Morality is not so easy... Have been very busy these few days so I haven't had time to blog. I will continue to be busy until the middle of next week, Things should go back to normal for me towards the end of next week.Tiger Woods, Jack Neo, a Malaysian minister and an American president.....When I just started working, I socialised a lot more than I do now. At a barbeque organised by a friend where many people turned up and a small group of us started discussing about short trip to KL- we decided travel cheap to KL taking a bus from JB instead of booking a bus from Singapore. There were 5 of us - 2 guys and 3 girls. I went because I had nothing else better to do for that weekend. I hardly knew the people I was going with because I met some of them for the 1st time at the barbeque. When we got to KL, one of the girls requested for her own room while the guys shared one room and the other girls shared another. We found out later that the girl wanted her own room because she was meeting her lover, a married businessman. The next day the businessman joined us for breakfast - he probably assumed since we were all strangers and won't rat on him. Other than the fact that he was cheating on his wife, he was a like any other guy - friendly, confident and courteous. While it is considered wrong and immoral to cheat on your spouse or girlfriend, over time I realised this behavior is more widespread that most people think. Singaporeans don't like to rat on other people's private life - notice how the other parts of Jack Neo's scandal popped out in quick succession only after his 22 yr old mistress spilled the beans on him - many were helping him to keep things secret for a long time. Why do people cheat on their spouse when it so damaging if you're found out?Human beings are polygamous by nature (Polygamy left its mark on the human genome). It was a matter of survival in the past when living conditions were extremely harsh. Genetically, you're better off "sowing your wild oats" than forming stable families. However, as we become more civilised and organised as a society, and learn to overcome the forces of nature, this behavior became unnecessary and incompatible with the social structures that evolved over time. To repress this behavior, laws, religion and social norms (morality) were imposed on the people. Many find it hard to overcome this behavior pre-programmed in our genes despite the fear of being found out, promises to their spouses and damage to their reputation. Take Bill Clinton as an example. Here is a guy who had everything going for him and plenty of political enemies waiting for one mistake to tear him down - yet he couldn't overcome his 'lust' and nearly destroyed his presidency.40 years ago, perhaps it was easier to constrain human behavior - movies were sexually tame, no Internet, no social networks, and fewer bad role models. Today, Hollywood actors, sports heros, and playboy billionaires have taken over as role models for many of our youths. This is counter-balanced by rising religiosity- the emergence of megachurches....Jack Neo was with his pastor when the scandal broke, Tiger Woods spoke about returning to his Buddhist roots. For the successful who have more than provided for their family, it becomes harder to resist infidelity given they have time, money and easy women who are attracted to their success. However, infidelity is bad for our society as causes families to break up and broken homes lead to problematic childhoods for the kids[Broken homes, broken children?]. We are always disappointed when famous people held up as role models are found to be less than perfect. While we have the right to be upset given we have been sold a deceptive unreal facade of the actual character, we also have to ask ourselves if why we have formed unrealistic expectations knowing that famous people today manage their public image with professional PR and spin. Jack Neo was wrong to cheat on his wife and will pay for it with his reputation and he will be painfully humiliated and prosecuted by the media. We should not condemn him without mercy ...and although I'm not a Christian, there wisdom in these words from the bible : "Let those without sin cast the first stone". We are all imperfect in our own way ....as for Jack Neo's transgressions, his wife and children are the only ones who needs to forgive him.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. The TRUTH about Productivity.... When they talk about increasing productivity, it always about how the Singaporean worker should work harder and better. The poor Singapore elderly cleaner should be more efficent and work faster otherwise he should be replaced by a young foreign according to MP Ong Ah Heng - that was what he did to old cleaners after a single complaint from his residents.“I know of one family who complain the cleaners in their precinct are lazy and too old. They don’t want local workers who are old, they want young foreign workers. To satisfy the demand, I changed the local workers to foreign workers. Foreign workers are not a burden to us. Their presence here is not negative. Without foreign workers, things will be worse,” - MP Ong Ah Heng in Parliament.Yes, even when you're in your seventies, you should be as fast and as nimble as the 20 year old from China that is what the PAP govt expects of you otherwise you don't have spurs in your hide and will be seen as lazy. It is interesting that MP Ong chooses to use cleaners who are paid $800 a month to illustrate his point ....Before I go on to the points I'll be making, let me ask you a simple question : how productive was President Nathan last year to deserve his $3M paycheck? Let us not fall into this trap - that our well being is linked to our productivity and if we have not been paid well it is we haven't been productive enough.... .Kenneth Feinberg[Link] is Obama's "pay czar". After the US govt bailed out major banks, Fienberg was appointed to make sure bankers don't go back to their old bad habits of paying themselves tens of millions given the outrage among the general public for the bailout. Yesterday Fienberg appeared on CNBC because Maria Bartiromo was doing a segment on Wells Fargo executives wanting to double their own pay. Because Wells Fargo had already returned the TARP money, Feinberg has no juristriction over them and can't do anything about it - all he could do was give his opinion on the matter. This was what he said. Very often bankers would come to him to authorise fat bonuses or pay hikes saying that the executive is "especially talented" or he might be poached up by a foreign bank. He would ask for proof this "talent" and in every single case he found the person replaceable without loss to the company. It was mostly, in his own words,"spin" - bankers over the years have been very creative at manufacturing justifications for their high salaries even as they were about to cause a lot of economic pain to the rest of the population through their careless lending. Buffett asked why the CEO pay has gone from 50 times the lowest paid worker in the company in the 1950s to 500 then to 5000 times - is the CEO today 100 times more productive today? Not possible..When the issue of Singapore's competitiveness surfaced again this year, our leaders cited as examples how waitresses at restaurants can be more productive, our $800 a month aged cleaners should work faster and harder, etc They have implicitly put the burden of competitiveness on the shoulders of ordinary Singaporeans - calling upon the lowly salary earners to gear up ...upskill, reskill, multi-skill, (Lim Swee Say has shown many skills to earn his millions?). Singapore has the highest income inequality in the developed world with the highest income earners forming a disproportionate amount of the cost in our system. We shouldn't be worried whether the $800 a month cleaner has done enough to deserve his pay - we should be asking what President Nathan has achieved last year to get his $3M. Are our ministers productive?..Are they multi-skilled? Have our bankers monopolised the NETS payment system and are making easy money by charging for every NETS electronic transaction? Should anti-trust regulation be used on them? Does the SMRT CEO who is granted a monopoly to operate our trains deserve her millions for squeezing us like cattle during the rush hour? Why is the burden of competition put on ordinary Singaporeans yet again? Why isn't anyone asking if we can be more competitive by slashing govt fees, cost of services provided by state own monopolies, etc. Scrutizing the performance of our cleaners, factory workers, waitresses and the ordinary Singaporeans and asking them to be cheaper, better, faster is going to do little for our competitveness when the fat unproductive over-compensated segment of our economy drives up our costs. Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. Sylvia Lim : Economic Growth Must Benefit Singaporeans... Sylvia is excellent! Sylvia Lim raised important points that I've written about in this blog very well:Whatever economic strategy or growth pursued by the govt, it has to improve the quality of life of ordinary Singaporeans.In recent years, profits as a share of GDP has risen to 45%GDP may not be a good measure of economic performance and social progress.Growing inequality in our society is a serious problem.The massive import of foreign labor has lead to stresses and problems. The idea that we have to expand population to be competitive may be flawed.A few weeks ago I wrote that the ESC report did not put the improving the quality of life of Singaporeans as its ultimate goal. The goal of the ESC was to achieve GDP growth (didn't we already accomplish that in the past few decades) and this may not lead to a rise in living standards of ordinary Singaporeans. The PAP fixation with GDP growth has led to the worse income inequality in developed countries and a increased pace of life that many Singaporeans now find difficult to cope with. However, it will be difficult for the PAP to change and put the well being of ordinary Singaporeans as its top priority - over the years its other interests have grown, it now has a vast network of GLCs to take care of and the GLCs serve to benefit a small number of elites who occupy top positions and are closely linked to PAP.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. Productivity and Cheap Foreign Labor... Before I get on to the actual topic, let me ask you a question. Do you know how they operate ferris wheels in some parts of India? Here's how:Yes, human powered ferris wheels.....found only in places where you can pay people less than $1 a day for their labor.See when businesses have access to very cheap labor they stop investing in machines, software and processes to improve productivity. That what economists looking at our productivity growth's correlation with foreign imported labor numbers will tell you. However, this simple conclusion also it means that PAP govt has made a serious mistake to open the floodgates to cheap foreign labor causing a decline in worker productivity. However, if you look at the speeches by the SM and PM, they put the responsibility of increasing productivity on the shoulders of Singapore workers and businesses. If workers and businesses can't improve their productivity, Singapore will have no choice but to continue importing foreign workers. The PAP govt has never admitted that its liberal foreign labor policy CAUSED a fall in productivity.... so it was left to MP Low to fire his salvo at the govt and put the blame for productivity decline directly on govt foreign labor policy : The Singapore worker can train, retrain, upgrade all he wants but if companies have access to cheap labor like ferris wheel operators in India, they will never buy machines that will make full use of the skills of the Singaporean worker. That is why in Japan which uses almost exclusively more expensive local labor has a productivity index of 100 compared with 50 for Singapore. By saying that Singapore needs to improve productivity to decrease reliance on foreign workers, the govt has reversed the real cause and effect i.e. the govt is saying our reliance on foreign workers is caused by our declining productivity. The 1st step to fixing a problem is to admit that a mistake has been made. MP Low's speech in parliament only elicited denials from the PAP side...so I'm not optimistic the PAP will adopt the right approach to improve the lot of our workers. Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. Singapore Needs Better Leadership..... We were once told that our top leadership had something rare called 'helicopter vision', a term used to describe their abilities as super visionaries able to see far beyond what ordinary Singaporeans can. During the debate on minister's pay, it was argued that they were extraordinary men who made a painful sacrifice to serve the people for a mere couple of millions. What we actually saw in the past 3-4 years was leadership that had problems acknowledging the problems of ordinary Singaporeans let alone solve them. When HDB flats rose sharply, they kept insisting that it was still affordable instead doing something about the supply. When ordinary Singaporeans raised the problems of overcrowded public transport during peak hours, they again denied there were any problems - it was netizens who diligently analysed the situation to show that there was a massive rise in population without corresponding increase in capacity.They pursued a short term strategy for generating economic growth by importing foreign labor exacerbating our society's most serious problem - income inequality. Thousands of Singapore households have fallen into poverty and we are beginning to see homelessness among Singaporeans. We do not just have a bad income gap problem, we have the WORSE income gap among developed countries (bar chart from Online Citizen):The income gap is not a new problem - it has been around for more than a decade. However, instead of implementing measures to help narrow the gap such as minimum wages and safety nets, they implemented policies that worsened the situation - liberal immigration policies, regressive taxation (GST) and reduction of workers' benefits. We are not only seeing rising poverty but the emergence of an ultra-underclass among us. As citizens, we cannot continue to wait and hope that the govt will start to do something about the problems we face. The PAP govt with its diversified interests (GLCs etc) rarely put the well- being of ordinary Singaporeans at heart of policy making..... what we have are healthcare policies that shift as much burden to the sick and families of the sick, labor policy that tells Singaporean workers to make themselves cheaper (, better, faster) and imports foreign workers excessively to keep wages down, transport policies that generates more revenue as congestion worsens and costly public housing that results in a lifetime of debt for young couples.We cannot allow our thoughts to be shaped by the govt controlled media and our votes to be bought by estate upgrading. We cannot depend on the PAP to overcome its ideological constraints and reliance on old tired formulas for change while our fellow Singaporeans struggle to make ends meet. These leaders who demand millions cannot even understand the problems Singaporeans have to struggle with day after day. At the end of the day what is needed from them is what money cannot buy - real integrity, empathy, care, respect and humility.The other day SM Goh gave a speech in which he said our leaders need to be tough and not 'strawberries'. Who can be tougher than people who kept coming back with their heads held high after they were jailed and bankrupted for their determination to do what is right. Who is tougher than the man risks everything to stand up in a climate of fear to speak against what is wrong in our society.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. MSM becomes friendlier to Chee.... In June 2008, Straits Times published an article that told us Chee may be me suffering from "anti-social personality disorder"[Link] - this article and many others over the years attempted to paint Chee as a suspicious character from the political fringe. Yesterday's Sunday Times coverage of the SDP's 30th Anniversary (SDP Marks its 30th year) and Chee's ZaoBao interview[here] along with a smiling confident looking photo of him gives us the impression that something has changed in the MSM.The article above appeared in the Straits Times today allowed Chee to clarify a number of issues - where he gets his funding and Chiam's exit from the SDP. I'm not too sure what to make of all this since the editors of the papers are still the same people and there is not yet enough evidence to be convinced that they have suddenly become completely objective in their reporting. What I don't believe is that any of this happened without careful thought and a purpose. With an unfriendly MSM, the SDP has had to harness the Internet to reach out to supporters and recruit new members. Today you can access its websites, youtube videos and its articles are replicated in numerous forums and blogs. The next election will see a younger generation born after 1965 forming more than 50% of the voters - this generation, better educated, more widely travelled and less susceptible to simple propaganda....perhaps all these factors led to a change in the MSM coverage of Chee. Tossing names at Chee like one old man did calling him "a near-psychopath" may actually backfire these days.Martyn See wrote about all this change in attitude of the MSM in his blog(The coming around of Chee Soon Juan and SDP? ) suggested that the change may be due to:"Perhaps there is a tacit recognition that a bankrupted Chee is already a spent force and thus not a political threat? Perhaps Lee Kuan Yew, after clashing with the Chee siblings in court, saw for himself horns didn’t grow out of their skulls? Perhaps the political desks of ST and Zaobao needed to fill their quotas of articles per month...."I don't think Chee is a spent force - if anything, his fight for democracy has taken on greater relevance and popularity given the tranformation that has taken place in many asian countries such as S. Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. Treatment of Chee by the MSM aside, there is something I found extremely disturbing in Martyn See's posting:"Five years ago in the police station, I was interrogated by the police over the making of my documentary Singapore Rebel. Photographs and minutes of the Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) meetings and activities were produced in front me, and I was asked to identify faces in those snapshots. How did the photographs and minutes end up with the police? Did the police have moles planted in the opposition? Is Lee Kuan Yew an autocrat? You go figure."If the above is true, the national intelligence agencies may have been used to spy on PAP's political opponents. This is an abuse of power - instead of hunting down Mas Selamat's buddies they have infiltrated Chee's SDP......even if there is abuse, why must they waste resources on this when MM Lee called Chee a "political juvenile" and thus not a real political threat? Is Lee Kuan Yew an autocrat? Hmmm....has there been any doubt of that!Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. What some Singaporeans think of the Budget.... What do Singaporeans think of this year's Budget? @ Yahoo! VideoThoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. COE Revenue to rise by 50%.... The cost of owning a car is going to be a lot higher than in previous years. I believe the revenue from ERP has increased significantly too given the number of new gantries that have popped up here, there and everywhere. When you design a system, and if your desire is to deliver a high quality of service at an affordable price, you whenever you raise prices it has to be tied with a higher quality of service if inflation remains stable. Our transport system operates in a different fashion. The public transport has become so packed and uncomfortable in the morning rush hour and that pushes people to buy cars and use them to go to work. That in turn pushes up the price of COE and ERP (cost of usage). Those who can't afford to drive their cars any more go back to taking the crowded buses and MRTs. The SMRT will have no problem raising prices this year or next (after the elections?) to appease its shareholders because most commuters can't switch to driving a car given the high cost. Transport cost increases fast without any corresponding service quality improvement. The only thing that is certain when our traffic congestion become worse and when the SMRT rides become more suffocating is the govt coffers getting filled up faster and SMRT shareholders getting higher dividends.My previous posting on this topic [Link] discusses why no other country or city has needed to implemented COE & ERP and no city has collapsed without them. Someone posted in the comments section that the system can be improved if the every cent collected is used to increase road capacity, improve bus services + extend the MRT/LRT system. Yes that would close the loop if the money is used to supplement what the govt is already spending on public infrastructure. But that is not the case, the solution for road congestion is still to increase ERP rates and set up new gantries. Singaporeans pay the most for ownship and car usage and our govt collects the most revenue per capita in the world from this system - Singaporeans pay the most in the world and the quality of service they get is far from the best in the world. All this leads to frustration...not that we are unused to frustration... it is really how much we can take before we do something about it.--------------------COE revenue projected to rise by 50% to $900m [Link]By CHRISTOPHER TANCERTIFICATE of entitlement (COE) prices continued to climb as bidders scrambled for the permits ahead of a probable cut in quota this year.COE premiums for cars up to 1,600cc rose by 1.8 per cent to $20,340 at yesterday's tender. COE for cars above 1,600cc was 3.1 per cent higher at $23,889. They were surpassed by the premium for Open COE, which can be used for any vehicle. This rose by 8.2 per cent to close at $24,229.Commercial vehicle buyers have to bear a higher premium than those buying a 1,600cc vehicle. Their COE price increased by 9.9 per cent to $23,501. Bikers will feel the pinch as well. The COE price for motorcycles shot up by 17.5 per cent to $1,001.Industry players are bracing themselves for premiums to rise further. Mr Ron Lim, general manager of Nissan agent Tan Chong Motor, pointed to vehicle tax revenue projections revealed in Monday's Budget as a sign.The Budget projected that vehicle-related tax revenue will dip by 16.5 per cent to $1.5 billion in the 2010 financial year, from $1.8 billion last year. But at the same time, COE revenue is projected to rise by nearly 50 per cent to $900 million, from $610 million last year. According to Mr Lim, the market read this as a clear indication that there will be fewer cars (on the back of fewer COEs), and COE premiums will soar.Last year's average COE premium for cars up to 1,600cc was $15,000, while the average COE price for cars above 1,600cc was $16,400. Based on the projected rise in COE revenue, the two averages will be close to $22,500 and $24,600 respectively this year.Motor Traders Association president Tan Kheng Hwee predicted COE premiums will hit $30,000 to $35,000 'by year-end if the economy continues to grow'. 'Although COE supply will be reduced sharply, new car demand is still moderate,' she said, as most cars here are relatively young. But as these cars age, '$50,000 to $60,000 is not out of the question in a couple of years' time'.Mr Neo Nam Heng, president of the Automotive Importers and Exporters Association, concurred, saying: 'I think prices will breach $30,000 in three months' time.'He said yesterday's increase was also fuelled by a weaker euro, which has been hit by fears of spreading credit defaults in countries such as Portugal, Spain and Greece. He said: 'The weak euro benefits the European makes, which in the first place have bigger profit margins to bid for COEs.'Recent sales performances of key European marques seem to support his observations. Last month, Volkswagen registered a record 393 cars sold in one month.Motor traders said the sharp rise in Open COE premiums may also be a sign that speculators are back. Open COEs are transferable, and speculators secure these COEs to resell them to motor traders who may have failed to clinch some COEs.A fast-rising Open category indicates that speculators are bullish about future premiums.This article was first published in The Straits Times.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. U-Turn or Election Sweetening....? Suddenly, we see plenty of changes to our foreign worker policy. The govt talks of sharpening the difference between Singaporeans and PRs. They are increasing foreign worker levies so employers will have more incentives to hire Singaporeans. The govt will also be implementing citizenship tests[Link]. Looks like nothing in Singapore comes in moderation. I had dinner with a group of PRs last weekend and many of them were quite surprised at the moves against them - many of them have been in Singapore for 10-15 years and consider Singapore their 2nd home. First the govt implemented an FT policy on steriods opening the floodgates to foreigners, running advertisements overseas to ask people to come to Singapore to enjoy free scholarship & work etc. Then all of a sudden, they want to "sharpen the difference" in treatment of PRs, imposing higher levies, imposing citizenship tests etc. They are doing what some people say is a U-turn on their policies. Really, why can't they just plan properly and use common sense instead of swinging from one extreme to another. For the PRs, there is complete confusion because the media for the last few years kept harping on Singapore needing more foreigners to create jobs for Singapores, they are needed because of our low fertility rate and they are wanted because they are more "hard striving" and so on.For critics of the govt FT policy, many are relieved that the govt finally 'sees the light' and have taken steps to adjust this policy. However, one has to ask : why did the govt take so long to realise it had veered so far off and is now in a hurry to correct the policy? It is hard for me to believe that the PAP has moved away from being pro-business to doing what will benefit ordinary Singaporeans at the expense of big business - this is completely inconsistent with every thing else the govt has done over time and the "native Singaporeans are falling behind because the spurs are not stuck into the hide, that is their problem" ideology. What all this is consistent with is the sweetening process we see before every election. Lest you forget, I've attached a old sample of this from 2006 i.e.before the last general elections. Plenty of talk about "helping Singaporeans", "helping the poor", "more jobs for Singaporeans", concern for older workers, concern for the poor and so on before the 2006 elections - so what happened after that?Before every election, the populace is convinced that things have changed for the better by a tsunami of good news and favorable policy changes. After the elections, the govt sings a completely different tune with various hikes - GST, minister pay, transport fare etc. If you think that the PAP govt is all set to moderate its foreign worker policy, please think again. The best way to secure long lasting and permanent changes is to let this govt know that you don't forget easily and you're not a fool ....only then will they respect you and start working for your interest.----------2006 SWEETENERS...."Higher wages seen for Singapore workers as job market tightens" "Singapore businesses optimistic in first half of 2006" "Singapore's employment in 2005 at all-time high of 2.3 million" "Singapore's economy expected to continue prospering: PM Lee" "$1b help for low-wage earners" "NTUC aim: Make 10,000 jobs pay more this year " "Record 32m pass through Changi Airport" "Foreign Trade hits record $716b" "RECORD panel recommends financial incentives for NSmen" "Private and HDB home prices move up" "Panel recommends incentive package for companies to hire older workers" "More workers expected to find jobs in 2006: NTUC Chief " "Biomedical sciences industry may exceed government's 2015 target" "NTUC to set up $50m fund to help low-wage workers upgrade their skills " "S'pore strong trade performance expected to continue into H1 2006" "Medisave withdrawal limit to be raised from $300 to $400 from April" "Singapore expects strong manufacturing investments in 2006 " "Strong jobs gains show Singapore employers hiring for growth: analysts " "Jalan Besar Town Council unveils $517m estate upgrading plan" "S&C and rental rebates for 700,000 households" "Sembawang Town Council to spend $570m on renewal plan" "Civil servants to get 1.75 month year-end bonus" "12% of Singapore employers to increase hiring in Q1: survey " "Singapore created 28,500 jobs in Q3 " "Singapore raises economic growth forecast to around 5% for full year" "ComCare Fund disburses $8.7m to help low income households" "East Coast Town to undergo S$500m renewal programme " "HDB upgrading programme speeds up with 64 precincts chosen for 2006 " "Jobless rate down to 2.5%. Lowest in 4 years" "More Jobs Than Ever Before As The Tide Turns" "Singapore retailers say festive season sales the best since 2003" "Manufacturing, service sectors optimistic about business conditions" "Singapore's PMI expands for 9th straight month in January" "Singapore's STI ends at six-year high for second day running " "Singapore banks expected to post strong Q4 earnings" "Singaporeans less worried about economy, job security: survey " "SilkAir flew record 134,000 in Dec " "Singapore's M&A market hits record number of deals in 2005 " "SingTel's regional mobile users rise to 78m by end of Dec 2005 " "More SMEs expected to launch IPO this year" "SE Asia a key growth region for many S'pore firms" "Bets still on for global stock market rally despite slow start to year" "Panasonic sets up new semiconductor plant, expands capacity by 25% " "More couples having more children, 2005 birth rates up marginally" "MediaCorp Raintree Pictures' "I Not Stupid Too" beats Jet Li's "Fearless" "More poly graduates finding jobs at higher starting pay: survey" "Gallery outreach, higher incomes drive growing interest in art collecting" "Committee on ageing recommends $10m fund for senior citizens' activities" "Raffles Holdings posts record annual profit of S$678m" "Raffles Medical posts 27% rise in earnings to $12m for 2005" "S'pore sees increased entrepreneurial activity" "APB reports 16% rise in Q1 profit to S$39.4m" "More amenities, upgrading works for growing GRC" "Ang Mo Kio to be upgraded into 'seamless town', says PM" "Barrier-free access soon in all housing estates, transport system" "Surplus to be shared, says DPM Wong" "Drug abuse arrests hit yet another record low in 2005" "CPF members to receive bonus under DPS" "Number of school dropouts down: Education Ministry" "S'pore received record number of tourists in 2005" "Singapore's Q4 GDP up annualised 13%, 2006 growth forecast raised to 4%-6%" "Wages up, most companies adopting flexible wage system" "Singapore's December retail sales up 7.4% to S$2.8b""SIA passenger traffic up in January"Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. Charlie Munger : Basically, Its over.... Warren Buffett has a partner who is equally brilliant - Charlie Munger. His view of where America is headed stands in stark contrast Buffett's unflaggingly optimistic view of America in the long term ("You can't bet against America and win"[Link]). In my previous post I discussed 2 outcomes for the American economy and here's Munger's desciption of one of them.In Munger's parable, the nation's end was marked by rise of casino gambling...."As their affluence and leisure time grew, Basicland's citizens more and more whiled away their time in the excitement of casino gambling......." - Charlie Munger.------------------------------[Link]Basically, It's Over :A parable about how one nation came to financial ruin.By Charles MungerUpdated Sunday, Feb. 21, 2010, at 3:30 PM ETIn the early 1700s, Europeans discovered in the Pacific Ocean a large, unpopulated island with a temperate climate, rich in all nature's bounty except coal, oil, and natural gas. Reflecting its lack of civilization, they named this island "Basicland."The Europeans rapidly repopulated Basicland, creating a new nation. They installed a system of government like that of the early United States. There was much encouragement of trade, and no internal tariff or other impediment to such trade. Property rights were greatly respected and strongly enforced. The banking system was simple. It adapted to a national ethos that sought to provide a sound currency, efficient trade, and ample loans for credit-worthy businesses while strongly discouraging loans to the incompetent or for ordinary daily purchases.Moreover, almost no debt was used to purchase or carry securities or other investments, including real estate and tangible personal property. The one exception was the widespread presence of secured, high-down-payment, fully amortizing, fixed-rate loans on sound houses, other real estate, vehicles, and appliances, to be used by industrious persons who lived within their means. Speculation in Basicland's security and commodity markets was always rigorously discouraged and remained small. There was no trading in options on securities or in derivatives other than "plain vanilla" commodity contracts cleared through responsible exchanges under laws that greatly limited use of financial leverage.In its first 150 years, the government of Basicland spent no more than 7 percent of its gross domestic product in providing its citizens with essential services such as fire protection, water, sewage and garbage removal, some education, defense forces, courts, and immigration control. A strong family-oriented culture emphasizing duty to relatives, plus considerable private charity, provided the only social safety net.The tax system was also simple. In the early years, governmental revenues came almost entirely from import duties, and taxes received matched government expenditures. There was never much debt outstanding in the form of government bonds.As Adam Smith would have expected, GDP per person grew steadily. Indeed, in the modern area it grew in real terms at 3 percent per year, decade after decade, until Basicland led the world in GDP per person. As this happened, taxes on sales, income, property, and payrolls were introduced. Eventually total taxes, matched by total government expenditures, amounted to 35 percent of GDP. The revenue from increased taxes was spent on more government-run education and a substantial government-run social safety net, including medical care and pensions.A regular increase in such tax-financed government spending, under systems hard to "game" by the unworthy, was considered a moral imperative—a sort of egality-promoting national dividend—so long as growth of such spending was kept well below the growth rate of the country's GDP per person.Basicland also sought to avoid trouble through a policy that kept imports and exports in near balance, with each amounting to about 25 percent of GDP. Some citizens were initially nervous because 60 percent of imports consisted of absolutely essential coal and oil. But, as the years rolled by with no terrible consequences from this dependency, such worry melted away.Basicland was exceptionally creditworthy, with no significant deficit ever allowed. And the present value of large "off-book" promises to provide future medical care and pensions appeared unlikely to cause problems, given Basicland's steady 3 percent growth in GDP per person and restraint in making unfunded promises. Basicland seemed to have a system that would long assure its felicity and long induce other nations to follow its example—thus improving the welfare of all humanity.But even a country as cautious, sound, and generous as Basicland could come to ruin if it failed to address the dangers that can be caused by the ordinary accidents of life. These dangers were significant by 2012, when the extreme prosperity of Basicland had created a peculiar outcome: As their affluence and leisure time grew, Basicland's citizens more and more whiled away their time in the excitement of casino gambling. Most casino revenue now came from bets on security prices under a system used in the 1920s in the United States and called "the bucket shop system." The winnings of the casinos eventually amounted to 25 percent of Basicland's GDP, while 22 percent of all employee earnings in Basicland were paid to persons employed by the casinos (many of whom were engineers needed elsewhere). So much time was spent at casinos that it amounted to an average of five hours per day for every citizen of Basicland, including newborn babies and the comatose elderly. Many of the gamblers were highly talented engineers attracted partly by casino poker but mostly by bets available in the bucket shop systems, with the bets now called "financial derivatives."Many people, particularly foreigners with savings to invest, regarded this situation as disgraceful. After all, they reasoned, it was just common sense for lenders to avoid gambling addicts. As a result, almost all foreigners avoided holding Basicland's currency or owning its bonds. They feared big trouble if the gambling-addicted citizens of Basicland were suddenly faced with hardship.And then came the twin