SingapuraKini

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, March 27, 2009

Dendrobium Thein Sein? Give me a break!

Dendrobium Thein Sein? Give me a break!

On 18 Mar 2009, it was reported in the Straits Times that Myanmar Prime Minister, General Thein Sein, came to Singapore for a 2-day official visit.

Engaging the military junta of Myanmar has proven to be a tough act for Asean since Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest in 1989. Naming an orchid after a member of this ruthless regime is even a harder act to fathom.

Flowers are powerful symbols of love, peace, remembrance and appreciation; almost everything the junta is not associated with!

The military rulers of Myanmar refused to give up power peacefully in the 1990 General Election, led a bloody crackdown on unarmed monks in 2007, and delayed aids to survivors of last year's deadly Cyclone Nargis.

Engaging a despotic regime in a talk is good enough but to go the length and 'appease' such mean and heartless leaders is just too much for me to swallow. Can anyone imagine a flower named after leaders like Hilter? For that, the Botanic Garden scores a perfect 10 on 'dumb things to name an orchid after'.

And to the civil servant who suggested this act to honour the General, please google the web for news on Aung San Suu kyi, Myanmar monks, and victims of Cyclone Nargis. Then take a look in the mirror and tell yourself you have done the right thing. Can you do that with a straight face?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25315.1

Tibet as 'Hell on Earth'

Tibet as 'Hell on Earth'
by Elliot Sperling

Posted March 27, 2009

The month of March has turned into a field of contention in a struggle for the ownership of Tibet’s historical memory. Tibetans claim March 10, the day the 1959 Tibetan uprising erupted in Lhasa, as a national day, and this year China has been forced to take drastic measures to contain any hint of it. At the same time, China has staked out a new holiday in order to commemorate the suppression of that same uprising: March 28 is henceforth to be “Serfs Emancipation Day.” There is nothing subtle about all this—China is quite determined to dominate the Tibetan historical view, whether or not coercion or even force is necessary.

On one level, the new holiday symbolizes the return of 1959 and the Tibetan uprising. In 1981, when discussions between the Dalai Lama’s representatives and the Chinese government were only beginning, no less a figure than Communist Party General Secretary Hu Yaobang asserted to the Dalai Lama’s brother, Gyalo Thondup, that “There should be no more quibbling about past history, namely the events of 1959. Let us disregard and forget this.” Subsequently, China did take 1959 off the table in talks with the Dalai Lama’s representatives. But now, in the clearest indication yet that those talks are at a dead-end—the last round, in November, ended humiliatingly for the Tibetans—China has brought 1959 back into play on its terms. Hence the renewed emphasis on marking 1959 as the year of liberation for Tibet’s brutally oppressed serfs.

There’s no doubt that Tibet’s traditional society was hierarchical and backwards, replete with aristocratic estates and a bound peasantry. And there’s no doubt that Tibetans, whether in exile or in Tibet voice no desire to restore such a society. Many Tibetans will readily admit that the social structure was highly inegalitarian. But it was hardly the cartoonish, cruel “Hell-on-Earth” that Chinese propaganda has portrayed it to be. Lost in most discussions is an understanding that Tibet’s demographic circumstances (a small population in a relatively large land area) served to mitigate the extent of exploitation. The situation was quite the reverse of China’s in the early 20th century, where far too little land for the large population allowed for severe exploitation by landowners. China’s categorization of Tibetan society as feudal (technically, a problematic characterization) obscures the fact that this socially backwards society, lacking the population pressures found elsewhere, simply didn’t break down as it ought to have and continued functioning smoothly into the 20th century. Inegalitarian? Yes. Sometimes harsh? Yes. But Hell-on-Earth for the vast majority of Tibetans? No. Traditional Tibetan society was not without its cruelties (the punishments visited on some political victims were indeed brutal), but seen proportionally, they paled in comparison to what transpired in China in the same period. In modern times mass flight from Tibet actually only happened after Tibet’s annexation to the People’s Republic of China.

Tellingly, China often illustrates its Hell-on-Earth thesis with photographs and anecdotes derived from rather biased British imperial accounts of Tibet. That one might use such materials to create a similar narrative of decadent Chinese barbarism is no small irony; and such assertions can indeed be found in literature from the age of imperialism. A further irony is that for Tibetans today there is probably no period that registers in the historical memory as cruelly and as savagely as the one that started with democratic reforms in the 1950s (outside the present TAR) and continued through the depths of the Cultural Revolution. When the Dalai Lama’s first representatives returned to tour Tibet in 1979 cadres in Lhasa, believing their own propaganda, lectured the city’s residents about not venting anger at the visiting representatives of the cruel feudal past. What actually transpired was caught on film by the delegation and is still striking to watch: thousands of Tibetans descended on them in the center of Lhasa, recounting amidst tears how awful their lives had become in the intervening 20 years. These scenes stunned China’s leadership and for some, at least, made clear the depths to which Tibetan society had sunk since the era of “Feudal Serfdom.”

