortunately, upgrading in Singapore’s context has a political baggage, and it is not uncommon for communities badly in need of upgrading ending up among the last few in the queue. And if upgrading is done, does the community get to decide on the type of improvement that their area needs? A firm no.
Thus, is there avenue for a Green Party in such circumstances where the local community do not play a part in decisions that concern them? An affirmative yes. In fact, the party can establish active grassroots organizations that function as possible channels which the local communities can turn to. The Party will then lobby on the communities’ behalf and highlight their needs to the government.
Does a Green Party with its pacifist stand have any place in Singapore’s politics? A strong yes. Singapore is involved in some sort of mini arms race with her surrounding neighbors with each side acquiring increasingly sophisticated weaponry. Its defense budget was projected to increase slightly to S$11.45 billion from S$10.8 billion in 2008. Thus, a hypothetical Green Party would advocate slashing the defense budget and spending it on welfare instead. Any pacifist would have shown opposition to a policy that adds further fuel to an arms race.
In addition, the equality and fairness for everyone that a Green Party advocates is after all an important part of our national pledge:”based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.” A Green Party’s vision of a society is one in which justice is served in all aspects, and that individuals and groups are subjected to fair and impartial treatment.
Thus, Singapore definitely has place for a Green Party. After all, it is always good to have some greenery within a concrete jungle, right?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25489.1
The worst recession but the fastest recovery?
The worst recession but the fastest recovery?
It’s been barely a month since our ministers urged us to brace through this recession. But in the past 2 weeks, there are so much optimism everywhere that the recession is coming to an end within this year. But ain’t it incredible that leaders throughout the world has mentioned time and time again this is the worst depression ever since world war 2.
For the past 2 weeks, US market has been on the rally. Not to mentioned that AIG and Citibank has gained 300% profit in a matter of two weeks. Market rally has been based on the point that Citi’s CEO mentioned that the company is making profit for Jan and Feb in a MEMO. Market rally just base on a MEMO? Ain’t it just incredible? Including the fiasco of Federal Government going to the point of taxing any bonuses paid out by AIG. Executives should know it’s not going to work well with US citizens, afterall, it’s taxpayer money.
Obama has also taken a tough stance towards bonuses payout using bailout money as well as making his point clear that American will ride out of this recession under his leadership. There has also been plan to buy out the toxic asset by Federal. So far, Geithner has been trying to create regulatory reform to the financial sector. I’ll reserve my comments on whether it will work. The housing sector is showing good sign that it is recovering. It is good news for the subprime crisis is root for this recession.
But no matter what, it is far too early to determine if the recession is truly over. Not until the end of the year. But it’s not a bad time to invest with everything on sale right now. Dollar averaging is a good strategy now. Buying Index fund is also a good idea due to low risk and low transaction cost.
Beware of buying on sentiment as the current rally is due to speculation and financial institute has been shorting stocks for this week. It has ended quite badly. So now, I still encourage the buy and hold strategy as the market is already near its bottom and market timing doesn’t really ensures that you can buy at the cheapest price and due to transaction cost.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25314.1
It’s been barely a month since our ministers urged us to brace through this recession. But in the past 2 weeks, there are so much optimism everywhere that the recession is coming to an end within this year. But ain’t it incredible that leaders throughout the world has mentioned time and time again this is the worst depression ever since world war 2.
For the past 2 weeks, US market has been on the rally. Not to mentioned that AIG and Citibank has gained 300% profit in a matter of two weeks. Market rally has been based on the point that Citi’s CEO mentioned that the company is making profit for Jan and Feb in a MEMO. Market rally just base on a MEMO? Ain’t it just incredible? Including the fiasco of Federal Government going to the point of taxing any bonuses paid out by AIG. Executives should know it’s not going to work well with US citizens, afterall, it’s taxpayer money.
Obama has also taken a tough stance towards bonuses payout using bailout money as well as making his point clear that American will ride out of this recession under his leadership. There has also been plan to buy out the toxic asset by Federal. So far, Geithner has been trying to create regulatory reform to the financial sector. I’ll reserve my comments on whether it will work. The housing sector is showing good sign that it is recovering. It is good news for the subprime crisis is root for this recession.
But no matter what, it is far too early to determine if the recession is truly over. Not until the end of the year. But it’s not a bad time to invest with everything on sale right now. Dollar averaging is a good strategy now. Buying Index fund is also a good idea due to low risk and low transaction cost.
Beware of buying on sentiment as the current rally is due to speculation and financial institute has been shorting stocks for this week. It has ended quite badly. So now, I still encourage the buy and hold strategy as the market is already near its bottom and market timing doesn’t really ensures that you can buy at the cheapest price and due to transaction cost.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25314.1
EVA-based bonus system
Does EVA-based bonus system have anything to do with CDC’s 8-month bonus & CapitaLand CEO’s $20m bonus?
Three recent events prompted me to seek your confirmation/clarification if there is any link to the bonus system at GLCs/other government-related institutions like PAP-controlled Town Councils/CDCs, etc, and the recently revealed bonuses of the 2 town council/CDC staff and CapitaLand’s CEO:
1. Some PAP-led Town Councils’ revelation of million dollar investment losses in Lehman Minibond and other structured products;
2. Two PAP-led Town Council/CDC staff’s (reportedly senior management?) bonus of some eight months;
3. CapitaLand CEO’s $20 million bonus (refer Straits Times today - attached below)
When I was previously working in a US MNC, the company had a bonus system that was structured quite like the EVA-based system popularly adopted by many US corporations since the 90s. Practices may vary and the exact formula used may be complex but in a nutshell, this system sets aside a pool of money to be distributed as bonus to its staff (senior management) after accounting for “opportunity cost” of capital deployment; the more senior the manager, the bigger the entitlement to the bonus pool - ie weighted entitlement.
Let me illustrate by way of an example:-
If the company makes good profits and after deducting expenses (like salaries etc), has some $1 million available for this EVA bonus pool, this bonus pool will be distributed to those entitled to share this pool (mainly senior management although some companies may include junior management but in any case, their entitlement will be weighted).