shocks. Hydrocarbon prices rose to new highs. And in Basicland's export markets there was a dramatic increase in low-cost competition from developing countries. It was soon obvious that the same exports that had formerly amounted to 25 percent of Basicland's GDP would now only amount to 10 percent. Meanwhile, hydrocarbon imports would amount to 30 percent of GDP, instead of 15 percent. Suddenly Basicland had to come up with 30 percent of its GDP every year, in foreign currency, to pay its creditors.How was Basicland to adjust to this brutal new reality? This problem so stumped Basicland's politicians that they asked for advice from Benfranklin Leekwanyou Vokker, an old man who was considered so virtuous and wise that he was often called the "Good Father." Such consultations were rare. Politicians usually ignored the Good Father because he made no campaign contributions.Among the suggestions of the Good Father were the following. First, he suggested that Basicland change its laws. It should strongly discourage casino gambling, partly through a complete ban on the trading in financial derivatives, and it should encourage former casino employees—and former casino patrons—to produce and sell items that foreigners were willing to buy. Second, as this change was sure to be painful, he suggested that Basicland's citizens cheerfully embrace their fate. After all, he observed, a man diagnosed with lung cancer is willing to quit smoking and undergo surgery because it is likely to prolong his life.The views of the Good Father drew some approval, mostly from people who admired the fiscal virtue of the Romans during the Punic Wars. But others, including many of Basicland's prominent economists, had strong objections. These economists had intense faith that any outcome at all in a free market—even wild growth in casino gambling—is constructive. Indeed, these economists were so committed to their basic faith that they looked forward to the day when Basicland would expand real securities trading, as a percentage of securities outstanding, by a factor of 100, so that it could match the speculation level present in the United States just before onslaught of the Great Recession that began in 2008..The strong faith of these Basicland economists in the beneficence of hypergambling in both securities and financial derivatives stemmed from their utter rejection of the ideas of the great and long-dead economist who had known the most about hyperspeculation, John Maynard Keynes. Keynes had famously said, "When the capital development of a country is the byproduct of the operations of a casino, the job is likely to be ill done." It was easy for these economists to dismiss such a sentence because securities had been so long associated with respectable wealth, and financial derivatives seemed so similar to securities.Basicland's investment and commercial bankers were hostile to change. Like the objecting economists, the bankers wanted change exactly opposite to change wanted by the Good Father. Such bankers provided constructive services to Basicland. But they had only moderate earnings, which they deeply resented because Basicland's casinos—which provided no such constructive services—reported immoderate earnings from their bucket-shop systems. Moreover, foreign investment bankers had also reported immoderate earnings after building their own bucket-shop systems—and carefully obscuring this fact with ingenious twaddle, including claims that rational risk-management systems were in place, supervised by perfect regulators. Naturally, the ambitious Basicland bankers desired to prosper like the foreign bankers. And so they came to believe that the Good Father lacked any understanding of important and eternal causes of human progress that the bankers were trying to serve by creating more bucket shops in Basicland.Of course, the most effective political opposition to change came from the gambling casinos themselves. This was not surprising, as at least one casino was located in each legislative district. The casinos resented being compared with cancer when they saw themselves as part of a long-established industry that provided harmless pleasure while improving the thinking skills of its customers.As it worked out, the politicians ignored the Good Father one more time, and the Basicland banks were allowed to open bucket shops and to finance the purchase and carry of real securities with extreme financial leverage. A couple of economic messes followed, during which every constituency tried to avoid hardship by deflecting it to others. Much counterproductive governmental action was taken, and the country's credit was reduced to tatters. Basicland is now under new management, using a new governmental system. It also has a new nickname: Sorrowland.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. Economy : Where we are headed... "A Golden Age for Asia lies ahead" - Tony Tan 18 Jan 2010[Link]Hmmm...why do I get worried everytime I hear them say the word "golden"? I think it will all become very clear about a year from now when one of 2 possible theoretical outcomes will come true. I discuss this later after I recap where we have been in the past few years.In his recently published book, Hank Paulson described Bernanke as “easily one of the most brilliant people I've known". For the former Goldman Sachs CEO to say that about you, you have to be a real genius given the caliber of people they hire into Goldman. So we have this situation where we have the finest economic minds tackling the gravest economic problem we have seen in the past 70 years. Last week we saw American politicians throwing spanners at poor Geithner for the AIG bailout - why was Goldman paid in full for the CDS contracts with AIG? Why must AIG be bailed out? Why did Geithner call an ex-Goldman man 20 times over a few days based on his phone record during that time? Geithner defended himself well throwing a few fireballs back at those senators. The politicians who are going for elections in Nov 2010 had to show some anger as the Americans citizens are fed up with the 9.7% unemployment rate and bankers who continue to receive fat bonuses after the govt bailed them out. Geithner told those senators if there was no bailout, if the Fed and Treasury did not intervene, the entire system would have sank and the unemployment rate would have gone up to 20+%. The Great Depression scenario did come in handy to defend against a barrage of accusations by politicians now looking back at the bailout with the benefit of hindsight and a big microscope. The people are unhappy someone has to be blamed and the more blame they can put onto Geithner they more likely they will get re-elected .....for being tough on bankers, tough on Goldman and tough on beneficiaries of the bailout. This whole painful unpleasant hearing was conducted to find out why NY Fed failed to disclose in a timely manner that the bailout money to AIG was used quickly to pay Goldman and other banks - the insinuation is there is some kind of conspiracy to cheat the American people. All our dailies, a few weeks ago, featured an article "The Bernanke Counoudrum"[Link] by Paul Krugman about how the support for Bernanke has faded. It all happened quite suddenly after the Democrats were defeated in Massachusetts. Bernanke is due for reappointment and just a few weeks ago there was little doubt that he will get the support he needed. Bernanke was credited with rescuing America from Depression II and preventing a collapse of the system. However, the defeat in Massachusetts reminded American leaders that the voters are still very angry with the economic mess and see the Fed as part of the problem. A number of US senators who earlier wanted to reappoint Bernanke succumbed to populist demand/anger to replace him. Krugman explained that Bernanke, after heroic efforts to rescue the system, went back to the mainstream and failed to bring about banking reform and keep unemployment down. A few days ago, Obama to shore up support for his agenda, brought back 82 year old former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, to push for a set of banking legislation better known as Volcker's Rule to keep a bank from having anything to do with investment vehicles. A few days later in a town hall speech in Ohio, Obama spoke about how the past decade had been difficult for middle class families and how he will 'fight' to keep their dreams alive[Link]. The American middle class in the past 2 decades has been decimated:"The middle class has been under assault for a long time. Too many Americans have known their own painful recessions long before any economist declared that there was a recession. We've just come through what was one of the most difficult decades the middle class has ever faced -- a decade in which median income fell and our economy lost about as many jobs as it gained." - Obama in his Ohio speech.It is unfortunate for Obama that he came to power at this time and has to face economic problems which over time may have become almost intractable. I'll talk about what all this has to do with our own economy a little later but first you have to understand what happened to the Americans before we get into that. Here is what happened to the Americans explained in 3 steps:1. Globalisation and free trade, contrary to popular opinion, did not benefit the American worker:The graph above compiled by Ravi Batra shows that as the volume of trade increased, the real wages of American workers fell. What was happening isn't difficult to understand. American corporations shifted their manufacturing to the far east where wages were lower. The real wages of American workers fell as productivity increase cannot overcome the low wages of Asian countries. Wages rose in places like Singapore & China, however, govts make sure that they lag behind productivity gains. Wages of workers form the demand for goods, however, because of the wage-productivity gap, there has to be another source of money other than wages ....which brings me to the next point.2. To consume all the goods produced and keep the global economic system going, consumers in western countries took up a rising level of debt as a % of their GDP:3. As US consumed much more that it produced, it had a trade deficit. This was funded by sales of US treasuries. The Japanese and Chinese snapped up these treasuries - lending the Americans money to consume goods made in Asia. Over time, US became the largest net debtor nation in the world.Every recession that came in the last 20 years was solved the same way - getting the US consumer to borrow more to consume. We have Alan Greenspan to thank for that - the maestro waved his magic wand to cut interest rate and keep the easy money flowing every time there was a recession and presto! the American consumer starts spending and the rest of the world is bailed out of the recession. But there was never a reset of debt levels with every business cycle - debt just got bigger. At the same time unit labor cost fell and real wages fell which meant that increased demand was generate largely by rising debt. When Obama took office, after talking to his advisors, the best minds in economics, the way to get out of the Great Recession he said was to get credit flowing again so that Americans can borrow for college education, cars, home purchases etc. Don't repeat the mistake of the Great Depression when the Fed tightened as the economy sanked. Paul Krugman, a Keynesian faithful said the US govt had the correct strategy to borrow and incur huge deficits to stimulate the economy. Easy money + huge govt deficits was the solution - don't repeat the mistake of the Great Depression.If you watch CNBC often enough (for entertainment?), you will catch this feller in a trader's uniform that is saying something like this:"It is widely believed that the Great Depression was caused by the Fed tightening the money supply...however there is another school of thought that the Great Depression was caused by the mountain of debt...." - CNBC Advert for Squawk Box.There is another (minority) school of thought that the Great Depression was due to a high level of debt. That will mean that the current measures taken by govts will only have temporary effect because the high level of debt is not going to disappear soon. If debt shrinks, demand shrinks and the global economy will re-enter recession and perhaps one worse than the one we have seen because govts are now themselves in debt and their ability to intervene will be limited. Bernanke and company prosposed the only way that is politically feasible because alternative was to allow the economy to fall and intervene later. The Jim Rogers aka Austrian way would have been too painful. However, the problems faced by Obama was not due to any of his decisions and created over 3 decades may be completely insolvable without economic pain by the time he took office according this alternative school of thought. Jim Jubak looking at the huge US federal deficits said the numbers don't add up - for the US federal deficits to shrink, the US economy needs to grow by 4% in 2011 and beyond just to keep its debt manageable...4% growth is unlikely ...this govt debt will weigh on the US economy for many years to come..some Americans are screaming at Obama not to put their grand children into debt. If Obama didn't do what he did, we will probably be seeing 15-20% unemployment and Americans will be screaming anyway. Little can be done in 1 year for a problem that was created over 3 decades.While the global economy appears to be growing looking at numbers and stock markets have surged from the March 2009 lows, you have to be mindful of the 2 alternate futures being played out. Greece was just a sample of what can come. Marc Faber said warned not to confuse the asset reflation with sustainable recovery. Print enough money and everything from Gold, equities, oil to paintings start to move up. There is little sign that economic growth has reached some kind of "escape velocity" to overcome the mountain of debt built up over the years. If this economy lose momentum, we will be in for tough years ahead.“Singapore’s future over the next five to 10 years is an 'optimistic' one, and and the tourism sector will reflect that,” - MM Lee, dinner at Tanjong Pagar, 18 Feb 2010.Our most famous economic forecaster, the one who said we were in a 'Golden Period' in 2007 is now saying things will be good for the next 5 to 10 years. Maybe that explains GIC's strategy to invest billions in ANA's hotel chain[Link] after losing hundreds of millions in Stuyvesant Town[Link]. Even if one has faith that 10 years will be good, should there be some contigency planning? Given that we have been through 2 crisis and 3 recessions in the past 10 years, aren't there lessons learnt about the global economy we live in? Investing our reserves in risky assets that will be hit badly during crisis is not a good idea - when we need our reserves most, they will be stuck in assets that have fallen sharply in value. Once our economy showed the 1st signs of recovery, the govt starts to go back to its old habit - school fees have been increased[Link], ERP charges hike up, housing costs up etc ....actions that passes the financial risk to Singaporean households who have to strain their balance sheet to meet these hikes. This type of perma-growth assumptions will make us more vulnerable in future crisis e.g. families taking up 30 yr mortgages to pay for public housing. In the ESC (Economic Strategy Committe) report there is no discussion on stabilisers that will help ordinary Singaporeans in the next recession/crisis e.g. unemployment issurance. It is a strategy on one track i.e.how we can keep growing the economy. The moment we discover Obama's plan going wrong, you can throw the whole ESC report into the dustbin because our export led globalised economy cannot escape from the unscathed when the US economy tanks.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. Dr. Lim Hock Siew's Dream & Our Dream.... Ordinary Singaporeans dream of a better quality of life not perpertual rapid GDP growth which seems to be the aim of the PAP govt:"That is why the government decided in the past five years that it was better to grow the economy and manage the accompanying social pressures rather than slow down the economy." - MM Lee [Link].MM Lee warned that if we don't work harder and keep productivity rising, the govt will have to import more foreigners to maintain GDP growth otherwise MM Lee explained our asset prices (HDB prices) will fall. Not only we have to get into high level of debt to own these HDB flats, we have to keep working harder to maintain the lofty prices. 