It’s hardly likely that most Tibetans, after all these decades, are ready to buy into the government-enforced description of their past; such ham-handed actions may well make many view the past as far rosier than it actually was. It is also unlikely to win over large foreign audiences beyond those who already are, or would like to be, convinced. Most likely, it will simply reinforce a Chinese sense of a mission civilatrice in Tibet. The colonial thinking and arrogance inherent in such missions when entertained by European powers in the past is obvious. And it is precisely the kind of attitude that will likely exacerbate friction in Tibet and—justifiably—lead Tibetans to view China’s presence in their land as of a sort with the colonialism of other nations.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26732.1

PM Lee pays tribute to Dr Lee Boon Yang

Photos

1 of 1

> " onclick="Next();" src="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/images/butt_next.gif" type="image" width="18" height="15">

Dr Lee Boon Yang (file pic)

Singapore among nations on tax havens “blacklist”?

Singapore among nations on tax havens “blacklist”? No such list, says OECD

Friday, 27 March 2009

Darren Boon

In response to a media enquiry from The Online Citizen, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has dispelled talk of a blacklist of non-cooperative tax centres. There had been speculation that Singapore was among one of the countries on the list.

Mr Nicolas Bray, Head of Media and Public Affairs & Communications of the OECD, told The Online Citizen: “There is no new ‘OECD list’ of tax havens and we are not quoting any specific number of tax havens.”

In the OECD’s “2007 Offshore Tax Evasion: The Role of Exchange of Information” report, it warned of the directing of tax evasion from one country to that of an offshore centre such as Singapore.

The report had stated that Singapore has “used the fact that it is not on the OECD list of tax havens and has restrictive exchange of information provisions in its tax treaties to market itself as the ultimate secrecy jurisdiction”.

It cautioned that such secrecy jurisdictions may facilitate tax evasion by other countries’ residents.

A list of uncooperative tax havens does exist although it dates back to 2005. There are currently three countries on the list – Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco.

Mr Bray clarified that the list media reports had referred to was actually an information table that provides information on jurisdictions that currently do not conform to the internationally agreed standards of transparency and information.

Mr Bray also stated that other jurisdictions are also on the table in addition to Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco although he added that while some jurisdictions have signalled their intention to change, some had not made any formal announcement.

He did not, however, dispel the future possibility of a “blacklist”. “The information that was provided by the OECD to the G-20 and the various announcements that have been made will be taken into account,” Mr Bray explained. He was referring to countries and jurisdictions that currently do not make available banking information for tax purposes. This contravenes international standards established between the OECD and other countries, and approved by G-20 finance ministers and a relevant UN committee. “The G-20 governments will decide what they wish to do regarding any possible lists,” Mr Bray said.

“The information that I refer to is a snapshot of the present – where intentions have not yet been transformed into reality,” My Bray added.

The G-20, made up of a group of major industrialised countries, will examine a proposal to blacklist certain countries at a summit meeting in London on April 2.

Meanwhile, the OECD has welcomed Singapore’s moves to endorse the OECD’s standard of exchange of information by dismantling domestic hurdles to information exchange.

The Online Citizen is currently awaiting a response from the Ministry of Finance on this matter.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25189.1

Beyond dialects and languages

Beyond dialects and languages

Friday, 27 March 2009

Kelvin Teo

So the dust has now settled over Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s provocative call to chinese Singaporeans to focus on learning mandarin instead of their dialects. From a personal perspective, I didn’t find Mr Lee’s call surprising, given the fact that he has always championed Singapore’s role as the gateway to China. There have been exhaustive discussions on the domestic cultural impact of Mr Lee’s remark but little attention is paid to the political economy beyond the dialects and languages.

Geopolitical shift towards East Asia

As the fallout from the current global credit crisis continues, there has been some talk of America losing its superpower status as it reels from a double whammy - the collapse of its financial system and the overstretching of its military in Iraq and Afghanistan. And naysayers have further rubbed salt into the wound by predicting that the US dollar will lose its world currency status. The writing is already on the wall when OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) countries started dumping the dollars. Iran transacts in Euros with Venezuela following suit. And after the dollars hit its lowest against the yen, the likelihood of the former being knocked off its pedestal seems closer to reality.