Under what circumstances will the staff enjoy good EVA bonuses? These may include:
1. Good profits during good times;
2. EVA benchmark (or opportunity cost) is low - eg if EVA is pegged to banks’ FD or inflation rates during low interest rate/inflation environment, like in recent years in Singapore;
3. Cost reduction exercise like salary cuts, etc (in fact, salary cuts may end up benefiting senior management (the “Generals” in military lingo) at the expense of the rank-and-file (the “foot soldiers”) as these foot soldiers in most cases are not entitled to the EVA bonus pool, assuming the company is profitable with money set aside for the EVA pool).
I am not sure if any (or all) of the GLCs/CDCs/PA etc adopt the EVA-based bonus system, but if they did, could it be the reason why CapitaLand CEO’s bonus amounted to some $20 million and the 2 CDC staff (if confirmed they are senior management) received 8 months of bonus when the rest of the “foot soldiers” suffer salary cuts? (I do note however such an EVA-based bonus system was (still is?) adopted at SFI (a GLC) - link MOM)
Also, if these GLCs etc adopt EVA-based bonus system, then can we safely assume top management (eg CEOs of Temasek, GIC, etc) would have received superb bonuses during the bull run years (and even during the current crisis years as long as there is bonus for the EVA pool for distribution)? But I guess Singaporeans will never get to know how much such bonuses were as these are presumably secrets not for public consumption.
(Note: I note the justification for the PAP town councils investing in “risky” Lehman Minibonds was in order to “beat inflation”, but are there other reasons why these town councils (and other GLCs, etc if any) resort to taking such high risks (but with corresponding high returns)? Is there any link of this need to outperform to the EVA-based system?)
Regards,
Jeffrey Ho
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25282.1
Three recent events prompted me to seek your confirmation/clarification if there is any link to the bonus system at GLCs/other government-related institutions like PAP-controlled Town Councils/CDCs, etc, and the recently revealed bonuses of the 2 town council/CDC staff and CapitaLand’s CEO:
1. Some PAP-led Town Councils’ revelation of million dollar investment losses in Lehman Minibond and other structured products;
2. Two PAP-led Town Council/CDC staff’s (reportedly senior management?) bonus of some eight months;
3. CapitaLand CEO’s $20 million bonus (refer Straits Times today - attached below)
When I was previously working in a US MNC, the company had a bonus system that was structured quite like the EVA-based system popularly adopted by many US corporations since the 90s. Practices may vary and the exact formula used may be complex but in a nutshell, this system sets aside a pool of money to be distributed as bonus to its staff (senior management) after accounting for “opportunity cost” of capital deployment; the more senior the manager, the bigger the entitlement to the bonus pool - ie weighted entitlement.
Let me illustrate by way of an example:-
If the company makes good profits and after deducting expenses (like salaries etc), has some $1 million available for this EVA bonus pool, this bonus pool will be distributed to those entitled to share this pool (mainly senior management although some companies may include junior management but in any case, their entitlement will be weighted).
Under what circumstances will the staff enjoy good EVA bonuses? These may include:
1. Good profits during good times;
2. EVA benchmark (or opportunity cost) is low - eg if EVA is pegged to banks’ FD or inflation rates during low interest rate/inflation environment, like in recent years in Singapore;
3. Cost reduction exercise like salary cuts, etc (in fact, salary cuts may end up benefiting senior management (the “Generals” in military lingo) at the expense of the rank-and-file (the “foot soldiers”) as these foot soldiers in most cases are not entitled to the EVA bonus pool, assuming the company is profitable with money set aside for the EVA pool).
I am not sure if any (or all) of the GLCs/CDCs/PA etc adopt the EVA-based bonus system, but if they did, could it be the reason why CapitaLand CEO’s bonus amounted to some $20 million and the 2 CDC staff (if confirmed they are senior management) received 8 months of bonus when the rest of the “foot soldiers” suffer salary cuts? (I do note however such an EVA-based bonus system was (still is?) adopted at SFI (a GLC) - link MOM)
Also, if these GLCs etc adopt EVA-based bonus system, then can we safely assume top management (eg CEOs of Temasek, GIC, etc) would have received superb bonuses during the bull run years (and even during the current crisis years as long as there is bonus for the EVA pool for distribution)? But I guess Singaporeans will never get to know how much such bonuses were as these are presumably secrets not for public consumption.
(Note: I note the justification for the PAP town councils investing in “risky” Lehman Minibonds was in order to “beat inflation”, but are there other reasons why these town councils (and other GLCs, etc if any) resort to taking such high risks (but with corresponding high returns)? Is there any link of this need to outperform to the EVA-based system?)
Regards,
Jeffrey Ho
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25282.1
Why LKY should play SimCity
Baby Gloom Haunts Lee
Why is it so difficult to just get down to the whole business of making babies? It should be the most natural thing in the world. What’s the fuss all about? Why does it have to be something like the Da Vinci code?
My pet theory is; it may have something to do with the sworn enemies of the brotherhood – yes, those erudite spinsters who reside in that self styled monastery known as SPH (the Sisters of Perpetual Hesitation); who often write toe curling accounts on the seven habits of highly effective wife beaters – to why I rather sleep with my dog than a man - in their cloistered enclave when their mother superior Sumiko exclaims: “I’ve missed the boat.” Her underlings cheer on, “Well done, our aim must be improving.”
Leaving that all aside our baby blues remains a pithy summary of the sign of our times – it’s serious when you consider even Sengkang Sally these days seems to be hanging up her eggs.
In the early 80’s when the trend of forestalling the stork first surfaced it affected mainly the ranks of professional women - that was alright - besides all of them were batty and their abstinence probably saved most men from perpetual bitching.
But of late the trend of forestalling the stork seems to have reached pandemic levels and it’s even scissoring right through the length and breadth of our society! So out comes the same unsavory characters making a bee line in rogue’s gallery: high cost of living, not enough time, an uncertain future and the impossible demands of juggling jobs and kids etc.
Are they the only suspects? Could there be another reason why our birth rates are so low?
One clue that may explain why the baby figures are so shambolic may be found in the computer game called SimCity - I happen to love the game.
For one it’s a great way to take a holiday from my inferiority complex; as SimCity is really like playing god (though I don’t think he eats pot noodle or has to live in a room where clothes go to die) – now the thing that I learnt most about SimCity is:
Build a lousy system and you are likely to get lousy results; there’s no mystery there, it’s cut and dried; where the cost and penalty calculation become screwy is when you build a perfect system that’s so good that it even has reserves to gather momentum and when you pull on the brakes nothing happens!