4 decades of PAP rule and we are still on a threadmill the speed of which is increased year after year. Singaporeans work the longest hours in the world and we frequently rank no. 1 in the world for stress level[Link] yet in an interview with NatGeo, MM Lee said "the spurs are not stuck into the hide, that is their problem". Where does all this hard work, sweat and stress lead to? Our quality of life is ranked 70 by International Living[Link] out of 194. The top 5 countries are France, Australia, Switzerland, Germany and Luxemberg. Singapore is ranked below Japan, Taiwan and S. Korea. Our dream in the 80s was to achieve the Swiss standard of living....more correct to say Swiss quality of life because some people confuse standard of living with GDP. .What has all this got to do with Dr. Lim's dream for a more socialistic Singapore?.Lets look at the political system of the top 4 countries:1. France - most of the time under socialist govts after WW2...power oscillates between right and left.2. Australia - either under liberal democratic or labour parties after WW2.3. Switzerland - power shared between right leaning Swiss People's Party and socialistic Social Democratic Party.4. Germany - mostly under liberal democratic govts..If you look through the list of countries with the highest quality of life, most of them are under liberal democratic, social democratic or labor parties. Liberal democracy which is the dominant form of democracy in many countries adopts many features of socialism such as independent worker's unions, social safety nets, free medical care, minimum wages etc. to narrow the inequality under a free market system where not everyone can be successful financially which may create the gap in the quality of life between the rich and the poor. This approach, called Third Way in a number of countries and by various polical parties, has been adopted into policies in last few decades as the neutral ideology stands between capitalism and classical socialism, in order to achieve the best economic outcomes and a high quality of life. .In Singapore, we have an elitist semi-authoritarian govt that gives welfare to itself and send its citizens to face brutal competition in their form of unbridled capitalism. Today, the only people I know in Singapore with pension and free medical care are our elites. For the elites, they have job security too in the form top jobs in GLCs. If you're cynical enough, you can say we have socialism for the elites and brutal capitalism for the ordinary citizens. Instead of welfare for the poor and safety nets for the ordinary folks, the PAP goes out of its way to direct state resources and opportunities to a small number of elites - that is elitism and the PAP justifies this by saying their talent is so rare and precious only the highest salaries can compensate for their "sacrifice". What the PAP system has created is the reverse of what social or liberal democracies has achieved - the highest income inequality in the developed world, an emerging ultra-underclass and 30% of the population earning less that $1100 a month in a country where a 3 room apartment can cost $400K. How did we get here? Singapore like many other countries would have eventually evolved a more balanced centrist neutral approach to development because in every country you will find many talented individuals willing to stand up to offer viable alternatives. In 1963, this possibility was squashed when the Internal Security Dept arrested 111 socialists and preventing them from running for coming elections. This created a climate for fear that lasted until today, and continued repression of political alternatives has led to great imbalance in policy making that has resulted in many problems faced by ordinary Singaporeans today. .Dr. Lim's dream of a more equal society "in which there is no exploitation of workers and the oppressed" is also the dream of many ordinary Singaporeans and this is the future we want for our children. The PAP's dream of cheaper, better and faster will never get us there. Making Singaporeans cheaper, working harder, longer ...work until you die only serves the PAP's other interests which includes the extensive network of GLCs. .Dr. Lim was detained for 19 years for his ideals....ideals of equality and democracy that our society needs so badly today.."A Home Affairs Ministry statement on his release had said that he was arrested under the Internal Security Act for his involvement in Communist United Front (CUF) activities." - Straits TimesIf Dr. Lim was ever involved in any Communist United Front activities, they had 19 years to produce proof and put him on trial. Why didn't they? They kept him for 19 years because he refused to sign false confessions. This grave injustice is as much tragedy for Dr. Lim as it is for every other Singaporean for after 4 decades of independence we are still waiting for our "democratic society based on justice and equality".----------Lim Hock Siew's dream[Link]IT IS a sweltering day as you walk by the row of repainted shophouses along Balestier Road.As you push open the glass doors and duck inside for a welcome draught of air-conditioning, you meet a group of elderly patients waiting expectantly to see their family doctor.The name on the door plate of his office may not ring a bell for the young but to older Singaporeans, it jumps right out of Singapore's turbulent political history: Dr Lim Hock Siew.Enter his simply furnished room, and you see him at a desk stacked with books, stationery and newspapers. An eye chart is pasted on a glass cabinet displaying photos of him as a dashing young man.The 79-year-old doctor, in his white long-sleeved shirt, greets you with a soft, occasionally wheezing, yet otherwise firm voice. He is not in the best of health, having suffered kidney failure last year and taken a six-month break to recuperate.As he is undergoing dialysis three times a week, he would have preferred to extend his break except that his clinic partner, Dr Mohd Abu Bakar, 76, was overwhelmed by the patient load. So he returned to half-day work last month, seeing around 30 patients every morning, and plans to do so as long as his health permits. 'It's kind of an ethical obligation to look after them, and I can keep myself mentally occupied,' he says.The name of his clinic harks back to his socialist days as a political activist, first with the People's Action Party (PAP) and then with its arch rival, Barisan Sosialis. It is called Rakyat, which means 'people' in Malay. It was set up by Dr Lim and fellow Barisan Sosialis leader Dr Poh Soo Kai in 1961.Its consultation fees are no different from other clinics' - $20 to $30. But Dr Lim charges a reduced rate for poorer patients and gives free treatment to the neediest. 'I don't deny help to those who need it,' he says.Dr Lim's sense of compassion and empathy for the poor is well known. At a time when the unprofessional and unethical practices of some doctors are hogging the headlines, the mere mention of Dr Lim's name evokes hushed respect among his peers.Even pro-PAP Singaporeans who would be horrified by the prospect of a Barisan Sosialis government admit to having a grudging admiration for Dr Lim as a man who has the courage of his convictions.Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, once singled out Dr Lim as a politician he admired for his strength of character and ability to sacrifice for his beliefs.Like many of his former leftist colleagues, Dr Lim feels compelled to give his side of the story before time runs out.In recent years, a cottage industry has sprung up providing alternative histories of Singapore. Books included memoirs by former communist underground leader Fang Chuang Pi, former Barisan Sosialis leader Fong Swee Suan and former Parti Rakyat Singapura leader Said Zahari. Just three months ago, the Fajar Generation, a book on the University Socialist Club (USC) of the then-University of Malaya, was launched.In a nutshell, Dr Lim's is a story of how an idealistic student activist joined and campaigned for the PAP in the 1950s and then fought against the ruling party in the 1960s and paid a very heavy price for his beliefs and convictions.In 1963, he was arrested under Operation Cold Store and detained without trial for nearly 20 years before he was released in 1982.A Home Affairs Ministry statement on his release had said that he was arrested under the Internal Security Act for his involvement in Communist United Front (CUF) activities.Dr Lim refused to agree to any conditions that would have granted him early release and ended up in the record book as the second longest-held political prisoner after his leftist colleague Chia Thye Poh, who served 23 years.Today, 28 years after his release, he still dreams of a socialist Singapore in which there is no exploitation of workers and the oppressed. Political awakeningBORN in 1931 to a poor family, Dr Lim spent the 1942-45 war years helping his father sell fish in the Kandang Kerbau market. Both his parents were illiterate, but they encouraged their 10 children to study. He was the only English-educated child in his family. As the top boy in Rangoon Road Primary School, he gained entry to Raffles Institution (RI) in 1946.It was in RI that he picked up a book by the first prime minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru and became inspired by his socialist ideals.Going on to study medicine at the then-University of Malaya here, Dr Lim lapped up the works of philosopher Karl Marx and economist Adam Smith, and books on the British Labour Party and Mao Zedong's communist struggle in China. His political awakening was heightened by the anti-colonial struggles raging around the world.As he recalls, most of the university students then were indifferent to politics. They were afraid of being arrested and preferred to pursue degrees and jobs.As one of the best and brightest of his generation, he says he felt a deep, patriotic obligation to do something for Singapore and its people in the struggle against the British colonialists ruling Singapore.He plunged into campus activism, becoming a founding member of the anti-colonial USC, which was formed in 1953. In 1953, Dr Lim met the young Cambridge-educated lawyer Lee Kuan Yew, who was helping to defend eight USC students charged by the British for sedition because of an article in the USC's journal, Fajar. They won the case and Mr Lee was acclaimed as their champion. The USC rallied behind him and his associates when they set up the PAP several months after the sedition trial. Noting that the party's original Constitution showed every mark of a socialist, anti-colonial party, Dr Lim recalls that the USC members went around persuading various groups to support the PAP. The 1955 elections saw the 24-year-old Dr Lim stumping for PAP at mass rallies. PAP was then identified with the working class and Chinese-speaking masses. But the facade of unity maintained by the motley crew of English-educated intellectuals, Chinese-educated socialists, professionals and trade unionists could not last.The ideological differences began to surface. One episode in 1957 that stuck in Dr Lim's memory was the plot by a group of radical unionists within the party to oust PAP strongman Ong Eng Guan and several others from the PAP leadership. They opposed Mr Ong as they viewed him as anti-left and an opportunist.He felt then that the move was 'most unwise' as it would create party disunity and provoke a crackdown by the colonial government.As he recollects, he and several USC members tracked down three of the prime movers - Mr Chen Say Jame, Mr Goh Boon Toh and Mr Tan Chong Kin - and sought to dissuade them. They failed. Dr Lim believes that what he did then probably aroused Mr Lee's suspicions that he was in cahoots with the leftists.The central executive committee (CEC) elections resulted in a deadlock with six seats going to the Lee group and the other six going to the leftists. Shocked by the humiliating defeat of his associates, Mr Lee refused to take office. Dr Lim says he tried to persuade him to do so - to no avail.As it turned out, five leftist CEC members were arrested by the Lim Yew Hock government in an anti-communist operation - and Mr Lee and company were able to regain control of the party.In 1958, they introduced a 'cadre' system in which only appointed members could vote for the CEC. This marked the beginning of the leftists' disillusionment with Mr Lee, says Dr Lim.Break over mergerWHEN the 1959 elections came around, Dr Lim says he and Dr Poh offered themselves 'in good faith' as PAP candidates. The answer was negative. 'He did not trust us,' says Dr Lim, referring to Mr Lee.After the historic elections which swept the PAP to power for the first time, Dr Lim discovered that his party membership was not renewed.From the sidelines, the government doctor witnessed the increasing acrimony between Mr Lee's group and the leftists which was to lead to what is called the Big Split of 1961.The two factions were locked in a monumental struggle over the issues of merger with Malaya, Chinese education and the continuing detention of students and unionists. Racked by dissension, the PAP was on the brink of collapse after losing two by-elections in Anson and Hong Lim in 1961.Concerned over the leftist challenge within his party, Mr Lee moved a motion of confidence in the 51-seat legislative assembly. The PAP survived when 27 voted aye but 13 dissident assemblymen abstained.Expelled from the party, the dissidents formed Barisan Sosialis with other defectors from the PAP in August 1961. The party was led by Mr Lim Chin Siong.It was at this juncture that Dr Lim joined the new party. He had to give up a scholarship for further study and quit the civil service. The Barisan Sosialis then, he recalls, was a very formidable organisation filled with thousands of dedicated people and 'scores upon scores of university graduates', ready to form an alternative government.As a CEC member, Dr Lim helped to run a 'brain trust' which consulted a group of more than 50 graduates from the then-Nanyang University and University of Malaya and prepared position papers.'We didn't have a lack of talent. We had more talent than we wanted,' he says.In his recollection, the biggest issue that divided PAP and Barisan was merger with Malaya to form Malaysia. Fearing that Singapore would fall to the communists, Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman had proposed on May 27, 1961 that Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei merge with Malaya to form the federation of Malaysia.Singapore would have 15 seats in the federal house of representatives, less than what it was entitled to on the basis of population ratios, but a debatable trade-off for Singapore's exclusive autonomy over labour and education.Although the leftists were committed to the ultimate goal of unification between the peninsula and the island, they argued that these terms for merger would make Singaporeans 'second-class citizens'. The main sticking point, as Dr Lim points out, was that there were 'two sets of citizenship: one for Malaysians and one for Singaporeans. Singaporean citizens could not participate in Malaysian politics, much less be proportionally represented in the federation'.The battle between both parties reached its culmination during the referendum on Sept 1, 1962, in which the PAP Government cleverly devised three alternatives for merger on varying terms with no option to say no.PAP won by a large margin, with 71 per cent of votes in favour of its 'Alternative A' against just over 25 per cent who cast blank votes, which the Barisan called for to protest against the 'sham referendum'.ImprisonmentTHEN came the big crackdown. On Feb 2, 1963, more than 100 leftists and unionists were arrested in a massive security exercise known as Operation Cold Store, aimed at putting communists and suspected communists out of circulation.On the mass arrests which changed the power balance in Singapore irrevocably, Dr Lim reflects: 'We lost not to Lee but to the British, who crushed the leftists for strategic, not security reasons.'When he speaks about his nearly 20 years in detention, there is an edge to his otherwise calm voice.Year after year, he recounts, attempts were made to break the spirit of prisoners through solitary confinement and interrogations, to make them confess their involvement in communist activities.Dr Lim became a counsellor of sorts to the prisoners, encouraging them to talk about the physical and psychological abuse they faced during their interrogations. Some broke down in tears as they relived their experiences.In March 1972, Dr Lim released a statement about his detention and his experience in being taken to the Internal Security Department (ISD) headquarters on Robinson Road two months earlier. He had insisted on being released, saying that 'history had vindicated my stand' that the 1963 merger would not work.He says that ISD officers wanted him to issue a public statement that he was prepared to give up politics and devote his time to medical practice, and to express support for parliamentary democracy.Dr Lim demanded to be released unconditionally, saying that he should not need to give up politics if there was parliamentary democracy.He says that he was asked to 'concede something' so that his long detention could be justified. He replied that he was not interested in 'saving Mr Lee's face', and would not issue any statement to condemn his past political activities, which he said were 'legitimate and proper'. When asked for the Government's response, a Ministry of Home Affairs spokesman says: 'Contrary to Lim Hock Siew's claims that he was an opposition politician carrying out 'legitimate and proper' activities through the democratic process, Dr Lim was in fact a prominent Communist United Front leader who, along with other CUF leaders, had planned and organised pro-communist activities in support of the Communist Party of Malaya, which employed terror and violence in their attempt to overthrow the elected governments of Singapore and Malaysia.'In 1978, Dr Lim was released from detention and placed in Pulau Tekong under certain restrictions. A government statement had described him as a CUF member who refused to give a written undertaking that he would not be involved in communist activities and renounce the use of force to change government.Dr Lim's view was that since he had never advocated violence, he should not have to renounce it. 'It's like making me sign a statement that I would not beat my wife,' he says.He spent four years on Pulau Tekong before it became an army training area. There, he read medical books and became the only doctor for the few thousand villagers on the island. In appreciation, grateful villagers would ply him and his wife with durians, prawns and fish.ReleaseFINALLY, on Sept 6, 1982, the Government allowed him to live on Singapore island, on the understanding that he would concentrate on his medical practice and abide by various conditions.Asked how he coped with the long incarceration, he puts it down to an unshakeable conviction that his political stance is right.'We were the leaders of the main opposition party, supported by the workers in Singapore, and we cannot betray our supporters. So we stuck to the bitter end. It's a matter of intellectual integrity.'Would he shake hands with Mr Lee? His reply: 'It is for the oppressed to be magnanimous, not the oppressor. I'll forgive him and shake hands with him if he admits to his error and apologises to me and my wife.'Dr Lim's wife Beatrice Chen, who is a nephrologist or kidney specialist, helps to treat her husband. She declines to be interviewed as she shuns publicity.They met in 1958 when they were working together at the Singapore General Hospital, and married in 1961.Dr Lim was detained two years later. For the next 15 years, they saw each other for half an hour each week, separated by a glass panel, and spoke by telephone.'The fact that we can see each other is a relief,' he says. 'Our common struggle was a unifying force. We understood each other. She kept on encouraging me, giving me moral support...it was very hard for her. She's a great woman.'The couple have one son, who is now working in the National University of Singapore. 'He was five months old when I was arrested. When I came out, my wife was in menopause. I missed the joy of bringing up my own son.'When Dr Lim is not seeing patients, he catches up on current affairs, surfs the Internet, and reads political philosophy - currently, Bertrand Russell's A History Of Western Philosophy. He also paints as a hobby. Step into his condominium home off Mountbatten Road, and you will be greeted by a visual feast of paintings - of scenery, flowers and women - all strictly non-political.But one has a Chinese couplet which reads: Befriend a thousand books, and have the spine to stand by your beliefs.