There could be a shift in the balance of world power, a transition from one dominant entity to a few powerful entities. The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations seem the likely candidates. China is poised to overtake America in terms of GDP by 2040. For ASEAN nations, trading volume with China is set to rise with the establishment of the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area by 2010. The value of ASEAN-China trade was forecasted to hit $200 billion in 2008.

The Kra Canal Project, which is the planned waterway link between the Indian ocean and the South China sea and cutting across the Isthmus of Kra is in its revival stage. The Chinese will be providing assistance for the project, and it is a move to increase Chinese commercial and military presence within Southeast Asia, particularly in facilitating trade and enhance Chinese energy security. So the geopolitics shift and anticipation of increased trade links with China within the region might make learning mandarin an attractive postposition, no? Perhaps, there is use for learning mandarin after all. However, wouldn’t it seem a little premature to place the learning of our dialects into the backburner?

Mandarin alone offers no comparative advantage

Cantonese speakers amongst us might have a strong case for argument here. Cantonese makes up 15% of the Singaporean chinese population. Cantonese is spoken as a medium of communication in Guangzhou, a major business centre in China. And it will come in useful when interacting with business people from Hong Kong too. However, it is a fallacy to think that being chinese and able to speak mandarin would eventually lead to a comparative advantage. The failure of the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) serves as an important reminder to all of us.

SIP was initially conceived to the epitome of Singapore-style Industrial Township - a showcase of Singapore’s way of managing an industrial set-up. That wasn’t to be, and Singapore transferred a major part of SIP’s ownership back to the Chinese. What happened was that SIP was outgunned and outfoxed by the Suzhou New District, despite the former enjoying advantages ranging from initial political support from the Chinese Communist Party to freedom over planning and land use. The experiment to clone Singapore in China failed. Thus, what the SIP failure has taught us is that common language is no substitute for the appreciation of local political, social and economic culture. While learning the language or dialect involved in trade communications is important, but the key to survival is to be able to adapt to the prevailing business conditions.

Keeping Singaporeans at home

Last but not least, the very notion of home is increasingly diluted in Singapore. The Asia Research Centre of Murdoch University reported in December 2007 that 53% of Singaporean teens would consider emigration to greener pastures. Singapore’s outflow of 26.11 emigrants per 1000 citizens is ranked 2nd highest in the world, after Timor Leste. Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng also publicly acknowledged that Singaporean applications for overseas residency have already exceeded 1000 per month since 2007.

While many have attributed the emigration trend to better economic opportunities abroad, there are other push factors in Singapore that contributed to it. The growing disconnect between Singaporeans and their social environment, the OB markers keeping Singaporeans from taking ownership of their own identity in Singapore are among the push factors. Dialects play an important role in not only building a strong sense of identity towards one’s community, but also encourage Singaporeans to take pride of our own cultural diversity. If we cannot be proud of our own cultures, why would we even hold allegiance to this country by staking our individual economic futures here?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25188.1

SM Goh’s misdirected attack on the press

SM Goh’s misdirected attack on the press

Friday, 27 March 2009

Choo Zheng Xi / Editor-in-Chief

In an article in Monday’s Straits Times entitled, “Report Card on Class of 2006”, journalist Li Xueying previewed the newest batch of PAP MPs. One particular quote regarding the grassroots work of Member of Parliament in Marine Parade GRC, Dr Fatimah Lateef, (right) has been given undue national prominence, by none other than Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong himself.

In her article, Xueying wrote about the observation of an anonymous People’s Action Party (PAP) cadre:

“At the grassroots level, though, a party cadre observes that she (Dr Fatimah) has had some trouble connecting with the Chinese temples in her ward over issues such as the granting of permits for the holding of events like gods’ birthday celebrations.

‘This could be to the detriment of her standing with residents who are Buddhists or Taoists,’ he says.”

In comments to Channelnewsasia (CNA) on 26 March, SM Goh said:

“I do not like the inaccuracy because it suggested that a minority community MP, a Malay MP, could not reach out to the Chinese temple people, (and) the hint that maybe, she, as a Muslim, did not want to reach out to these people. That is the implication.”

He further went on to criticize the fact that the quote was anonymous:

“He said when someone is quoted on such a statement, the name must be given, because while the person may be giving his or her impression on the matter, there was also the likelihood that it was a mischievous observation.” (From CNA report)

Bullying the press

Source confidentiality is not inaccuracy. It is one tool journalists use to obtain information that may be of public interest: otherwise, the source in question might not speak at all. An inaccuracy would mean that the source in question was misquoted, or quoted grossly out of context.

It is understandable that Xueying would grant the source confidentiality at this source’s request: a party cadre is no ordinary grassroots member of the PAP. Cadres hold the right to vote for the Party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC). Source confidentiality does not mean a complete lack of journalistic accountability: Xueying has to account for the source’s identity and the quote’s veracity to her editor, and can be ordered to reveal the source in the event of a court case.