It’s a bit like the Titanic 30 seconds before it struck the iceberg - instead of you playing the game; the game plays you.
That dystopian nightmarish landscape bears out only too clearly in the game SimCity - even the most benign and innocuous actions can be amplified and have far reaching implications – build a multi storey car park and the next thing you know you’ve created the mother of all traffic jams and that leads to probably an eight lane highway and deppreciation of property - next thing you know your neighborhood has turned into down town Baghdad; if you really want to understand why our baby birth rates is so low –here it is! - the answer believe it or not can be found in a computer game and just in case you think - I am kidding.
I am not, I worked it all out mathematically one evening on a napkin in McDonalds.
The whole idea of playing the extinction game isn’t really so different from one those environmental horror stories; we so often hear about; When someone thought it would just be a dainty idea to bring a pot of flowers from the old country to brighten up the porch and dress up their bonnet for Sunday church.
But what happens when that species of alien flower finds its way into the local ecology and proliferates only to overreach its territory very much like a super invader to wipe up the rest?
The analogy isn’t so different from what really accounts for our baby blues.
The historical accounts are sketchy; but the story goes something like this; during the late 70’s a great social engineering experiment was launched; the ‘2 is enough and 3 is company’ population control program.
It made perfect sense then to mitigate the high birth rates and leveraging on the apparatus of assimilation to broadcast the message it worked admirably, the problem was everyone from the policymakers to the social scientist who conceived this idea became so fixated on the drive train and breaking the land speed record; none of them bothered with the emergency brakes. In short, they forgot about the reverse gear - fast forward today; when we talk about our lamentable birth rates, it’s nothing more than a social Chernobyl experiment gone awry.
Yes, some fucked up.
The lessons here are sobering – never ever fuck around with something you don’t completely understand – that’s the problem when government decides to play a round of Iam-God-almighty.
My point is simply this; it may have made pragmatic sense once upon a time to muck around with the lives of people, but even with the benefit of the best of intentions; the cost of doing so may simply be too horrendously high to contemplate in the long term; fact remains where the equation applies to people; the whole calculation may not even hold true as what we are dealing with here isn’t nuts and bolts – it’s not really a quantitative method as it remains a qualitative process; its more an art than a science; because you dealing with people and people don’t always behave rationally.
Yes, small things can have big consequences. They can even come back a bite you like a multi headed hydra. Worst of all, some of the mistakes we make can’t be reversed - once they go into the mind; they just stay there.
It would be good; if government just kept that in the back of their minds when they next decide to muck around with the internet.
Don’t say, I didn’t tell you; it’s doesn’t pay to play God.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25281.1
Why is it so difficult to just get down to the whole business of making babies? It should be the most natural thing in the world. What’s the fuss all about? Why does it have to be something like the Da Vinci code?
My pet theory is; it may have something to do with the sworn enemies of the brotherhood – yes, those erudite spinsters who reside in that self styled monastery known as SPH (the Sisters of Perpetual Hesitation); who often write toe curling accounts on the seven habits of highly effective wife beaters – to why I rather sleep with my dog than a man - in their cloistered enclave when their mother superior Sumiko exclaims: “I’ve missed the boat.” Her underlings cheer on, “Well done, our aim must be improving.”
Leaving that all aside our baby blues remains a pithy summary of the sign of our times – it’s serious when you consider even Sengkang Sally these days seems to be hanging up her eggs.
In the early 80’s when the trend of forestalling the stork first surfaced it affected mainly the ranks of professional women - that was alright - besides all of them were batty and their abstinence probably saved most men from perpetual bitching.
But of late the trend of forestalling the stork seems to have reached pandemic levels and it’s even scissoring right through the length and breadth of our society! So out comes the same unsavory characters making a bee line in rogue’s gallery: high cost of living, not enough time, an uncertain future and the impossible demands of juggling jobs and kids etc.
Are they the only suspects? Could there be another reason why our birth rates are so low?
One clue that may explain why the baby figures are so shambolic may be found in the computer game called SimCity - I happen to love the game.
For one it’s a great way to take a holiday from my inferiority complex; as SimCity is really like playing god (though I don’t think he eats pot noodle or has to live in a room where clothes go to die) – now the thing that I learnt most about SimCity is:
Build a lousy system and you are likely to get lousy results; there’s no mystery there, it’s cut and dried; where the cost and penalty calculation become screwy is when you build a perfect system that’s so good that it even has reserves to gather momentum and when you pull on the brakes nothing happens!
It’s a bit like the Titanic 30 seconds before it struck the iceberg - instead of you playing the game; the game plays you.
That dystopian nightmarish landscape bears out only too clearly in the game SimCity - even the most benign and innocuous actions can be amplified and have far reaching implications – build a multi storey car park and the next thing you know you’ve created the mother of all traffic jams and that leads to probably an eight lane highway and deppreciation of property - next thing you know your neighborhood has turned into down town Baghdad; if you really want to understand why our baby birth rates is so low –here it is! - the answer believe it or not can be found in a computer game and just in case you think - I am kidding.
I am not, I worked it all out mathematically one evening on a napkin in McDonalds.
The whole idea of playing the extinction game isn’t really so different from one those environmental horror stories; we so often hear about; When someone thought it would just be a dainty idea to bring a pot of flowers from the old country to brighten up the porch and dress up their bonnet for Sunday church.
But what happens when that species of alien flower finds its way into the local ecology and proliferates only to overreach its territory very much like a super invader to wipe up the rest?
The analogy isn’t so different from what really accounts for our baby blues.
The historical accounts are sketchy; but the story goes something like this; during the late 70’s a great social engineering experiment was launched; the ‘2 is enough and 3 is company’ population control program.
It made perfect sense then to mitigate the high birth rates and leveraging on the apparatus of assimilation to broadcast the message it worked admirably, the problem was everyone from the policymakers to the social scientist who conceived this idea became so fixated on the drive train and breaking the land speed record; none of them bothered with the emergency brakes. In short, they forgot about the reverse gear - fast forward today; when we talk about our lamentable birth rates, it’s nothing more than a social Chernobyl experiment gone awry.
Yes, some fucked up.