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. An Extremely Moving Story.... Dr. Cai is Singapore's most famous taxi driver at least among netizens many of whom read his blog to learn about his life as a taxi driver. Dr. Cai is also probably the most educated taxi driver in Singapore . He has a Phd from Stanford."Identification of novel recognition motifs and regulatory targets for the yeast actin-regulating kinase Prk1p".Molecular biology of the cell 2003;14(12):4871-84.2003: Huang Bo; Zeng Guisheng; Ng Alvin Y J; Cai Mingjie [Link].As a researcher, satisfaction comes from getting your papers accepted by reputable journals. You publish a few every year and at the end of the year, you list these publications as your accomplishments to your boss e.g dept head. If they are any good, they will be cited by other researchers in the same area - the productivity and quality of a researcher is sometimes measured by the h-index[Link] based on number of citations received for your publications. Your research work may or may not be worth much, may or may not be discovered by others had you not done it, may or may not lead to a breakthrough and so on. Much of the research work goes into a huge pile and only a very small handful find their way into products that benefits anyone. I ought to know because I read about 50-100 papers every week to find solutions for various complex problems. There is almost nothing more different from research work in molecular biology than driving a taxi. In taxi driving, you take a passenger from point A to point B - the usefulness of your work is clear, immediate and measurable. .Very few of us will know what "yeast actin-regulating kinase Prk1p" is but many of us have been touched by Dr. Cai's stories as a taxi driver[his blog]. His stories tell us something about people, life, happiness, sadness, ......I was very moved by this story.....one about a true Singapore tragedy....-----------------------------------Wednesday, February 10, 2010July 22, 2009. Wednesday: The unbearable heaviness of beingForty minutes into the evening peak hours, I was waiting at the Bukit Merah Central taxi stand.Despite its proximity to Chinatown and the financial district, and its long history as the epicenter of one of the earliest housing estates in Singapore, Bukit Merah Central is far less glamorous than other regional centers. There are no modern attractions such as shopping malls, cinemas, restaurants, or disco pubs to draw the crowds. There used to be a public swimming complex next to the bus terminal, but it had been shut for many years. The only saving grace was an NTUC Fairprice supermarket, one of the largest in town.I noticed an Indian woman walking slowly in my direction. She lumbered along, carrying several Fairprice grocery bags, her body tilting from side to side with each heavy step.She finally reached my taxi and motioned me to open the trunk so she could place her bags inside. Then she came in, sat in the front seat and told me to go to Telok Blangah Way, a five to eight minutes drive depending on the traffic lights.Although the short distance of the trip was a disappointment to me, it was expected. Most people taking taxis from here were residents of the neighboring HDB estates with too many grocery bags to go home by bus. My mind was occupied by something else. I glanced at her and asked, “What do you have in your bags?”“What do you mean?” She looked at me as if she found my question rudely intrusive.“Oh, nothing,” I quickly explained. “I just want to say that if you have seafood in there, I’d like to put some newspaper underneath your bags, since I had some troublesome experience before...”“No seafood.” She cut me off. “Only fruits and vegetables.”I apologized for asking the question. She said it was okay, she understood my concern.From close up, I realized she was younger than I thought when I saw her from a distance. She was probably in her late forties, and wore an oversized brown dress.She turned to me and asked, “What about durian? You mind if I have durian?”“No. Durian is ok,” I said with a smile. “The smell of durian doesn’t stay long.”“Yeah,” she said. “Otherwise, how am I supposed to carry it? Buses don’t allow it. MRT don’t allow it. If taxis also don’t allow it...”“I am sure most taxis will allow it,” I said.Looking for something to say, I asked, “You are not working today?”She gave me an “are you making fun of me?” kind of look and said, “You find me a job and I will work.”I felt stupid. I was quiet for a moment, trying to imagine what other good-natured taxi uncles would do in this case. I then told her that if she was looking for a job she could look in the newspapers, talk to friends, or ask her MPs for help.We were reaching her stop, which was in a carpark next to an HDB block. She took out her wallet, held it in her hand, and said slowly, “Yeah. But I have this arthritis for many years. I have never been in a working condition.”That was what caused her heavy steps, I realized.I tried to cheer her up. “That’s okay. You don’t have to work then. At least you have your husband to support you.”“My husband passed away,” she said under her breath. Her hands stopped opening her wallet.I stuttered, “I…I’m sorry.”She looked at me, her eyes two ice cubes melting under the sun. “You know a month and half ago, in the news, a husband and a son jumped off a building...”As if struck by lightning, I felt a current bolt from my scalp to my feet. “My god. That’s your…” I froze in shock.“Yes. That’s my…husband and…my boy.” Her tears finally overran the dam and streamed down her cheeks.I read the news after I came back from the trip to China. This was one of the most heartbreaking family tragedies I had heard of in Singapore. I was extremely saddened by the realization that human lives were so fragile, and could be shattered at the most unexpected moments.According to the reports, the sequence of events on June 6, 2009, were as follows:That evening, twenty-five year old Raja was meeting with some of his friends near his residence. They had some drinks. He had been unhappy lately as he lost his job about a month ago. During the gathering, his younger brother called and asked him to go somewhere else together, but Raja said he was tired and didn’t want to go.Around 10:30pm, he was back home in his apartment on the ninth floor, but not for long. He told his mother that he was going out again. His mother was worried about him as he looked a little tipsy and asked him to stay at home. But he was in no mood to listen to her.On his way out his father came to speak to him, saying he should listen to his mother and not go out at this hour. They got into a heated argument. His father said he should worry about finding a job rather than hanging out aimlessly. Raja was further upset by the remarks. He stepped out of the house and locked the front gate from the outside with a padlock.He then walked to the edge of the corridor, said he was not a worthy son to his parents and jumped over the parapet in front of his family.The family was locked inside and could do nothing to stop him. They witnessed the tragedy in horror, and immediately called their relatives and the police for help. The police came and had to call the civil defense personnel to cut the lock to free the family, who came out to see Raja lying dead on the ground nine floors below. The family collapsed in grief on the ground floor, accompanied by their relatives and the police. They were then led to a nearby bench to sit and calm down. After a while, the father left and before anyone became aware of his movements, he took the lift to the tenth floor. He jumped off the building crying “my son!” and landed on the ground next to his son’s body.Both father and son were pronounced dead at the scene.“My boy,” the woman wiped some tears and said, “I loved him. I loved him so much. Every time he couldn’t sleep at night he asked me, mama, come here. I came to sit by him, put my hand here, where his heart was beating. He would fall asleep right away.” She put her hand over her heart to demonstrate.She slowly turned her head, and pointed to the cement ground along the side of the building. “That’s where my son was, and that’s where my husband was.”I stared at the ground. Cold, hard cement, only a few steps away from my car. On the surface, any trace of blood from the two people she loved most had long been washed away. But I was certain, deep in the heart of the soil, their blood was still there, and would stay there forever.“Sometimes I tell myself,” she said, her eyes staring blankly ahead, “at least they are together up there, taking care of each other.”I looked at the woman. Her face was still covered with tears. Could anybody in this world possibly know what she had gone through? Only a short while ago, I was worried about her bags contaminating my taxi... I bit my lip and struggled to contain my own tears.“I have to go on with my life. I have two other children to take care of,” she said as she opened her wallet. I pressed my hand on hers and said in a shivering voice, “I can’t take money from you.”“You can. Business is business,” she insisted.“No. I really can’t.” That was the only thing I could say.“Please. Even if just a little bit,” she said as she took out some money from her wallet. “It will make me feel better.”Her wallet was thin and empty. I could see there were only three or four $2 notes inside. She took out two of them and put them in my hand. She looked into my eyes and said, “You understand me?”The $4 she gave me was not “just a little bit”. It was almost the full fare, but I couldn’t speak. I just nodded.She got out, took the bags, and walked slowly towards the building, shifting her weight from side to side, passing by the spots where her son and husband landed a month and a half ago.With her heavy steps…A note of explanation: It has been a general rule that my stories do not contain information which would allow the identification of persons involved in the events described. This story is an exception as it was about a tragic event that had already been made public by the news media.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. The Economist : Welfare in Singapore The Stingy Nanny The PAP pride itself to be an efficient, pragmatic and effective govt. None of this is true if we look at the way the PAP helps the needy in Singapore. When it comes to helping the poor, the PAP is ideological, inefficient and unnecessarily stingy. Making it difficult for people who really need help to find it and get it has long term negative consequences harmful to our society and worsens many problems that the PAP created with its policies. If you have not been reading this blog, you may think that what I've written above is too harsh but the article below by The Economist is a good summary of what I've discussed in many of my blog postings. PAP insistence that it shouldn't give help because the poor people are responsible for the own poverty is untrue. Making the process of seeking help "tiring and humiliating" is cruel and especially so if the people seeking help have fallen as a result of govt policies over the years.Sometime in the 80s, when we were heading for a Swiss standard of living, it could be argued that comprehensive welfare and safety nets were unnecessary. Singaporeans working full time jobs were able to save and start a family, income inequality was a lot lower and job stability was relatively high. Over the years, workers' benefits have been slashed, income gap has ballooned and employers adoped a "hire-and-fire" attitude towards workers. The Singapore pursued pro-business policies such as allowing a large influx of foreign workers, raising GST to cut corporate taxes, no minimum wages for workers and an export oriented economic model that is highly vulnerable to volatilities of overseas demand. At the same time, the cost of living escalated causing the real wages of a large segment of the population to fall. If you find it tough owning a flat working as a professional, imagine what it is like for other workers in Singapore. Singapore has the highest income gap of all developed countries, and one of the highest cost of living. So is it any wonder if there are many have fallen through and need state help? These people are poor through no fault of their own - unless you want to blame them for being born less intelligent or less lucky and as one YPAP member put it, they should blame themselves for coming out of the wrong womb i.e. not having rich parents. The PAP mantra to solve all this is "retraining" and more retraining along with work harder, work faster - they have been saying this for the past few decades and they will keep insisting that this is the solution because it helps to preserve the status quo requiring no major policy change on their part. The PAP insists being poor is all your own fault. Because of the high cost of living, many Singaporeans even those who are not needy are unable to save so they are one major illness away from poverty or one job loss away from poverty. Many Singaporeans walk the economic tight rope as our GLCs report record profits which have been growing as a % of GDP - so what about keeping the cost of living down? What about truly affordable housing instead of the most expensive public housing in the world?Today is Chinese New Year and I would like to wish all of you a "Happy Chinese New Year". I urge all of you to look beyond yourself and think of the hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans who will find this new year to be another year of struggle and uncertainty. While you celebrate, think of those who are unable to do so...hopefully the new year brings new thinking...new thinking that will lead to much needed change.--------------Welfare in Singapore The stingy nanny [Link]The city-state stays strict with the needyFeb 13th 2010 SINGAPOREFrom The Economist online FOND of having the last word, Singapore's government can nevertheless be flexible. Who would have thought it would be building casinos? But one policy that shows no sign of reversing is Singapore’s antipathy towards public welfare. The state’s attitude can be simply put: being poor here is your own fault. Citizens are obliged to save for the future, rely on their families and not expect any handouts from the government unless they hit rock bottom. The emphasis on family extends into old age: retired parents can sue children who fail to support them. In government circles “welfare” remains a dirty word, cousin to sloth and waste. Singapore may be a nanny state, but it is by no means an indulgent nanny..The aftershock of a deep recession, which pushed unemployment among citizens up to 4.1% in September—high for Singapore—has not altered the popular belief that the dole is bad for society. The casinos, which open on February 14th, have already helped reduce unemployment, which by December had fallen back to 3%, seasonally adjusted..The government does run a handful of schemes directed at some of the needy, from low-income students to the unassisted elderly. But these benefits are rigorously means-tested and granted only sparingly. The most destitute citizens’ families may apply for public assistance; only 3,000 currently qualify. Laid-off workers receive no automatic benefits. Instead they are sorted into “workfare” and training schemes..Applicants complain that the process of seeking help is made tiresome and humiliating. Indeed that could be the point, supposing it deters free-riders. Officials take a dim view of European-style welfare systems, which are said to beget laziness. The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), which administers the various schemes, says theirs are designed as a “springboard” to self-reliance. Getting people back to work takes priority over relieving any temporary drop in income. In a fiscal stimulus unveiled a year ago in response to the financial crisis, S$5.1 billion ($3.6 billion) was allocated for employment measures, including grants to companies to retain staff. Those who remain out of work can join a government training scheme; by December, 169,000 unemployed workers had done so..Many Singaporeans are wedded to their jobs and look askance at idleness of any kind. The government is leery of generous handouts, fearing they might undercut the work ethic while burdening taxpayers. But the thinness of the safety net also reflects a widespread article of faith, recited and reinforced over the years. Even among the social workers who work in hard-hit communities there is surprisingly little frustration at the meagreness of the handouts on offer or at the lengthy application process. One explains that Singapore needs to weed out undeserving claimants and shakes his head at the potential cost of a comprehensive welfare service. Yet in his next breath he mentions a number of local families who have been forced to sleep rough since mortgage lenders foreclosed on their flats..Nobody doubts that wealthy Singapore could be more generous. In 2008 the World Bank rated it the third richest country in the world, in terms of GDP per head at purchasing-power parity. And the idea that its Big-Brotherly government might be outfoxed by conniving welfare queens seems odd. When a visiting news crew filmed an elderly woman scavenging in Chinatown and bemoaning her homelessness, the government promptly identified her as a miserly flat-owner who did not need to beg. Indeed, acute poverty is hard to spot in Singapore. Public housing is in good shape; no slums are allowed to fester. Soup kitchens do exist, but foreign labourers are often first in line..But Singapore still faces the challenge of rising inequality in a society that is also rapidly ageing. By 2030, says MCYS, one in five Singaporeans will be over 65 (UBS, whose largest shareholder is Singapore’s sovereign-wealth fund, has estimated the date at 2020). Incomes have stagnated or even fallen at the bottom of the spectrum, as the rich pull further ahead of the middle classes. Long-term unemployment among middle-aged professionals, who do not qualify for workfare, is on the rise, says Leong Sze Hian, a financial expert and blogger..Native resentment is also growing against the influx of migrant workers: 35% of the workforce of 3m is now foreign. It is often cheaper for companies to import semi-skilled and unskilled workers—there were 680,000 at last count—than to hire locals, who require pension contributions. Official reassurances that migrants create growth do not convince those competing for scarce jobs. Lee Kuan Yew,Singapore’s founding father and still its "minister mentor" has maintained that ambitious migrants help to keep citizens on their toes. In an interview given to National Geographic last July he said that if native Singaporeans lag behind “hungry” foreigners because “the spurs are not stuck on [their] hinds”, that is not the state’s problem to solve..This nascent backlash may eventually soften the anti-welfare tone set by Mr Lee. The Economic Society of Singapore (ESS)—not exactly a radical cell—recently proposed to a government committee that it should build a more robust safety net, starting with unemployment insurance. This would promote social stability and help muster public support for Singapore’s open-door migration policies, it argues. Properly designed, such measures would not create disincentives to work and thrift. “While self-reliance is a good principle in general, it may be neither efficient nor just if taken to extremes,” noted the ESS.