SM Goh’s use of the word “inaccuracy” unjustifiably puts the journalist’s professional credibility in question.

Contrary to criticism, such journalism needs to be encouraged. It is seldom that the public is privy to such frank comments about the PAP, and it is all the more impressive if the quote is obtained from no less than a PAP cadre. Reporters should not be bullied into shying away from obtaining sensitive quotes like these, and forced to write rosy reports about the PAP.

Scratching an open wound

SM Goh’s ire would be more constructively directed at the backbiting occurring in his grassroots organizations. The mischief he is imputing to the comment is no fault of the reporter: it was a quote sourced from a party cadre in his grassroots organization.

If this whole fracas is blown out of proportion, SM Goh would be firmly responsible for the fallout. What might have been an honest assessment of Dr Fatimah’s shortcomings has been given sinister undertones by SM Goh in his attempt to bully the press.

These dark imputations will now come home to roost where they belong: in his grassroots organization, not on the press.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25187.1

The Ugly Race Card

The Ugly Race Card

Apparently Geylang Serai has more than 100 clan associations, temples and civic organisations. So when some of them could not get a permit for their holding of events like gods’ birthday celebrations, they sought assistance from their Member of Parliament (MP). Land-use permits are issued by the Housing Board or the land office, a standard rubber stamping procedure in red tape.

So when the MP, in this case Dr Fatimah Lateef, did not produce the requisite piece of paper, the requestor can only conclude 1)she’s bloody useless; 2)she couldn’t be bothered; 3)she was bullshitting when she promised to “do her best to help.” After all, if the whole police force was mobilised over a phone call for fellow MP Denise Phua, including the assignment of personal protective escort, this permit request should have been a piece of cake. And if Fatimah did run into a roadblock with the HDB bureaucracy, she could have explained it better to the folks in her ward, and blame it on their (HDB/land office’s) complacency. But she obviously failed to do so, ergo, her “trouble connecting with management members of Chinese temples.”

Quixotically, like his wife’s red herring use of the word “peanuts”, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong is now waving the volatile racist card, an explosive exercise in multi-racial Singapore. For reasons best known to the man, Goh said:”..it suggested that a minority community MP, a Malay, could not reach out to the Chinese temple, peoples, (and) the hint that maybe she, as a Muslim, did not want to reach out…” Whoa, that’s two ethnic references in one sentence, enough already! When an MP can’t handle the clerical staff at HDB or the land office, that klutz deserves to be owned, regardless of race, language or religion.

But that’s not all. Goh is determined to go after the whistle blower of a PAP cadre, allegedly the source of leak about Fatimah’s troubles with her ward. Is the man acting out of insecurity, now that Prof S Jayakumar is also named Senior Minister? No wonder Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew once suggested he should go see a shrink.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25186.1

Cabinet changes - what does it mean for next General Elections?

Cabinet changes - what does it mean for next General Elections?

There have been many cabinet reshuffles in the PAP government’s history. The most recent one announced on 26 March 2009, coming just up to two years before the next general election is due, gives away some telltale signs of the election permutations that could pan out.

Pasir-Ris Punggol GRC

One PAP man, who had long been anticipated to become deputy prime minister (DPM), has finally been made one.

When then-RAdm Teo Chee Hean entered politics in the 1992 by-election, observers predicted that he would be DPM, along with Mr George Yeo, by the time Mr Lee Hsien Loong took office as Prime Minister.

That didn’t immediately happen, though, for after PM Lee was sworn-in, two DPMs who were older than him were already in place, one - Mr Wong Kan Seng - being incumbent.

The part about Mr Yeo becoming DPM did not happen, nor is DPM Teo likely to take over as prime minister, for he is merely two years younger than PM Lee.

In other words, this is the farthest DPM Teo will go in the Cabinet.

With Mr Teo’s appointment as DPM, Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC becomes a tougher “nut” to crack. Likewise, chances are he may meet with a stronger “adversary” in the next elections.

The PAP team in Pasir Ris-Punggol met a contest from a team from the SDA in the 2006 GE but there are indications that it would face a WP team the next time round.

East Coast GRC

Chances are now high that Prof S. Jayakumar will retire from politics in the next election. When the late Mr S. Rajaratnam became the first Senior Minister of the country in 1985, he retired at the next GE in 1988. As observers may discern, unless one is a former prime minister, he does not hold the SM position for more than an election term.