The lessons here are sobering – never ever fuck around with something you don’t completely understand – that’s the problem when government decides to play a round of Iam-God-almighty.
My point is simply this; it may have made pragmatic sense once upon a time to muck around with the lives of people, but even with the benefit of the best of intentions; the cost of doing so may simply be too horrendously high to contemplate in the long term; fact remains where the equation applies to people; the whole calculation may not even hold true as what we are dealing with here isn’t nuts and bolts – it’s not really a quantitative method as it remains a qualitative process; its more an art than a science; because you dealing with people and people don’t always behave rationally.
Yes, small things can have big consequences. They can even come back a bite you like a multi headed hydra. Worst of all, some of the mistakes we make can’t be reversed - once they go into the mind; they just stay there.
It would be good; if government just kept that in the back of their minds when they next decide to muck around with the internet.
Don’t say, I didn’t tell you; it’s doesn’t pay to play God.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25281.1
Gerontocracy in disguise
Say No to Senior Minister/Minister Mentor - Gerontocracy in disguise
First, there was one. Then, there were two. Now, we have three. Sooner or later, the number of senior ministers and minister mentors will catch up with the junior ministers, judging by the increasing lifespan of Singaporeans.
In companies, some CEOs retire to be Chairman of the Board. Some still collect salaries/bonus/perks as they do during their CEO days. The scrupulous ones will only take director’s fees.
Well, as they often have substantial stakes in their companies, we can’t fault them too much.In fact, most do contribute. If they misuse their powers, at most the company goes bankrupt. But, a country is slightly different.
Former prime ministers/deputy prime ministers do not own the country. The country belongs to the people. By promoting themselves to SM/MM and collecting salaries/bonus/perks as they do during PM/DPM days, they are practising gerontocracy in disguise.
If they fail to contribute or even worse, if they abuse their powers, the country will be in dire straits. In old communist China/USSR, we often see gerontocracy being practised and that has wrecked havoc on their societies. But they are huge countries, thus they have the strength to recuperate from misery. However, Singapore can’t afford to experiment with gerontocracy.
In ancient China, we often saw past emperor/empress or current prime minister acting as regent when the new emperor was young and inexperienced.
Those who eventually relinquished their regent duties when the new emperor was old enough were deemed wise, but unfortunately those who didn’t, history was not kind to them. Singapore government should do well to heed this historical fact.
In well-managed companies, people who resign/retire or promoted are asked to name their successors, else they shouldn’t resign/retire or be promoted.
Now, Singapore government said it is a world-class government, but from the latest addition of Senior minister Jayakumar, it is obvious they are not as good as they claimed to be. Reasons given for promoting Jayakumar are that he has important matters to oversee like national security, climate change, law and foreign policy.
Obviously, he hasn’t been training his understudy to take over from him. For national security, we have Wong Kan Seng, ISD and Mindef, are they for show? For climate change, we have Yacoob Ibrahim and NEA, are they sleeping?
For law, we have Shanmugam (touted to be the best lawyer in singapore), Chief Justice, Tommy Koh, etc, aren’t they experts? For foreign policy, we have George Yeo (who definitely speaks more eloquently than Jayakumar) and MFA and SM/MM,PM, aren’t they enough?
If Jayakumar isn’t imparting his skills to others, should we promote him? Say No to SM/MM as if their experience and connections are really important to Singapore, they can leave the cabinet and set up private consultancies to work for Singapore government at market price. Then, we will know how much they are truly worth. But, they will argue that they care for the country so much and that they need the cabinet titles to meet foreign dignitaries. One is even willing to wake up from the grave to put things right.
Well then, i have two suggestions. They can run for the president post, unless they think the president has no powers. Else, they can form a party to challenge PAP and still serve the country (that’s the advice LKY gave to his political opponents), unless they believe the electoral law are biased against opposition.
They may also argue that setting up private consultancies will lead to lobbying activities like those in US. This will not happen unloess they don’t trust Singapore’s laws.
If the ex-PM /DPMs are capable people, they should have no problem finding lucrative jobs outside. They should take a leaf from former DPM, Goh Keng Swee who was a former consultant to China after retiring from office. If they are incapable, which i doubt of, then that shows that high salaries/bonus/perks for their jobs is not for retaining talent as they stated.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25280.1
First, there was one. Then, there were two. Now, we have three. Sooner or later, the number of senior ministers and minister mentors will catch up with the junior ministers, judging by the increasing lifespan of Singaporeans.
In companies, some CEOs retire to be Chairman of the Board. Some still collect salaries/bonus/perks as they do during their CEO days. The scrupulous ones will only take director’s fees.
Well, as they often have substantial stakes in their companies, we can’t fault them too much.In fact, most do contribute. If they misuse their powers, at most the company goes bankrupt. But, a country is slightly different.
Former prime ministers/deputy prime ministers do not own the country. The country belongs to the people. By promoting themselves to SM/MM and collecting salaries/bonus/perks as they do during PM/DPM days, they are practising gerontocracy in disguise.
If they fail to contribute or even worse, if they abuse their powers, the country will be in dire straits. In old communist China/USSR, we often see gerontocracy being practised and that has wrecked havoc on their societies. But they are huge countries, thus they have the strength to recuperate from misery. However, Singapore can’t afford to experiment with gerontocracy.
In ancient China, we often saw past emperor/empress or current prime minister acting as regent when the new emperor was young and inexperienced.
Those who eventually relinquished their regent duties when the new emperor was old enough were deemed wise, but unfortunately those who didn’t, history was not kind to them. Singapore government should do well to heed this historical fact.
In well-managed companies, people who resign/retire or promoted are asked to name their successors, else they shouldn’t resign/retire or be promoted.
Now, Singapore government said it is a world-class government, but from the latest addition of Senior minister Jayakumar, it is obvious they are not as good as they claimed to be. Reasons given for promoting Jayakumar are that he has important matters to oversee like national security, climate change, law and foreign policy.
Obviously, he hasn’t been training his understudy to take over from him. For national security, we have Wong Kan Seng, ISD and Mindef, are they for show? For climate change, we have Yacoob Ibrahim and NEA, are they sleeping?
For law, we have Shanmugam (touted to be the best lawyer in singapore), Chief Justice, Tommy Koh, etc, aren’t they experts? For foreign policy, we have George Yeo (who definitely speaks more eloquently than Jayakumar) and MFA and SM/MM,PM, aren’t they enough?