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. Dampening the volatility in our economy... Here's an interesting set of slides by Prof. Choy Keen Meng on the volatility in our economy:http://www.ess.org.sg/Events/Files/2009/choy.sepf.ppt.pdfThis talk at an event organised by the Economic Society of Singapore on 27 Oct 2009.Here is an interest chart showing how much our domestic consumption has shrunk over the years and how exports became dominant in our pursuit of GDP growth.It shows how much our domestic consumption fallen as we pursue growth based on the export-led model. We became dependent on external demand which is highly volatile. Export led growth will mean more of the same "cheaper, better, faster" type economy to compete with China which is a race to the bottom for our workers. Expanding domestic consumption can lead to higher wages for our workers, narrow the income gap and result in a less volatile economy.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. Beware of Religious Chauvinism.... 10 years ago, I went to Jerusalem with a group of friends many of whom were Christians . We were taken around by a local tour guide who had an encyclopedic knowledge of the place -he was also very charismatic, entertaining and articulate. We visited biblical places such as the room where the Last Supper was believed to be held, where Christ was cruxified - "99.9% certainty" of the location being right was what the guide told us - Mount of Olives and many places described in the Bible. The tour ended with a visit to Bethlehem which was located in a Palestinian administered area accessible only because tensions with Israelis had temporarily subsided. The birth of Christ in Bethlehem fulfil one of the prophesies in the Old Testament written hundreds of years before his birth. The guide told us that Jesus fulfiled a total of 60 old testament prophesies (wow!). At that point I could feel the faith of the Christians in the tour group renewed and strengthened. Confronted by this compelling evidence and perhaps I was a tad too sensitive, I felt the my Christian friends were looking at me and their eyes were saying.."...still don't believe huh....".Feeling a bit of pressure and needing to digest all I've seen and heard for the day, I decided to sit next to the guide who was also the driver on the way back to the hotel. The rest of the tour group was sitting behind. I felt a lot more relax as the refreshing cool wind from the window relieved some of tension I was feeling....it was then when I realised that the guide who showed us all the evidence was actually Jewish and was not a believer. How can it be? I turned to the guide to ask him, "Since 60 Old Testament prophesies were fulfilled by Jesus and there is so much compelling evidence, why haven't you and other Jews converted to Christianity...?". The guide turned to me and whispered......I'll tell you what he whispered to me later when I come back to complete this posting. I share this experience of mine, to tell you something about the importance of faith, what is faith and what the truth means to different people and why we should respect each others beliefs although we may disagree...and why we should not be so arrogant to think we possess the absolute truth.This is what the guide whispered to me, "I didn't tell you about the prophesies that were not fulfilled...."[Link]( some of commenters cleverly figured it out before I posted this). See the problem with me is I ask too many questions preventing me from taking a leap of faith. Once you leap to the other side, you start to view everything in a different light and the truth become evident in ways you cannot imagine - there are explanations for the good and bad things that happen to you. The dream girl you met, fell in love with and married ...must have been preordained. Serious illness is a test of your faith and recovery brings a fuller and deeper appreciation of the value and sanctity of human life. Religious faith gives you the meaningful answers to questions...answers that you can never have and accept without faith. Sad to say people like me who are unable to make this leap of faith have to through life's trials and tribulations unassured that the outcomes are the result of divine will...these tribulations may leave us in dispair. Religious faith is therefore important and those with faith are indeed blessed. As for the TRUTH, it depends on which religion you leap into. Religious truth unlike scientific truth exist for the purpose of transforming hearts. Religious truth is based on beliefs - faith, hope and love.....it is true because you want it to be true. Who does not want life after death? Who does not want evil to be punished and good to be rewarded? Who does not want to be forgiven for doing wrong? Different religions offer different answers to questions that science cannot answer meaningfully and satisfactorily. When it comes to religious truth, we have a choice what we want to believe. All major religions are true for their believers and trying shake another person's faith by ridiculing his religion and what he feels is true in his heart can only result in a climate of hate. Rony Tan did cross the line but he has also apologised to those he offended. All major religions teach their followers to be forgiving....and doing what is right is a testimony to your faith .... your ability to overcome the hatred in your heart, forgive those who have offended you and show generosity to those who have apologised will be a demonstration that your heart has been transformed by your religious beliefs.---------------------------------Pastor's comments on Buddhism/Taoism "inappropriate & unacceptable": MHAPosted: 08 February 2010 2345 hrsSINGAPORE: The Internal Security Department (ISD) has called up Pastor Rony Tan of Lighthouse Evangelism in connection with his comments and insinuations about Buddhism and Taoism at his church sessions.These sessions were video-recorded and made available on Lighthouse Evangelism's website. Video clips of these sessions subsequently became available on YouTube and other websites.The Ministry of Home Affairs said Pastor Tan's comments were highly inappropriate and unacceptable as they trivialised and insulted the beliefs of Buddhists and Taoists.They can also give rise to tension and conflict between the Buddhist/Taoist and Christian communities.ISD told Pastor Tan that in preaching or proselytising his faith, he must not run down other religions, and must be mindful of the sensitivities of other religions.Pastor Tan has expressed his deepest apologies and remorse. He deeply regrets that he has been insensitive and offensive towards the Buddhist and Taoist faiths, and that his comments have saddened and hurt their followers.He has promised that it will never happen again and has also affirmed that he will tell his members to respect other beliefs and build a harmonious Singapore.- CNA/ir http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1036211/1/.htmlThoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. Apathetic Generation I am part of an apathetic generationand I refuse to believe thatI can bring change to this nationI realize this may be a shock but“Democracy, Equality and Justice are important ideals.”is a lie, and“Money and material wealth will make us all happy.”Singaporeans know that cars, cash and condominiumsare more important thanthe ideals in our pledgeI tell you thisOnce upon a timeSingaporeans stood up for justice and each otherbut this will not be true in my eraThis is a divided unequal selfish societyEveryone tells me20 yrs from now, true blue S'poreans will be a minority in our country I do not believe thatI will live in a nation where there is a sense of ownership In the futuredefeat of our society's ideals and core values will be inevitableNo longer can it be said thatMy fellow citizens and I care about this nationIt will be evident thatMy generation is apathetic and materialisticIt is foolish to presume thatThere is hope.And all of this will come true unless we choose to reverse it .Read the message, then read it again in reverse.I got the idea to write the above from Tan Kin Lian's blog in which he posted this brilliant piece, The Lost Generation, by Jonathan Reed. I rewrote some of the words from the original to make it more relevant to Singapore:Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. Reform Party : Dismantle GLCs Temasek Review reported that Reform Party has called for dismantling of the GLC structure[Link] . I have said many times in the blog that the links between govt and the vast network of GLCs has resulted in the interests of the PAP govt being diversified beyond that of maximising the benefits for ordinary citizens. The PAP recruits from GLCs and former PAP ministers are inserted into various positions in GLCs e.g. David Lim (remember him?) went to NOL[Link]. I strongly support the views of Reform Party on dismantling GLCs as they are very close to mine.In my next post, I will write about the ESC again - the ESC has missed out on something very important i.e. strategies to cope with increased frequency and risk of economic crisis. It is important to put in stabilisers in our economy to tackle this recurring risk.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. Why the stock market will rebound and why you should try to get out anyway.... FURTHER UPDATE 6:20am 10 Feb 2010 - Markets have rebounded sharply since I posted this last Friday. Based on my models, they market will rally until May 2010 before it sees another correction. After that we will see one last peak in Aug 2010 before a more sinister downturn - you should get out in May or Aug...really! If you look through the recent "noise", the economic numbers and corporate earnings have been very good. In previous posts, I said that the closest "matching" and similar rally to this one is the 2003-2004 rally. For the next few months, I believe blue chips will show much greater strength than poorer quality stocks compared with the runup of past few months. In the next few days, you will see bad news suddenly moving to the background (surprise..surprise) and good news being played up ...investors will return with enthusiasm as if the last 3 weeks never happen! UPDATE: 4:51pm 5 Feb 2010 - Extremely scary headlines on Bloomberg's home page : •Stocks Plunge, Euro Falls, Bond Risk Soars on Jobless Claims, Country Debt •Trichet Struggles to Convince Markets of Europe's Solidity Amid Greek Woes . Suggesting great instability in the markets. Will the market exhaust its downside selloff as I suggested or are the so-called fundamentals so precarious we are on the precipice of a new crisis? Scary times isn't it?Volatility has returned to the stock market. Yesterday night the DOW crumbled 268pts sending shivers down the spine of the steadiest investors. Last week it had 2 consecutive days when it fell by 200pts. I like to listen to "after the fact" explanations of all these falls. 2 weeks ago the falls were largely blamed on China for its tightening on bank lending. Last week's fall was blamed on Obama's newly proposed banking regulation also known as Volcker rules. The sight of Volcker standing by the side of Obama spooked markets and triggered a 2-day 400+ point selloff of the DOW. ...at least that was what CNBC said. The more sinister conspiracy theory version of this is Goldman Sachs wanted to show the US govt who's boss and sank the market with its program trading softwares - Volcker was from Chase a rival financial firm. Hmm...don't worry I'm still thinking logically, I don't believe in that piece of conspiracy theory, just wrote about it to show how creative people can get when it comes to explanations. Actually, I believe all these after the fact explanations have nothing to do with most of the market movements -while the market moved down, there was plenty of good news from the earnings front and economy that had no effect on the market. When the market moves down, journalists will pick the most plausible explanations to write or talk about.As I type this, the STI has sunk 60pts and the HSI has sunk 650pts (11pm, 5 Feb 2010).I want you to look at this chart of the HSI:What it shows is the HSI having exactly one mini-rally and a selloff every month. In fact the size of these moves are not small rought 8-10%. The recent selloff being the biggest one. The 2nd observation I made over the past months the start of big multi-day falls on the DOW comes AFTER a fall on the HSI - usually without any clear reason. The current selloff came after a 400(?) point fall of the HSI after a positive trading session on the DOW - this happened a 2 weeks ago just after the DOW peaked. All the falls are accompanied by falls in commodities including gold which is suppose to be a crisis safe haven. The point I'm getting at is these 2-3 week falls of the market are caused by liquidity flows and highly leverage positions of some market players - they are like a mini house of cards that tumble when the wind blows slightly in an unfavorable direction....this explains the sharp falls in the HSI that occurs every month. It has little to do with the explanations we hear about on TV and read about in the papers - these events may serve as triggers for the selling but does not explain the magnitude. For example, the situation in Greece was known months ago....why did the market react so adversely? After doing some other analysis much of which too detailed to post here - I believe the market will rebound in the short/near term (whatever logical explanation will be told to you by CNBC after it happens). You should really think about getting out regardless of whether this rebound materialise. The high level of debt that has build up by govts around the world may prove problematic in the longer run and leave them with little bullets when things go wrong. As for my own portforlio, much of my own exposure has been reduced in the past 2 weeks due to the trailing stops I put in. So while I believe the market may rebound in the coming days or a few short weeks, the medium to longer term outlook may actually be bleak.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. SM Goh : No U-turn in foreigner policy 'If you look at the last decade, we wanted to grow fast. And there were opportunities to grow fast. Employers were crying for workers. We were trying to tighten the dependency on foreign workers, but the demand for goods and services from Singapore was high, so we liberalised. Then once we reach the limit, you've got to tighten' - SM Goh.You notice there is a total lack of consistency in what the our leaders have been saying with regard to foreign worker policy. This time SM Goh talks about another 2 reasons for bringing in foreign workers - "employers were crying for workers" and "demand for goods and services from Singapore was high". Can anyone tell which employer anywhere in the world wouldn't want to hire foreigners at far lower wages than locals? I'm sure every employer in Norway or Sweden wants to bring in as many Portuguese or Eastern European workers as possible into his company to cut wage costs. The difference between the govt of those countries and the PAP is they understand the negative impact of a big influx on their citizens and did not go for such a thoughtless policy instead they encourage employers to use local labor more effectively and intelligently. As for the remark about the demand for goods and service "being high", this is true for every country from S. Korea to Australia when the global economy is strong - none of these countries did what Singapore did. In S. Korea I'm sure employers would have greatly benefitted if they displaced 30% of their workforce with cheaper foreigners and that would have yielded much higher profits for Samsung and LG - but their concern for their own citizens prevented them from doing that..Why did SM Goh feel so compelled to answer to the cries of employers ? What about the cries of ordinary citizens - the poorest of whom saw their wages falling over the past 10 years and what about the cries of those who can no longer afford the high cost of living in Singapore. --------------No U-turn in foreigner policy By Jeremy Au Yong, Political CorrespondentMANAMA (Bshrain) - THE Government's recent moves to slow the influx of foreigners do not mark a 'sudden turnaround' in policy, said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong yesterday.Rather, it is simply a recognition that the country is nearing what it can accommodate. While foreign worker numbers may still rise, it will now grow more slowly.Speaking to Singapore reporters in Bahrain at the end of a six-day visit to the Middle East, SM Goh explained that Singapore needed to be open to foreign workers in the past to fuel its rapid growth.'If you look at the last decade, we wanted to grow fast. And there were opportunities to grow fast. Employers were crying for workers. We were trying to tighten the dependency on foreign workers, but the demand for goods and services from Singapore was high, so we liberalised. Then once we reach the limit, you've got to tighten,' he said.The Government, he said, constantly monitors its policies and tweaks them where needed.'Past models which have worked may not work in the future, so we've got to constantly monitor, adjust when necessary, sometimes even discard. But in our case it's modifying the model, not discarding the old model,' he said.