While the PAP cabinet is perceived to be bloated, the PAP is still wary of setting tongues wagging by having two SMs in a long-term period. Also, SM Jayakumar was relieved of his law minister portfolio in 2008. Therefore, even as SM Jayakumar leaves the Cabinet, SM Goh Chok Tong is likely to remain.

Another very likely exit in the same East Coast GRC that SM Jayakumar helms is Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, as he is one of the few PAP MPs in his 60s – a threshold at which PAP MPs are often retired.

Hence, the new leader for the PAP’s East Coast GRC team in the next GE can only be Mr Raymond Lim, the current Minister for Transport. Should the WP return to this GRC since in the next elections, it will face a new PAP anchorman.

Jalan Besar GRC and Hong Kah GRC

Another indicator of a political retirement is when a full minister steps down to become a backbencher. Normally, this is to allow him to complete his term as MP before a new PAP candidate is fielded in his place in the subsequent GE.

With that, Dr Lee Boon Yang, along with Mr Yeo Cheow Tong in Hong Kah GRC who stepped down as minister not long after the 2006 GE, are not likely to run for elections again.

Given that there is another Cabinet minister in Jalan Besar GRC - Yaacob Ibrahim - he is likeliest to be the one to replace Dr Lee as leader of the PAP team there. As Jalan Besar is a regular “turf” of the National Solidarity Party (NSP) - which contested under the SDA banner in the 2001 and 2006 GE - they are likely to face a now-independent NSP challenge in the next round.

Chua Chu Kang SMC

Now that Mr Gan Kim Yong, the SMC’s MP, is a full minister and with the absence of a full minister to helm Hong Kah GRC, one of Singapore’s longest-surviving SMCs may well be absorbed into a GRC.

In any case, Chua Chu Kang SMC is nearly surrounded by Hong Kah GRC, according to the electoral boundaries map, and such an occurrence would appear rather “natural”. Therefore, if former NCMP Steve Chia of the NSP is planning to return to the SMC for a third time, he may well need to develop a contingency plan.

Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC

As with SM Jayakumar, DPM Wong’s tenure as DPM is not likely to be much longer in lieu of his age and his most probable successor - Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam.

However, this is probably going to take place only after the next election.

In the meantime, the GRC is likely to continue housing two Cabinet ministers - the other being education minister Dr Ng Eng Hen. This is especially so when Potong Pasir opposition MP, Mr Chiam See Tong of the SDA, has publicly announced that he will be leaving the seat he has held for six election terms to enter the fray in this GRC with a team.

Jurong GRC

One surprise retirement by the next election could be Mr Lim Boon Heng’s, who stepped down as NTUC secretary-general in 2006 in favour of Mr Lim Swee Say and currently holds no other portfolios apart from being a minister in the Prime Minister’s Office.

If that happens, the likely DPM candidate in the same GRC - Mr Tharman, as mentioned earlier - is poised to replace him as the PAP team’s anchorman. Jurong GRC was not contested in 2006 and in the 2001 elections, a Singapore Democratic Party team garnered only 20% of the votes.

It is another “tough nut” GRC to crack.

Nee Soon Central SMC

Another PAP MP who is in his 60s is Mr Ong Ah Heng. If he does quit politics, the SMC, also one of Singapore’s longest-surviving single wards, is likely to be absorbed into a neighbouring GRC.

The ward was captured by the SDP in the 1991 GE but Mr Ong, with his skills with the grassroots, defeated the opposition incumbent by 60% to 40% in 1997. While Mr Ong increased his margin to nearly 80% against another SDP candidate in 2001, an unknown and new candidate from the Workers’ Party slashed it by 15% in 2006.

This shows that the SMC has always been a potential hotbed for the PAP.

Yio Chu Kang SMC

Given the unfortunate incident involving the PAP incumbent Mr Seng Han Thong, there is a chance that he will not be seeking another term.

The SMC may be reabsorbed into Ang Mo Kio GRC, although chances put this as less likely to occur because the single ward is perceived by the PAP to be sound enough to “stand on its own feet” with any veteran PAP MP parachuted into it.

Aljunied GRC

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, an MP of Aljunied GRC, has been appointed to the Cabinet and becomes the first female full minister.

Effectively, this increases the stakes of a second Aljunied GRC battle when the PAP meets its opposing WP team, expected to be led once again by another key woman politician - WP’s chairman Ms Sylvia Lim, whose stature has, like Mrs Lim, also since increased with her NCMP stint.

The GRC is presently anchored by another more experienced minister, Mr George Yeo.

The other to watch is whether Mr Zainul Abidin Mohamed Rasheed, a strong grassroots man capable of winning the Malay swing voters, would also call it quits after his post of Northeast CDC mayor was assigned to Mr Teo Ser Luck.