If Jayakumar isn’t imparting his skills to others, should we promote him? Say No to SM/MM as if their experience and connections are really important to Singapore, they can leave the cabinet and set up private consultancies to work for Singapore government at market price. Then, we will know how much they are truly worth. But, they will argue that they care for the country so much and that they need the cabinet titles to meet foreign dignitaries. One is even willing to wake up from the grave to put things right.
Well then, i have two suggestions. They can run for the president post, unless they think the president has no powers. Else, they can form a party to challenge PAP and still serve the country (that’s the advice LKY gave to his political opponents), unless they believe the electoral law are biased against opposition.
They may also argue that setting up private consultancies will lead to lobbying activities like those in US. This will not happen unloess they don’t trust Singapore’s laws.
If the ex-PM /DPMs are capable people, they should have no problem finding lucrative jobs outside. They should take a leaf from former DPM, Goh Keng Swee who was a former consultant to China after retiring from office. If they are incapable, which i doubt of, then that shows that high salaries/bonus/perks for their jobs is not for retaining talent as they stated.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25280.1
Baby gloom haunts Lee
Saturday March 28, 2009
Baby gloom haunts Lee
INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH WITH SEAH CHIANG NEE
True-blue citizens may go the way of the Mohicans with the city-state’s falling marriage and birth rates.
THE rising number of reluctant brides, particularly among the highly educated, has again been highlighted by Singapore’s founding leader Lee Kuan Yew.
In a recent dialogue with undergraduates, Minister Mentor Lee pointed to his own daughter as an example when he talked about the long-term impact of falling marriage and procreation rates.
His concern about Singapore’s population slide had been around for some 25 years, seeing it a threat to its long-term survival.
A newspaper headline just asked: “Will we be the last of the Mohicans (an American Red Indian tribe that became extinct)?”
In other words, the low fertility will lead to the extinction of the present 3.25 million true-blue Singaporeans.
The white-haired Lee says an increasing number of the better-educated women are choosing to remain single as a lifestyle choice, and happy with it.
Some 33% of men and women are single, according to Lee. And to prevent an eventual collapse, Singapore has to import foreigners.
Lee aimed his marriage-and-population message at the very people – university students – he wanted to reach.
When he first talked about the subject, it was a generation ago. The people then would have included some parents of the current audience.
At the time, the reaction was a surprise since the birth rates were not yet at crisis point.
Lee is 86 today. This year he enters a historic 50th year of state leadership to become the world’s longest serving leader.
He showed the students an uncharacteristic glimpse of his softer, fatherly figure, a divergence from his past combatant self. This time, he talked of his unmarried daughter to make a point.
She is Dr Lee Wei Ling, the bright 54-year-old director of the National institute of Neurological Sciences, who once lashed out at the “elitist attitude of some in our upper socio-economic class.”
Writing that she was neither anti-establishment nor “a government mouthpiece,” Dr Lee added: “I am capable of independent thought.”
Something dad probably agrees with. In his fatherly eyes, Dr Lee – however mature or brilliant – is still a child who needs looking after.
After saying that one-third of men and women in Singapore were single “and quite comfortable with their lives”, the Minister Mentor said: “My daughter is one of them. What can I do?”
Then in an unusually emotional mood, Lee told the young audience: “When she was in her early 30s, I told her, never mind all this.
“My wife and I used to tell her, what you want is a “Mrs” (to her name). She didn’t think it was funny. Now, she is 50-plus.
“I’m getting old. I’ve got a pacemaker. We’ve got this big house, everything is looked after now, but what happens when we are no longer there?
“Who’s going to run this place? Who’s going to make sure that the maids are doing the right thing and so on and so forth? That’s the price she (Dr Lee) will have to pay.
“She says, I’ll look after myself, but she has not been looking after herself all these years.
“She went abroad for her studies. And her cooking was just to take the salmon and put it in the microwave and heat it up. You can do it and then go to the canteen, but when you do that day after day ...
“It’s a choice she has made and a choice that 35% of our women are making.”
However, in the 21st Century, women are the key to population control, Lee said, but “you have to couple an educated woman with equal job opportunities”.
The ageing Lee is still not beyond putting down his opponents either in the courts or using the law and police. On this occasion he talked of his own mortality.
At any rate, he remains very active in the running of the country.
He no longer sounded like the pugnacious 35-year-old lawyer who became Singapore’s first prime minister in 1959 when it was a self-governing colony.
In talking about lifestyle choice, Lee may have left out other factors that is contributing to fewer Singaporeans marrying and producing babies.
One is the highly competitive life in a tiny Singapore that has few resources. From school to work to business, it is one test after another for the people.
Another is the high cost of living. The Economist Intelligence survey named Singapore the 10th most expensive country in the world, and the present crisis could make things tougher.
Last year inflation rose by 6.5%, the highest level in 28 years, with the poor being the hardest hit – not a formula for more babies.
During the past decade wages of the broad middle class stagnated, while that of the lower-income group actually declined.
Some young critics blame it on policies that Lee had instituted all these years, particularly giving priority to economic growth over individual needs.
This is the second time Lee has referred to his offsprings being affected by dramatic social changes.
Apart from his daughter, Lee had earlier said that Li Hongyi, his grandson (the son of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong) had succumbed to the emigration trend. He has said he may remain in the United States after graduation.
A Singaporean wrote: “At least Lee now realises that no matter how tight he controls Singapore, there are things that are beyond him – like marriage, emigration and having children.”
His problem is amplified by a young lady, who wrote: “We don’t need men to take care of our needs. We can afford our every material whim and fancy.”http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25291.1
Teo Chee Hean: Next Prime Minister?
Teo Chee Hean: Next Prime Minister?
At last Singapore has a visible, credible figure likely to succeed PM Lee Hsien Loong. By Seah Chiang Nee
Mar 28, 2008
For five years since Mr. Lee Hsien Loong became Prime Minister (in 2004), Singaporeans did not have any idea who would take over when he left, or if something were to happen to him.
Now, at last they have a clear idea.
The defence minister and former naval chief, Teo Chee Hean, who at 54, is three years younger than PM Lee, has been promoted as Deputy Prime Minister, and although he has not been officially named as the successor, the official statement made it clear he will fill the PM's place whenever he is away.
In Singapore's system, in which voters have no say on who the becomes the chief of state, this is almost as good as being crowned heir apparent.
Seniority: Wong Kan Seng
Not only in tenure in the post, byt also by party hierarchy, The other Dep PM (and Home Affairs Minister) Wong Kan Seng has seniority over Teo Chee Hean.
Only four months ago, in December last year, Mr. Wong who is related to the influential Lee family, was re-elected the party's 1st Asst Sec-General, second highest position next to Hsien Loong (who is Secretary-General.
Next in the pecking order is Teo Chee Hean as 2nd Asst Sec-Gen.
However, it is apparent that by being chosen as Acting PM during Lee's absence, Teo has the upperhand as takeover candidate.
Besides Mr. Wong, aged 62, is older than the PM himself. He is generally perceived as lacking Teo's political or leadership standing among Singaporeans, especially after the escape of alleged terrorist leader, Mas Selamat Kastari, from high security centre.
Not many people believe he is prime minister material.
It is unlikely that the ruling People's Action Party could be voted out of power in the next general election scheduled to be held in 2011, despite rising disastisfaction (among some quarters even deep anger) with its performance.
So come April 1, Singapore will have a prime minister-in-the-making in the cabinet, and this is what makes the announcement of a caibinet reshuffle last week a very special one.
In the nature of the PAP's way of selecting leaders (away from the public participation), most cabinet reshuffles had largely failed to attract much public interest.
A general public reaction used to go like this: Whatever new blood they bring in is of little interest to us; only to the PAP.
A good choice
So far reaction to Mr. Teo's front-runner promotion has been good, with many describing it is a good choice, especially after he said he would work hard to support the PM in closing ranks with the people.
A few commented that Teo is more humble than some of the arrogant scholar-type elites in the government.
I am glad he didn't say his first priority is to help imrpove the national assets, which, of course, has dark implications for Singaporeans.
If it materialises, he could be the first Prime Minister after the Lee Kuan Yew era comes to an end.
Other observations are as follows: -
(1) If Mr Teo Chee Hean really takes over as successor, it could mean Mr. Lee Hsien Loong (who once suffered from cancer) may step down earlier than the year 2021 he had once said would mark his exit. In 2021, Teo will be 67-years-old, a bit too old. By comparison, Hsien Loong was only 52 when he became Prime Minister.
(2) Keeping succession a bit unclear to the public is probably due to a desire to prevent party factionalism, even in the slightest form.
Secondly, it was probably Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's wish to see Hsien Loong at the helm for a sufficiently long time.
(3) Last April, Minister Mentor Lee said that because of the long period needed to groom a future leader (Hsien Loong said he would remain PM until 2021), those in the present cabinet would not make the grade as successor.
Lee Senior also said that the next PM could be a party outsider, who knows nothing about politics or statecraft, someone who is now in his 30s or early 40s now.
(4) If I am not reading too much on it, it could mean that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's ideas for a younger ousider was turned down by his younger cabinet ministers.
They could not have been too pleased at being told that none of them is capable of taking over and some 'newbie' from ouside has to come in to do the job.
(5) This year Mr. Lee Kuan Yew makes history as the longest surviving leader (elected in general elections) in the world. The year 2009 marks his 50th year of existence as a political leader, having outlasted every any where in the world. As of now, his era lives on.
(6) The next question is when will Mr. Lee himself leave the cabinet? Will he stand for Parliament re-election in 2011 when he'll be 87. Ask 10 Singaporeans and almost to a man, they would probably reply: "Never" or "He'll probably die in office."
I do not think it is true. It could happen through a surprised decision. In politics, nothing is carved in stone.
(7) The new cabinet takes office on April 1 - two days before Malaysia has a new Prime Minister and a newly elected UMNO team that will likely - for better or worse - have an impact in Singapore. Is it merely accidental timing - or something else?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25381.1
At last Singapore has a visible, credible figure likely to succeed PM Lee Hsien Loong. By Seah Chiang Nee
Mar 28, 2008
For five years since Mr. Lee Hsien Loong became Prime Minister (in 2004), Singaporeans did not have any idea who would take over when he left, or if something were to happen to him.
Now, at last they have a clear idea.
The defence minister and former naval chief, Teo Chee Hean, who at 54, is three years younger than PM Lee, has been promoted as Deputy Prime Minister, and although he has not been officially named as the successor, the official statement made it clear he will fill the PM's place whenever he is away.
In Singapore's system, in which voters have no say on who the becomes the chief of state, this is almost as good as being crowned heir apparent.
Seniority: Wong Kan Seng
Not only in tenure in the post, byt also by party hierarchy, The other Dep PM (and Home Affairs Minister) Wong Kan Seng has seniority over Teo Chee Hean.
Only four months ago, in December last year, Mr. Wong who is related to the influential Lee family, was re-elected the party's 1st Asst Sec-General, second highest position next to Hsien Loong (who is Secretary-General.
Next in the pecking order is Teo Chee Hean as 2nd Asst Sec-Gen.
However, it is apparent that by being chosen as Acting PM during Lee's absence, Teo has the upperhand as takeover candidate.
Besides Mr. Wong, aged 62, is older than the PM himself. He is generally perceived as lacking Teo's political or leadership standing among Singaporeans, especially after the escape of alleged terrorist leader, Mas Selamat Kastari, from high security centre.
Not many people believe he is prime minister material.
It is unlikely that the ruling People's Action Party could be voted out of power in the next general election scheduled to be held in 2011, despite rising disastisfaction (among some quarters even deep anger) with its performance.
So come April 1, Singapore will have a prime minister-in-the-making in the cabinet, and this is what makes the announcement of a caibinet reshuffle last week a very special one.
In the nature of the PAP's way of selecting leaders (away from the public participation), most cabinet reshuffles had largely failed to attract much public interest.
A general public reaction used to go like this: Whatever new blood they bring in is of little interest to us; only to the PAP.
A good choice
So far reaction to Mr. Teo's front-runner promotion has been good, with many describing it is a good choice, especially after he said he would work hard to support the PM in closing ranks with the people.
A few commented that Teo is more humble than some of the arrogant scholar-type elites in the government.