Mr Zainul Abidin is past 60 and ministers of state are normally retired younger but before an election.

Tampines GRC and Sembawang GRC

Yet another surprise retirement could be Mr Mah Bow Tan’s, who currently holds the position of national development minister. This is because Mr Mah is one of the oldest and longest-serving PAP minister in the cabinet.

Should that happen in the next GE, the only GRC with two cabinet ministers - save for the tough battlegrounds of Bishan Toa-Payoh GRC and Aljunied GRC - is Sembawang GRC.

In this hypothesis, law minister Mr K Shanmugam could be shifted to helm the PAP Tampines GRC team.

The PAP team’s leader in Sembawang, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, is unlikely to move, for he had already been shifted once - from Tanjong Pagar GRC - and he has shown himself capable of helming a GRC on his own in the 2006 election.

In conclusion, the above possible ministerial retirements are not to be unexpected and cannot be ruled out, for with the latest appointments, the government cabinet has further bloated from 18 to 21 ministers.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25293.1

PRESS STATEMENT FROM THE PRIME MINISTER ON CHANGES TO CABINET AND OTHER APPOINTMENTS

PRESS STATEMENT FROM THE PRIME MINISTER
ON CHANGES TO CABINET AND OTHER APPOINTMENTS

1 The Prime Minister will make several changes to his Cabinet and other appointments. These changes are part of continuing leadership renewal and testing out of younger office holders for broader responsibilities.

2 The changes will take effect from 1 April 2009, except where indicated otherwise. A tabulation of Cabinet members and other office holders and their portfolios is at Annex A.

CHANGES IN MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS

3 Mr Teo Chee Hean will be appointed as Deputy Prime Minister. He will be the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. He will continue as Minister for Defence.

4 Professor S Jayakumar will relinquish his appointment as Deputy Prime Minister. He will be appointed as Senior Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and will continue as Co-ordinating Minister for National Security. He will also continue to oversee foreign policy matters which cut across different ministries and take charge of foreign policy issues which involve legal negotiation or international adjudication. He continues to chair the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change.

5 Mr Gan Kim Yong will be appointed as Minister for Manpower.

6 Mrs Lim Hwee Hua will be appointed as a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office. She will be concurrently appointed as Second Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Transport.

APPOINTMENT AS ACTING MINISTER

7 Mr Lui Tuck Yew, Senior Minister of State, will relinquish his appointment in Education and will be appointed as Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts.

RETIREMENT OF MINISTER

8 Dr Lee Boon Yang will relinquish his appointment as Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts and retire from the Government. Since being appointed a Parliamentary Secretary in 1985, Dr Lee has served in many portfolios including Environment, Trade and Industry, Finance, Home Affairs, National Development, Defence, and Manpower, before becoming Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts in 2003. The Prime Minister thanks Dr Lee for his many years of service and contributions to the Government and the nation.

CHANGES IN APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS OF STATE

9 Mr S Iswaran will be appointed as Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Education, concurrent with his present appointment of Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

10 Mr Lee Yi Shyan will be appointed as Minister of State in the Ministry of Manpower, concurrent with his present appointment of Minister of State in the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

NEW APPOINTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY

11 Mr Sam Tan will be appointed as Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Trade and Industry and concurrently in the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. His appointment takes effect on 1 July 2009.

OTHER APPOINTMENTS

12 Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed will relinquish his appointment of Mayor, North East Community Development Council when his current 3-year term ends on 30 May 2009. He will continue as Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

13 Mr Teo Ser Luck will be appointed as Mayor, North East Community Development Council with effect from 31 May 2009. This will be concurrent with his appointment as Senior Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports and in the Ministry of Transport.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25167.5

Bloated cabinet and rank inflation

Bloated cabinet and rank inflation bear uncanny similarities to the Myanmar military junta

When Burmese Prime Minister General Thein Sein called on his Singapore counterpart last week, we can be sure they did not merely discuss about the name of the orchid our nation has so kindly bestowed on him (we hope that orchid has not wilted yet by the stench of its new name).

A few days later, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced a “cabinet renewal”. Well, it’s actually the same old stale soup except that quite a few climbed up the ranks. (read article here)

Did the Burmese general somehow impart their “art of governance” to our Prime Minister?

In a recent article published on Asian Times, the head of the Myanmar military junta Senior General Than Shwe was reported to have fostered rank inflation and growth of the flag officers corps to secure the loyalities of his men. (read article here)

This led to a bloated bureaucracy and rising government expenditure which threaten to saddle the state with an ineffective and expensive government.

The Prime Minister’s move to add more portfolios to an already bloated cabinet bears uncanny similarities to the Myanmar military junta’s self-preservation instincts.

After all, the PAP has admitted its difficulties in getting qualified Singaporeans to join its ranks. Those who do join eventually are probably enticed with promises of leadership positions in the government should they perform credibly well for an initial trial period.

Of the new faces introduced by the PAP in the 2006 general elections, three have been “fast-tracked” to become ministers - Rear-Admiral Lui Tuck Yew becoming the Acting Minister for the Ministry of Information, Communications and Arts, Gan Kim Yong as the Acting Minister for Manpower and Lim Hwee Hua being made a minister in the Prime Minister’s Office.

With the senior ministers remaining firmly entrenched in their positions, there is little choice but to create more new positions for the junior leaders to fill up.

The number of official positions within the cabinet is truly bewildering. Besides the ministers themselves, there are second ministers, acting ministers, senior ministers of state, ministers of state, senior parliamentary secretaries and parliamentary secretaries.

Some hold more than one position concurrently. For example, Mr S Iswaran will be appointed as Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Education, concurrent with his present appointment of Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

Why does a tiny island state of only 620 square kilometers in size inhabited by 4.5 million people need so many ministers to govern?

Such a bloated cabinet make governance a more complicated affair leading to reduced efficiency and it is an unnecessary toll on taxpayers as well.

Does a minister get separate salaries for the portfolios he or she is assuming? Is Lim Hwee Hua being paid for her concurrent posts as a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Second Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Transport?

A minister is already being supported by a very capable civil service. Why does he still need a few senior ministers of state, ministers of state, second ministers, acting ministers and parliamentary secretaries to assist him?

These positions are absolutely redundant and can be do away with. If the Prime Minister wants to test out a particular MP, all he needs to do is to put him or her as an understudy to the minister in charge.

Having multiple and concurrent positions is both confusing and cumbersome. Though our PAP MPs are expected to multi-task, surely it will better for them to focus on their present job instead of dabbling their fingers in two or more ministries.

The root of the problem lies in the inherent structural weaknesses of the PAP system which necessitates a constant rewarding of positions to keep the allegiance of the newcomers.

The PAP has ceased to become a functioning political party where members are drawn by its ideals to join out of an innate desire and passion to serve the people.

It is a now a broken pseudo-corporate entity held ransom to monetary rewards in a desperate bid to recruit and retain talents within its ranks.

Talented Singaporeans will not join the PAP just to be an ordinary MP. They will rather ply their trade in the private sector. Therefore, the PAP needs to continue paying high salaries and offer government positions in order to recruit capable people to replace those who have left or retired.

The GRC system was put in place to ensure that these first-timers are not put through the rigors and heat of a political battle. As SM Goh Chok Tong once puts it succinctly, few people are willing to stand for elections under the PAP banner unless they are guaranteed a good chance of winning.

In 1968 when we were besieged by greater crises and dangers, we only have one Prime Minister and his deputy with 58 MPs running the country. Why do we need so many MPs and ministers now? Are we having an inferior team compared to the PAP old guard? If this is so, why should we paying them so much more?

This PAP system of governance is untenable in the long run and unfortunately Singaporeans will end up paying the price for an obsolete political entity which is bent only on preserving its own hegemony and power.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25180.1

Inherent structural weaknesses in the PAP system of governance is sowing the seeds of Singapore’s failure

Inherent structural weaknesses in the PAP system of governance is sowing the seeds of Singapore’s failure

In an article published on the Straits Times Review on 25 March 2009 titled “Can Singapore fail?”, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Mr Kishore Mabhubani extolled Singapore’s “good governance” as one of its “big strengths.” (read original article here)

Wrote Mr Kishore:

“Singapore is unique; good governance is not the historical norm. Every society in the world, without exception, has experienced bad governance. Inevitably, Singapore will experience it some day. Can Singaporean society cope with bad governance?”

Mr Kishore is only half right. Compared to neighboring countries, Singapore did indeed enjoy relatively good governance for the last 50 years. I used the word “relative” deliberately to highlight the fact that while the PAP government has performed credibly well in governing the nation on the whole, there is still room for improvement.

One aspect of governance which the PAP has managed remarkably well lies in the defusing of racial tensions and fostering harmony in a multi-racial society like ours, a feat which is not seen anywhere else.

Singapore had the traumatic experience of a communal riot in 1964 during its brief stint as a member state of the Malaysian Federation when riots broke out between Malays and Chinese in Geylang leading to 4 people being killed and 178 injured. (read more here)

After Singapore achieved independence in 1965, the government took several measures to curb racial extremism and to promote peace and harmony amongst the different races in Singapore.