I am glad he didn't say his first priority is to help imrpove the national assets, which, of course, has dark implications for Singaporeans.
If it materialises, he could be the first Prime Minister after the Lee Kuan Yew era comes to an end.
Other observations are as follows: -
(1) If Mr Teo Chee Hean really takes over as successor, it could mean Mr. Lee Hsien Loong (who once suffered from cancer) may step down earlier than the year 2021 he had once said would mark his exit. In 2021, Teo will be 67-years-old, a bit too old. By comparison, Hsien Loong was only 52 when he became Prime Minister.
(2) Keeping succession a bit unclear to the public is probably due to a desire to prevent party factionalism, even in the slightest form.
Secondly, it was probably Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's wish to see Hsien Loong at the helm for a sufficiently long time.
(3) Last April, Minister Mentor Lee said that because of the long period needed to groom a future leader (Hsien Loong said he would remain PM until 2021), those in the present cabinet would not make the grade as successor.
Lee Senior also said that the next PM could be a party outsider, who knows nothing about politics or statecraft, someone who is now in his 30s or early 40s now.
(4) If I am not reading too much on it, it could mean that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's ideas for a younger ousider was turned down by his younger cabinet ministers.
They could not have been too pleased at being told that none of them is capable of taking over and some 'newbie' from ouside has to come in to do the job.
(5) This year Mr. Lee Kuan Yew makes history as the longest surviving leader (elected in general elections) in the world. The year 2009 marks his 50th year of existence as a political leader, having outlasted every any where in the world. As of now, his era lives on.
(6) The next question is when will Mr. Lee himself leave the cabinet? Will he stand for Parliament re-election in 2011 when he'll be 87. Ask 10 Singaporeans and almost to a man, they would probably reply: "Never" or "He'll probably die in office."
I do not think it is true. It could happen through a surprised decision. In politics, nothing is carved in stone.
(7) The new cabinet takes office on April 1 - two days before Malaysia has a new Prime Minister and a newly elected UMNO team that will likely - for better or worse - have an impact in Singapore. Is it merely accidental timing - or something else?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25381.1
Goldplay
Mar 28, 2009
Goldplay
By Chan Akya
"News reports confirm that a two-seater Cessna aircraft crashed into the local cemetery near Washington this morning. Police on the scene have uncovered 100 bodies so far and expect to find many more."
Yes, that certainly is an awful joke; but it well typifies the unintended consequences of actions undertaken by the world's central banks from the past few days. In no particular order, we had the following major developments this week:
1. Egged on by the act of the Federal Reserve buying up US Treasury bonds, the Treasury unveiled its very popular but completely brain-dead proposal for a public-private initiative aimed at removing loans and securities sitting on the moribund balance sheets of US banks.
2. The president of the European Central Bank (ECB), Jean Claude Trichet, rejected demands for an increase in stimulus spending in Europe, a point of contention with the Barack Obama administration.
3. Bank of England governor Mervyn King warned that inflation could worsen in the United Kingdom and require a sharp increase in interest rates thereafter.
4. The governor of the People's Bank of China (PBoC), Zhou Xiaochuan, called for a replacement of the US dollar as the global reserve currency.
At first glance, each of those statements is wonderfully consistent with the requirements of the immediate economy that they are responsible for as shown below:
a. The US banking system is has shown to be refusing loans to businesses given the sharp economic downturn and the impact of further credit losses on the balance sheet that help erode their capital base and thereby make new loans more problematic. By showing a program that ostensibly removes problem loans from bank balance sheets at prices that are "agreed" to by private sector participants, the US government can help the banks clear the logjam and perhaps initiate new lending. The Fed demonstrated its willingness to in essence print currency to allow for an inflation in asset prices thus entailed by the US Treasury moves.
b. In Europe, countries have been fiscally irresponsible during the boom period and are thus constrained in their ability to expand the purse strings into a downturn. Further, the workings of the bond market dictate a shift of pain from the weakest to the strongest economy; in turn rendering the currency (Euro) less credible by the passing day.
c. Weeks after unveiling a quantitative easing strategy (see Buyer Beware, Asia Times Online, March 14, 2009), a jump in inflation above the "target" rate of 3% in the UK sent the Bank of England to reverse course entirely and advise against further fiscal measures due to the likelihood of further currency depreciation and possible national bankruptcy. This is the exact set of worries that I shared with readers in the above article; however the timing of governor King's statement was more focused, coming as it did very close to the unveiling of a national budget in the UK this week.
d. As the holder of the world's largest reserves, much of it denominated in US dollars, it was perhaps all too well for the head of the PBoC to demand changes in the savings regime, being what would be required to reduce the volatility of returns as well as on current income. The statement comes a few days after a warning from Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao about the need for the United States to maintain its creditworthiness if for nothing else, for the sake of China's own "investment" in the country.
Seen from those perspectives, all the grandees in governments around the world have been remarkably consistent in respect of their own situation. That said, it is fair to say that ALL of them have missed the bigger picture; and in so doing have multiplied the damaging effects of their own action.
Chinese water torture
My colleague in Asia Times Online, Julian Delasantellis, has performed a masterful deconstruction of the Fed/US Treasury plans to inject hundreds of billions of dollars into the banking system as a means to artificially inflate asset prices (see for example US Fed's move is the bigger problem, Asia Times Online, March 21, 2009). I note "artificially" because there is no organic, growth or demand-related cause for asset prices to rise in the United States. Instead, this is a completely open declaration of intent to inflate prices, on the two legs of the Fed buying unlimited US Treasury bonds, which uses the funds to buy assets from banks.
Remarkably soon after Wen's statement on the US dollar, this response from the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury can be seen as nothing other than a snub to China. Readers will remember that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the unprecedented step of accommodating the Chinese point of view on several issues, ranging from human rights to Tibet, with a view to securing explicit support from the Chinese government for a continued expansion of the US government balance sheet.
That trip was, however, before the fateful export figures for the month of February were reviewed by the Chinese government, these showed a horrifying 25% decline over the previous year. In effect, the Chinese government has realized that the game was up - that is, even allowing for a willingness to buy more US government bonds, they no longer had a continuing ability to do so given the sharp decline in inflows going forward.