The English-educated Old Guards are largely blind to ethnic differences. They promoted the identity of being a Singaporean instead of fighting for the rights of each individual community.

Though 74% of the population are ethnic Chinese, the government ensured that the welfare of the Malay and Indian minorities are not ignored. They were allowed to practice their religions freely and generous grants were given out for them to build their mosques and temples.

When I brought a Sri Lankan friend to Chinatown recently, he was surprised to see an Indian temple and a mosque situated side by side to each other in a “China” town!

As we know, Sri Lanka is still fighting a bloody civil war against the separatist Tamil Tigers which erupted in 1982. The cost of loss in precious human capital and damage to infrastructure had set the once promising island for decades.

Across the causeway, the Malaysian political elite is still deeply divided along racial lines. The incoming Prime Minister Datuk Najib Razak is hugely unpopular amongst the ethnic minorities. Instead of campaigning for a “Bangsa Malaysia”, the country continues to be haunted by the spectre of a “Ketuanan Melayu” (Malay Supremacy).

We have a “Bangsa Singapura” (Singapore nation) today because the PAP is a strong government which is able to keep the vested interests of different races and groups in check. Unfortunately, a strong government also has inherent weaknesses which will lead to our nation’s eventual failure if they are not addressed promptly.

The PAP system is able to maintain its cohesiveness and strength over the years because it is heavily dependent on one strong leader in MM Lee Kuan Yew whose presence helps to curb factionalism within the party and prevent it from raising its ugly head.

A united, stable and strong leadership ensures continuity of government policies and minimizes disruption to governance by political upheavals and infighting.

However, such a system go against the grain of human nature because there will be politics as long there are human beings. Nobody can see perfectly eye to eye with one another all the time. There are bound to be disagreements, quarrels and even fights.

When MM Lee is around, he can keep the personal ambitions of the younger leaders in check because every one defers to him by virtue of his stature and reputation as the founding father of modern Singapore.

What if he is gone? Will Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong be able to control his party members? Will political differences previously swept under the carpet now erupt and split the party?

The biggest weakness in the PAP lies in the lack of a proper system of succession put in place to replace aging leaders. Neither does the PAP has any experience in electing its leaders for the top posts though it does allow a limited sort of election for its CEC.

I must admit I have no idea of how the PAP retires and promotes its leaders. It appears it all boils down to the personal wishes and will of one man.

The founding fathers of Singapore and fellow comrades of MM Lee Kuan Yew - Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye and Rajaratnam were “persuaded” by him in the 1980s to step down to make way for younger leaders.

There are no direct elections for the positions of Secretary-General, Chairman and their deputies within the PAP itself. Ordinary PAP cadres have a limited say in choosing their leaders. “Outsiders” like Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Dr Ng Eng Hen were parachuted into important positions while others who are more senior than them are left on the fringes.

This is not how a political party selects and renews its leadership. The truth is, the PAP has long ceased to be a proper functioning political entity which views itself as just one of many registered political parties playing according to the rules set under the Constitution.

It has become a sort of “mandarinate” of one man who continues to call all the shots. The lack of democracy within the PAP itself partly explains why its leaders are so intolerant of political dissent and opposition to its rule.

The rule of man can only go as far as the man is around. In his absence, new players will emerge to take over him. The question is: will this new leader be as capable and honest as the founder himself? What if he turns out to be a Chen Shui Bian? There will be no way the PAP can remove him from power. We will become like another Zimbabwe where the tenacles of the ruling party extend through all facets of society that it is choking the country out of existence.

In Singapore where the line between the state and the party have been blurred beyond recognition, failure of the PAP itself will inevitably lead to Singapore’s demise.

There is still time for the PAP to reform itself. MM Lee should consider putting a system in place to ensure that future leaders are voted by members themselves to lead the party.

In the ongoing UMNO general assembly in Malaysia, there is competition for all the top posts in the party saved for the Presidency which is uncontested.

The UMNO system is grossly flawed and imperfect. Only a handful of 2,500 delegates are allowed to vote which fosters money politics and corruption. However, in spite of its inadequacies, there is some resemblance of democracy and ownership within the party.

MM Lee can no longer consider the PAP as his personal fiefdom. He should retire gracefully now and allow the party to evolve on its own terms. In a democratic institution, capable and charistmatic leaders will eventually be brought to the forefront by a natural process of Darwininan selection and elimination.

There is no lack of talent within the PAP. A real leader is not afraid of going through the baptism of fire. If one is unable to obtain even the support of his party members, how can one continue to rule the country with impunity?

Unless the PAP starts to implement much needed changes to its internal modus operandi and organizational structure, it may find itself either completely lost or bitterly split in the post-LKY era.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&msg=25180.1