Another element of inflows for China, namely investments, also turned negative in January this year, with changes in foreign exchange reserves relative to trade and other flows pointing to an "unexplained" outflow of around $40 billion by some measures (using other measures that incorporate commercial banks' deposits with the central bank would actually increase the estimated outflows to $75 billion at the beginning of the year). Much of these outflows are from the very businesses that the Chinese government is trying to help with its policy of depreciating the yuan: exporters who are simply not bringing back proceeds or in many cases simply sending money straight back out of China to benefit from further depreciation of the yuan.
Given this context, it is clear that the Chinese government has decided to embark on a series of steps meant to somehow justify their reduced holdings of US dollar assets, a strategy referred to as "making a virtue out of a necessity".
For the rest of the world, these sudden lectures from the Chinese government about fiscal prudence and reserve currencies should ring as hollow as their points about human rights abuses in Western countries. In other words, ignore the shrill talk and focus instead on the real reasons.
This tango between a US government bent on printing money and a Chinese government that can no longer buy any of its favorite toys leads obviously to some fireworks but in effect there is no real drama here. The old rules of banking apply: owe $1 million to the bank and they got you; owe $1 billion and you got them.
In effect, the weaker party in the relationship between China and the United States is the former not the latter. The noise from Premier Wen and governor Zhou is simply a smokescreen to deflect this reality and create a more palatable situation going forward, at least strategically.
Unfortunately, not even the US Federal Reserve and Treasury are that stupid to buy into the risks of the Chinese offensive. If anything, the two agencies may well be overcompensating for greater weakness from China; in effect laying the groundwork for a significant swell in inflation going forward.
With friends like these
Having looked at the Chinese and US situation, it is the turn of the hapless European bankers, Trichet and King. Long-wedded to the inflation-targeting school of central banking, these two banking chiefs were thrust into a new reality following the collapse of the asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) market in summer 2007; in what was essentially the prelude to the current crisis. Trichet is a card-carrying member of the Austrian school while King was remarkably consistent with inflation fighting through his tenure until 2007.
Already dealing with profligate governments that routinely bust their centrally set deficit criteria (Maastricht treaty), the ECB has the responsibility to supervise the formation of new debt in its backyard. As long as the region retained its ability to export to growing markets in Asia as well as mature markets in North America, the overall balance between government and private sectors remained appropriate for the debt load being undertaken to fund social welfare schemes and the like across Europe.
With the collapse of the US economy and from there to the rest of the world, the balance in Europe has decidedly shifted away to the government; over the next five years it is highly unlikely that the private sector will contribute anything to overall growth. Given that, it is clear that new debt being undertaken by European governments faces the dual risks of increasing leverage even as revenues suffer a semi-permanent decline. That is the essence of the ECB opposition to further stimulus measures in Europe.
Meanwhile in the UK, the Bank of England has been pilloried for its extremely amateurish supervision of the financial industry that has resulted in the collapse of most UK banks (see Beggar, I thy neighbour, Asia Times Online, February 28, 2009). Stung by these failures, the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street may have decided to act aggressively to counter a gathering downturn. This was done by first cutting interest rates and then by quantitative easing (QE).
For its part, the ECB has no role in supervising banks in member states and therefore was stunned to discover decrepit banks in all of them: Ireland, Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium and so on. The collapse of the banking systems in these countries effectively jammed the compasses of the central banks.
The trouble with doing that though is that the UK is simply the US without a reserve currency status. Soon enough, the currency (GBP) fell against all others; even as global prices of commodities and services fell the decline in the GBP was to prove higher thereby helping to introduce inflation into a dying economy.
That combination of failed government efforts combined with worsening external positions is truly the hallmark of undeveloped countries (see Ask not for whom the bells toll, Asia Times Online, December 25, 2008).
Fear at the possibhle permanence in this downturn was perhaps the main reason for the ECB and the Bank of England to voice their fears respectively on leverage and inflationary risks. However, their actions also betray a sense of betrayal from the underlying governments.
Rather than helping their central banks do their job effectively, it is highly likely that both institutions will be undercut and compromised by their respective member governments. The political nature of appointments to the central banks also means that thei falling into line with the governments is simply a matter of time.
This fear of further government actions led to a historic failed auction for UK Gilts this week, for the first time in 25 years or so. Readers who remember the failed German government bond auction from January will start seeing an obvious pattern at work in Europe: no one who doesn't have a mandate to continue buying these securities has any obvious economic motivation to do so.
These are but the first reactions in the bond markets. Very soon, I expect sales of US government securities to non-US government entities to start falling as well; in effect pushing up longer-term interest rates. This will be conveniently blamed on the Chinese but of course the culprit is closer to home.
Exit strategy
For the global saver, the kind of person who is more intent on preserving his longer-term purchasing power rather than focusing illogically on currency nationality, it is possible that the past week was an eye-opener, combining as it does the elements of both a seller's and buyer's strike in tandem.
In the colloquial, the Americans are afraid the Chinese will stop buying their bonds, while the Chinese are afraid that the Americans will discover they no longer have the money to buy American bonds. In Europe, the British are worried about their economy being blown to kingdom come by inflation, while the Europeans are worried no one around really cares what they think any more.
Going back to our fictitious "global investor" in the above paragraphs, it is clear that engineering by the Group of Seven leading industrialized countries is being finely tuned to produce gazillions of inflationary prints as the sure-fire way of boosting asset prices and ensuring that everyone walks from their horrendous losses on debt holdings.
There is of course a short circuit for all this; something that jolts all of the world's central bankers back into their senses. This involves not some fictional global currency that takes months to discuss, years to build and decades to find acceptance but rather a return to basic principles.
Against the metric of gold, it is highly possible those economies in a permanent downward spiral - Europe, Japan and large parts of the US - simply do not have the fundamental strength to pull off the debt-fuelled rallies being considered now. America can no more pull off a $3 trillion deficit than the old Soviet Union could pull off the stunt of keeping the rouble on parity with the US dollar. European governments simply do not have the demographics or the organic economic strength to pay for all the bonds being issued now to offset the impact of recession on their finances; this renders the idea of the euro as a reserve currency laughable at best.
In effect, the more investors buy gold, the more desperate the lot of the world's central bankers, until finally the bankers gain the upper hand against their own governments and start focusing on the value of money rather than simply its quantity.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25377.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)