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. The main problem with the ESC Report. Reading newspaper summary of the ESC report, I found 2 decent ideas - nuclear energy and increasing the foreign worker levy. Surprisingly, many bloggers take issue specifically with these ideas and many people have commented on my blog about the flipside of these ideas. I think the concerns are valid ....hmm..you guys actually found nothing good or new in the report?You can read the full report here :[Link].The ESC was tasked to look for strategies for "sustained economic growth". I thought the overaching goal should be to improve the economic well being of the vast majority of Singaporeans thereby raising their quality of life. While the 2 goals are not mutually exclusive, going for "growth" may not lead to any improvement in the quality of life - we saw that in the past decade when GDP growth was strong but a large segment of the populace did not enjoy the benefit of this growth.If the ESC had been given what I see as the correct goal, the next step would be to study and understand the key economic problems faced by Singaporeans:Highest level of income inequality in the developed world.High cost of living.Structural unemployment and underemployment.Inability of a large number of workers to retire despite working the most number of hours in the world.Without identifying the causes of the above problems, how do we know that we are not embarking on strategies that will worsen these problems? By focussing on growth rather than the economic well being of Singaporeans, the biggest economic challenges faced by ordinary Singaporeans may go unsolved in the coming decade. Singaporeans already have the 2nd highest stress level in the world[Link] and work the longest hours in the world according the last ILO Global Wages Report[Link] yet the burden of sustaining this economic growth again put on the shoulders of Singapore workers to retrain and be more productive (otherwise the ESC report says we will need more foreign workers!). Why not find strategies to reduce the cost of living so that Singaporeans are able to better compete in the global economy?The ESC did not suggest any fundamental change to Singapore's export oriented model of growth so Singapore will again be depending on external demand which we have no control over. We had 3 sharp recessions in the past 12 years (Asian Crisis, post dot.com + 911+ SARS, subprime crisis) and before each of these crisis with had bubbles (Golden Age + Golden Period predictions) followed by a sharp painful declines. Despite the volatile nature of our economy, we don't have safety nets in place - no minimum wages, no unemployment insurance, no free public healthcare etc. and the increasing income gap causes a larger and larger segment of our population to be economically vulnerable to poverty and other downsides of this economic model.The ESC composed mainly of ministers and business leaders with its pro-business goal recommended pro-business strategies that did not put ordinary Singaporeans and the problems faced by ordinary Singaporeans at the center of these strategies. We see the same old ideas rehashed because they are the same old strategies - strategies in which Singapore Inc rather than the interests of ordinary Singaporeans comes 1st. It is no different from the past 10 years and will lead to results for Singaporeans no better than what we have seen in the recent past. Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. Economic Strategies Committee : The usual + 2 decent ideas Yes, what do you get with a committee of 25 people - 9 ministers + 1 MAS guy + 1 PAP MP representing NTUC + business leaders? People who are too busy or too much part of the establishment to come up with too many original ideas. So after 6 months of deliberation, we get more or less the same old ideas - raise productivity, skills upgrading, be more innovative and build a distinctive global city. Really scratch my head to figure out what is new - can someone please help me here. Even that part about being a globalised city was a National Day theme or slogan a few years ago. However, before I run down the entire thing, I would like to point out 2 ideas which I think are pretty decent. The first isn't exactly new but the idea about raising foreign worker levy to discourage the high level of foreign labor import is a reasonable one. By increasing the levy, the govt will discourage businesses importing labor purely for reducing cost - they will have to be more selective and bring in labor with higher skills or skills not available in Singapore. The higher levy will also push up the income of low wage Singaporeans by making this segment of the workforce to be tighter. Employers will be more willing to train Singaporeans rather than just import foreigners. The other idea is to use nuclear energy in Singapore. It will lower our energy costs tremendously thereby increasing out competitiveness and lower our cost of living. It will also make electric cars viable and help to reduce dependence on fossil fuel. Nuclear energy, however, is a little hard to sell to the public because there might be unfounded fears about its safety due to Chenobyl incident. If you have been to Europe, say France, you will see them in operation at scenic countryside and they have been there for decades. Singapore has the 2nd highest electric tariffs in the world so there is room to improve competitiveness by having a much cheaper source of energy.What is wrong with the report? It recycles the same old ideas and they are still thinking within the same box as the past 30 years. The entire plan does little to restructure Singapore's export dependent economy putting us in direct competition with countries like China. The whole plan is similar to Lim Swee Say's cheaper, better and faster - only they drop the "cheaper" part giving greater emphasis to "better and faster". However, the ultimate goal of an economic system or the only goal worth pursuing is not to make more and more money by generating endless growth - we have done that already for the past 40 years! The ultimate goal has to be to improve the quality of life of Singaporeans. Unless we break out of a highly export oriented economy dependent on external demand, we will have to contend with the whole lot of Asian countries - Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, Vietnam, China - all going for the same pie - our children have to out-study theirs, our factory workers have to outwork them...and whatever income we make we spend it the same way they spend it ..mostly on property. Its about being cheaper, better, faster and also working longer - so how does this formula lead to a better quality of life? It doesn't. Going with this old tired strategy can only lead to a faster pace of life, higher stress and later retirement( or never retire).We can only get to our goal of better quality of life - less stress, healthier pace of life etc by doing things differently. We need to expand our domestic economy by increasing the disposal income of Singaporeans i.e. lowering the cost of living such as housing cost so that domestic demand can rise and the services sector can expand and make our economy less dependent on exports. In other countries with similar population size , the domestic economy has a far larger share of economic activity than ours. The domestic consumption share of our economy has slowly fallen to below 40% in contrast with many small nations where it is above 60%. If we don't change our economic model, we will not see significant improvements in our quality of life.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. Man in White : Silence on key issues.. In a recent seminar, ‘Men in Black or White: History as Media Event in Singapore’, jointly organised by the National University of Singapore’s Asia Research Institute and the National Library[Link], historians argued that the book:a. Was inadequate in its coverage of the merger with Malaysia.b. Failed to answer the question of whether Lim Chin Siong and other Barisan Socialis members were communists.Historians were also disappointed that the book failed to discuss the PAP’s resignation from the Socialist International in 1976. I thought that was rather straight forward - the PAP was found to be fake socialists and were about to be expelled from Socialist International so they resigned instead to save face. Other disappointments with book include lack of discussion about Devan Nair’s resignation from the Presidency in 1985 and Operation Spectrum in 1987 - yep, all the unglorious past of the PAP govt.Since I own the last few remaining copies of the Fajar the monthly organ of the University Socialist Club which was published during the merger period, I have scanned a number of Fajar articles related to the merger issue and Lim Chin Siong.The Fajar carried out a Gallup Poll on 12-15 July 1962 in Tanjong Pagar constituency to find out how many would support merger. To ensure its impartiality, they engaged members of the public representatives of civic organisation to count the votes. The poll showed that 90% of the people were against the White Paper on the merger. If the merger referendum was conducted as a simple YES/NO vote to the merger, it would have been defeated. The PAP presented the electorate with a Hobson's choice, a kind of trick question with 3 options all leading to merger and no option to reject a merger with Malaysia :Option A: All Singapore citizens would automatically become citizens of Malaysia, and Singapore would retain a degree of autonomy and state power, such as over labour and education. Singapore would also get to keep its language policies, such as to retain using all four major languages, English, Mandarin, Malay and Tamil. Option B: Singapore would become a federal state like that of the other eleven states, with no more autonomy than the other states would, thus ceding control over issues such as labour and education policies to the federal government in Kuala Lumpur. This also meant that there would be less multilingualism - only English and Malay would be used for official purposes, and possibly education. Only those born in Singapore or descended from the Singapore-born would become citizens of Malaysia. There would also be proportionate representation in Parliament from Singapore. Option C: Singapore would enter on terms no less favorable than the Borneo territories, Sabah and Sarawak, both whom were also discussing merger with Malaysia. This was to ensure that Malaysia would not discriminate along racial lines, as that would mean discriminating against Sabah and Sarawak, which were predominantly Bumiputra as well. Many consider the referendum to be undemocratic - the PAP had all its bases covered because blank votes were counted as option A[Wikipedia] . Isn't that interesting history of how a false undemocratic choice was presented to the people? Following the referendum, the PAP declared it had strong support for merger.Now for the other issue : Were Lim Chin Siong and Barisan Socialis members communists? Lets start with what Wikipedia says:Declassified British documents [1] reveal that Lim was not the Communist he was and is painted in history textbooks in Singapore. In a starkly revealing essay, Dr Greg Poulgrain of Griffith University observes that the British Governor of Singapore and his Chief Secretary in their reports to London stated that the police found no evidence to establish that Lim was Communist. During Lim's rallies, the British and anticommunist Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock incited riots among the unionists and students in attendance. Lee Kuan Yew later used these incidents as reasons to imprison Lim under the charge of Communism, after Lim split from PAP to spearhead the Barisan Sosialis. From being courted as a co-founder of the PAP, Lim was later banished to England; his immense popularity with the Singapore people did not go down well with Lee who feared that Lim might supersede and displace him. Chin Peng, the leader of the MCP, stated that the Malaya Communist Party had never controlled and manipulated Lim Chin Siong and Barisan Sosialis as Lee Kuan Yew had accused.It is thus unsettling how many Singaporeans still believe that Lim was a Communist simply because he was painted so by Lee despite conclusive and consistent proof to the contrary.The British actually objected to arresting Lim Chin Siong because they did not believe he was a communist and at that point in time was involved in a constitutional struggle[Link]. What was this constitutional struggle about? It was about securing the democratic freedoms and the empowerment of Singaporeans. In a recent interview, Dr. Poh Soo Kai, explained why they left the PAP to form the Barisan Socialis:"The Big Six – Mr Lim, Mr Fong Swee Suan, Mr Woodhull, Mr Dominic Puthucheary, Mr S.T. Bani and Mr Jamit Singh – had stated that while they supported the PAP in the coming by-election, they would not compromise on issues such as detention without trial and freedoms of press, speech, assembly and organisation. Dr Poh argues that these statements amounted to a ‘request’, not an ‘ultimatum’. But Mr Lee, he says, saw this as a challenge to the PAP leadership and decided to make the split." - Dr. Poh Soo Kai, Straits Times Interview "Dr. Poh:Why I parted company with PAP", 27 Dec 2009. Here's an article by Lim Chin Siong on the Constitutional Struggle published in the Fajar (Aug 1961)They (Barisan Socialis) were engaged in a struggle for democracy in Singapore, freedom and empowerment of ordinary citizens and were about to succeed at the coming elections before they were arrested and detained without trial. 50 years later, Singaporeans live in a semi-authoritarian state still struggling for their basic right to assemble and to speak freely. Elections have been tweaked to preserve PAP's dominance and Singapore ranks very low in press freedom. The same laws that were used to detain these people still exist in Singapore today. Today our leaders look to communist China hoping that its success and rise will vindicate what they have done in Singapore i.e. trading away civil liberties for economic gains. It is very clear to me who stood on the side of the people, freedom, human rights and democracy ...and who stood against. Was Lim Chin Siong a communist? Only in the fiction of PAP men written to promote myths about their righteousness and greatness.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. On Transport Again.... My posting on 24 Jan 2010 about the transport system and Goh Meng Seng's analysis of the ridership/capacity figures drew a lively discussion in the comments section - 100+ comments. Some suggested there were other reasons for overcrowding on the trains such as the taxi fare hike that cause taxi riders like myself to switch to the MRT - this may be a contributing factor however the total # of taxis in Singapore is 20+ thousand compared with the roughly 150K population increase per year. Without finer statistics, people can keep on arguing about obscure possibilities and improbable realities.I suggest people who want to debate about this further can also do it with MM Lee because he said essentially the same thing as Goh Meng Seng:.“We’ve grown in the last five years by just importing labour. Now, the people feel uncomfortable, there are too many foreigners. Trains are overcrowded with foreigners, buses too, property prices have gone up because foreigners with permanent residence are buying into the market. ” - MM Lee 28 Jan 2010 Straits Times.I'm glad MM Lee suddenly turned around and agree with what netizens have been saying all along about housing and transport. The first step to fixing problems is to admit they exist and stop denying. Netizens were not in disagreement with the govt for the sake of opposing it - they disagreed because they were felt strongly that they were right. I'm happy MM Lee sees our side - however, some may suspect that elections which have to be held this year or next has something to do with this.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. MM Lee : You must be daft! "As Singaporeans lament about rising flat prices, he said they ought to understand the Government sells them at a subsidised price, below market rate, so that they can own an asset that will appreciate in value over the years. It adds to their wealth and this is asset-enhancing policy Mr Lee believes citizens should not find fault with. If they do, they must be 'daft', he said at a dialogue during a housing conference as part of a series of events to mark the Housing Board's (HDB) 50th anniversary." - ChannelnewsAsia[Link] Hardly a week goes by without our leaders demeaning ordinary Singaporeans. 'Daft' means stupid. MM Lee said that those who are unhappy with rising HDB prices are stupid - which means most netizens, house hunters for whom prices have risen beyond their reach...and many ordinary Singaporeans are stupid. Very interesting remark especially after the world just had the biggest financial crisis in the past 70 years caused by American banks that believed housing prices can only go up. Housing prices should rise in tandem with sustainable increases in median income. If it rises faster than income, it means that home buyers have to take up more debt to service their housing loans. It does not take rocket science to tell you that debt levels cannot keep rising and at some point prices have to come down. The problem with fast rising property prices is that it is not sustainable and many will be crushed when it comes down. In 1998, a woman wrote to the ST forum about how she bought a new flat from HDB at the height of the housing bubble in 1996 but end up with a loss of $80-$100K a few years later because new flats sold by HDB in her area had fallen by that amount. Well I think it is really daft to think that property prices are a one way street. Just look at Japan after their property prices rose continuously for decades to hit a high in 1991:Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. More on Transport... In my previous posting, I explained that to satisfy Singaporeans' demand for transport, the quality of the public transport has to be improve sufficiently to reduce the demand for cars. To do this public transport companies have to be focussed primarily on improving service quality and cannot be distracted by the need to make profit for shareholders which is the case today.Goh Meng Seng in his latest blog posting did an analysis of ridership figures[Link] on the SMRT and this is what he found: Figures were taken from Singapore's Yearbook of Statistics 2009.Basically, we had a population growth of 17.2% from 2003-2008 but the SMRT car kilometers was reduced by 13% during the same period. What this means is that the trains are packed roughly 30% more from 2003-2008. So the complaints of Singaporeans who say that the trains are more cramped and stuffy these days are not imagined. During this period, as service quality fell, the public transport fares went up many times.The poorer service quality will up Singaporeans' desire to own and use cars - but the number of COEs is limited and our roads have limited capacity. COE shoots up and ERP goes up. Just 2 days ago, the govt announced that the ERP at 3 gantries will increase by a whopping 30%[Link] but that is really nothing new as ERP hikes are a regular affair[Link]. All these hikes do nothing to meet demand ...they are suppose to depress demand by hurting people in the pocket. Like I said in my previous posting the income inequality means all these hikes hurt lower middle income families hardest and create further mismatch between people's needs and distribution of a scarce resource- these hikes do not distinguish between the needs of a father has to send his child for to the hospital in a taxi and someone in a Mercedes on his way to the golf course.There is good reason for people to be unhappy with the system. It is designed to maximise govt revenue & minimise expenditure, make good profits for GLC companies and their shareholders but failed to meet the needs of a growing population and the desire of the people for a better quality of life. In crowded land scarce cities, there has to be nothing to distract govts from it primary goal of meeting the transport needs of the people and satisfy rising expectations for better transport - the effort requires tremendous commitment and resources - anything less will naturally lead to unhappiness. There is nothing surprising about Singaporeans being unhappy with this system of COE+ERP+"for profit" public transport because it is a system that has fallen far far behind the rising aspirations of Singaporeans. Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. COE @ $20K...rationing your dreams. The COE for all categories of cars has breached $20K[Link] - car dealers accurately predicted this in Sep 2009 when the govt cut the number of COEs by 16%[Link]. Yes, what to do? More people want cars and Singapore has only so many roads so we have to ration car ownership and control the use of cars. The COE is a unique solution and the ERP is fairly unique - some countries collect toll for the use of highways but the ERP is a finer grained solution controling the use of stretches of roads that are congested. If the COE system is necessary - we were told that we will have crippling traffic jams without the COE, why haven't cities without COE fallen apart? Why are we the only ones with COE?..I'll answer this later.In many countries, having a family car is very common if not a necessity but in Singapore it is considered a luxury and owning one is dream for many working class families. Because the number of COEs is fixed every year depending on the number of cars deregistered and allowing for a small limited growth, it is build into the system that many, if not most, families will never own a car. By importing more people who also compete for the limited number of COEs, even fewer Singaporeans can realise this dream.The COE is allocated based on a bidding system i.e. it is allocated based on ability to pay rather than a person's needs. A family with 3 children has no priority over the teenage son of a tycoon - it is all decided based on who can spend more money. Now superimpose this COE system on a society with the highest level of income inequality in the developed world...hmmm what do you get? Then you supplement this with a 'for profit' public transport system which has shareholders to answer to. What you get is a transport system that people are constantly unsatisfied with. Cars are not going to the people who need it - families with children or individuals with disability but to people with money ...and a public transport system that has to tradeoff between service quality and profits for shareholders. Caught is this system is the working class father who has to carry his baby's stroller up a sardine packed bus and the mother who has to carry the baby and perhaps control a toddler who can't get a seat because the bus is packed and the tired Singaporean on the priority seat has closed his eyes and pretended to doze off.Today as I was getting onto the MRT, I noticed that they have hired a woman wearing gloves at the platform. What are the gloves for? This woman will instruct the people on crowded trains to 'move to the center'. If they are too deaf or too stubborn, she will start using her hands to move them- that is why she needs the gloves. Why can't a supposedly world class govt run a public transport to maximise comfort for commuters without hiving it off to profit-seeking shareholders who want passengers to be packed like cattle so they can maximise their profits?Now for the great mystery - why do we need the COE system when no other city's transport system has collapsed without implementing it? Why doesn't Seoul of pop. density double that of Singapore need to have COE? What about Tokyo....why hasn't it collapsed from a traffic gridlock without COE? What about Taipei which has a population density 1.5 times that of Singapore? We ended up with this unique COE system that brought in more revenue for the PAP govt from car ownership than any other govt in the world and we also have the one of the most profitable, if not the most profitable public transport system per capita (aka SMRT) in the world....actually the public transport system in most countries lose money. So what is the explanation for this great mystery?The demand for cars depends a lot on the quality of service of the public transport system. If you take 2 hours driving to work, you will switch to the MRT if it gets you there in 1 hour. This is why most Tokyo residents leave their cars at home and take the subway - 1 in 2 households in Tokyo own cars[Link] but less than 10% use it to get to work. Most govts curb the growth of the car population and usage by investing heavily in public transport to make the network extensive and rides comfortable to lower the demand for cars[Link]. The Taipei subway for example arrives at less than 1 minute intervals during peak hours. In Seoul, the public transport network in up and running before people start moving into new residential areas to encourage them to use the public transport instead of buying cars.By implementing its unique COE + ERP system, the PAP has been able to create a new source of revenue. At the same time, there is less pressure to improve the public transport rapidly now that the govt is able to control the absolute number of cars - the shares in public transport company have been sold to profit seeking shareholders and the public transport company now has to generate profit to distribute as dividends to these shareholders .No other city even those with far higher population density has needed to curb car population using a vehicle quota system....and no other govt in the world has been able to collect more revenue from car ownership than the PAP.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. More People step forward...... We rarely see better news than this for Singapore opposition parties. Mr. Tony Tan, an ex-SAF scholar, who was with the SAF until 2001 and left the service to successfully start a chain of tuition centres called SmartLab and his wife, Hazel Poa, who was with the admin service, have joined the Reform Party. Scholars previously co-opted into the system are not expected to do this and Hazel Poa expressed some apprehension because it might affect her relationship with her former colleagues.I believe many scholars/ex-scholars are positioned high enough to have a good look at the system and do not agree with various PAP policies but while they are bonded and employed by the system, they do their work honestly and efficiently because the system is largely top down thus too difficult to change from within.Picture from http://www.yawningbread.org/Given PAP's position on the political compass, you can probably (& naturally) find more people with dissenting views than people who agree with them. However, the PAP co-opted many talented people through the scholarship system and its large network of GLCs. If you look through the resumes of MPs, many of them belong to GLCs, national universities etc, it is implicit(?) that they will not be able to keep these posts if they join the opposition e.g. PAP MP Wee Siew Khim has a job at ST Eng & Chee lost his shortly after joining SDP. This construct which exists primarily to maintain PAP's dominance by denying political alternatives of talent has led to political ossification and does not serve the interests of ordinary citizens. However, over time the system has become saturated and they can't keep all talents within the system i.e. today only colonels and generals transit to GLC positions e.g. General Ng Yat Chung to Temasek, while lower ranking officers leave the service & the system. At the same time, many middleclass families send their children to local universities and top overseas universities without scholarships. We should see more qualified people with passion and conviction stepping forward to join opposition parties. The PAP will recruit from its usual sources....the same old reluctant politician types - those who are selected and persuaded to serve as part-time MPs...and those who have to paid millions to leave their high paying GLC jobs to serve as ministers.Hazel Poa maintains a blog [Link]You can meet Tony & Hazel at the next Reform Party Seminar[Link for details]:23 Jan 2010, 1:30pm Berkshire School Pte Ltd, 100 Beach Road #02-19A, Shaw Towers, Singapore 189702. Topic: Education Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. Minister Shanmugam : Don't Blame Foreigners.... At a meet the people dialogue a citizen rose to express his concerns about the govt's liberal immigration policy which caused the price of housing to rise.The Straits Times reported that "he complained" and the key message from Minister Shanmugam to the resident was: "it is unfair to cast foreigners as villian".So that is the PAP govt's strategy now? Anyone saying that the expansion in population has led to high housing prices is COMPLAINING and UNFAIRLY CASTING FOREIGNERS AS VILLIANS.So much for engaging the public with PAP's superior logic and intellect.Actually, where is the logic anyway?"The first misconception is that somehow there are five million people and that's putting pressure on all of us. It doesn't.'Of the five million, 3.2 million are citizens and roughly 500,000 are permanent residents (PRs). The remaining 1.3 million are here on temporary work permits and they 'impose no burden' on the public housing system" - Minister Shanmugam.Yes, he expects us to believe an additional 1.8M people added to a land scarce island 'impose no burden on the public housing'. So where are those on work permits staying? At the beach? ...opps. those at the beach are ultra-underclassed displaced by PAP policy. People on work permits need a place to stay. They either rent rooms in HDB flats causing rental yields to rise - higher rental yields lead to higher prices. Some rent private condos - many sharing one unit. This pushes up the prices of private property making it unreachable for many families who now have to look for public housing.What Shanmugam said is absurd. It is an insult to Singaporeans' intelligence.------------------Don't Blame Foreigners[Link]The Law Minister's key message: It is unfair to cast foreigners as the villains driving up the prices of HDB flats. --PHOTO: BT MIDWAY through an hour-long dialogue with Law Minister K. Shanmugam on Sunday, 58-year-old Wee Kai Fatt stood up and gave voice to the claims of many coffeeshop pundits here.The senior engineer complained about the foreigner-fuelled population boom, saying he was shocked when he heard there were five million people living in Singapore. This influx of foreigners, he added, has caused HDB home prices to skyrocket.Taking it all in, Mr Shanmugam took pains to clarify what he said were several misconceptions in Mr Wee's statement.The Law Minister's key message: It is unfair to cast foreigners as the villains driving up the prices of HDB flats.Speaking at the end of his three-hour visit to Yew Tee constituency in Hong Kah GRC, he said: 'The first misconception is that somehow there are five million people and that's putting pressure on all of us. It doesn't.'Of the five million, 3.2 million are citizens and roughly 500,000 are permanent residents (PRs). The remaining 1.3 million are here on temporary work permits and they 'impose no burden' on the public housing system, said Mr Shanmugam, who is also the Second Home Affairs Minister.Thoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years. PAP's little economic trick unravels... In his famous article The Myth of Asia's Miracle (1994), Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugmen wrote:"But it is only when one actually does the quantitative accounting that the astonishing result emerges: all of Singapore's growth can be explained by increases in measured inputs."The factors leading to the rapid growth of the Singapore, wrote Krugman, were one-off - a dramatic improvement in education of our workforce & the share of employed rising from 27 to 51% of the population. Krugman concluded that "Singapore is unlikely to achieve future growth rates comparable to those of the past". Krugman was wrong! Singapore grew by 8.1% in 2005, 6.4% in 2006, 7.9% in 2007 and 7.7% in 2008[Link]. Krugman could never imagine in 1994 that the PAP govt will resort to massive import of foreign labor to boost the GDP growth:“Between 2005 and 2009, Singapore’s population surged by roughly 150,000 people a year to 5 million—among the fastest rates ever there—with 75% or more of the increase coming from foreigners,” Wall Street Journal (see report below).More input, more growth. Put aside the hard work of improving efficiency and technical progress, and just expand the population. "The influx helped boost Singapore’s economy in the short run by creating new demand for goods and services and helping manufacturers keep labor costs low. Developers built apartments and posh shopping centers for the new arrivals." - Wall Street JournalThe population growth was great for property developers, service providers like telcos and manufacturers. Many of these are GLCs."At the same time, though, foreign workers have driven up real estate and other prices and made the city-state’s roads and subways more congested. Their arrival has kept local blue-collar wages lower than they would be otherwise, exacerbating Singapore’s gap between rich and poor" - Wall Street JournalThe effects of this massive influx have been largely negative for the ordinary citizens especially the poor whose living standards have fallen sharply in recent years. The foreign labor policy implementation has been deceptive. We were initially told that they were needed to complement the local labor to bring in skills that did not exist in Singapore. Then we were told that they were here to create jobs for Singaporeans. We were also told that they were needed because of our low fertility rate. Recently, we were told the Chinese workers are needed to sustain Singapore-China ties[Link].Singaporeans expressed concern about this policy as early as 2000. These concerns grew louder and louder. 2 years ago, I attended a 'meet the MP' dialogue and a resident stood up to express unhappiness over the policy. Some where in his long winded explanation the MP told the resident "not to be small minded". There is nothing small minded about Singaporeans' concerns about this policy. We don't have anything personal against the thousands of individuals who are here to seek a better life for themselves and their families - most of us would do the same if we are in their shoes. In fact it is important that these workers are treated well when they are here in Singapore and their rights as workers protected and respected because poor treatment of these workers will spread to Singaporeans especially those working for low wages. Singaporeans are not asking the govt to keep foreigners out...all we are asking for is for its implementation to result in benefits for ordinary Singaporeans. However, this may not be so easy for the PAP govt to do...Over the years, the interests of the PAP has expanded beyond that of ordinary Singaporeans. Its large network of GLCs and TLCs provides high paying jobs for the elites in the establishment. PAP leaders are selected from a power-elite network [Link] whose loyalty is to a system that rewarded and benefited them rather than Singapore and ordinary Singaporeans. For the PAP govt, this internal selection process has primacy over general elections ....the PAP govt has had no qualms about modifying election rules - GRCs to parachute newcomers, linking flat upgrading to votes, repressing the opposition etc. All these moves to take the power of choice from ordinary Singaporeans. In their corporatist model, Singapore is Singapore Inc and our PM is the CEO and ministers, the board of directors. Elections are secondary because leaders are selected and appointed to their positions. When you understand this, you will begin to see that the PAP govt policies are consistent with this model. Raising of transport fares during recession to prevent fall in profits, increasing foreign labor as the income gap expands and massive reserves buildup at the expense of ordinary Singaporeans' ability to retire. If you have any doubts about what the PAP govt really is, it should disappear once you look at the outcome of the foreign labor policy. The foreign influx increased as income gap rose, cost of living rose, structural unemployment worsened and living standards fell. As long as GDP grew and corporate profits rose, ordinary Singaporeans were made to shoulder the burden of the negative effects of PAP policies. The only little kink in this system and model of govt is the one-man one-vote system. Despite the rules limiting the activities of political opponents, control of the media and the unfair playing field (GRCs and estate upgrading), the PAP exposed its own insecurity[Link] by tweaking the system yet again with the 'cooling day' to gain an advantage. They have not found a way to remove the one-man one-vote system without completely losing their legitimacy. Other tweaks have been considered along the way:"And whether you have one-man, one-vote or some-men, one vote or other men, two votes, those are forms which should be worked out. I'm not intellectually convinced that one-man, one-vote is the best. We practice it because that's what the British bequeathed us and we haven't really found a need to challenge that. But I'm convinced, personally, that we would have a better system if we gave every man over the age of 40 who has a family two votes because he's likely to be more careful, voting also for his children. He is more likely to vote in a serious way than a capricious young man under 30. But we haven't found it necessary yet. If it became necessary we should do it. At the same time, once a person gets beyond 65, then it is a problem. Between the ages of 40 and 60 is ideal, and at 60 they should go back to one vote, but that will be difficult to arrange" - Lee Kuan Yew in an Interview with Fareed Zakaria[Link] Maybe one day they will suggest that newly converted citizens be given 2 votes since they have been exposed to 2 different systems, they will be appreciate the PAP system better....and so on. It is because the one-man one-vote system is still around and the PAP govt need to conduct elections soon that we get this concilatory message[Link] from PM Lee on New Year day that the foreign influx will be 'moderated' and the benefits of economic growth will be shared among all citizens - the same PM didn't hesitate to up his ministers' pay and hike the GST almost immediately after the last elections. There is really no excuse for Singaporeans not to understand how this govt work and what they have to do to secure their own future and that of their children. Whatever the PM says today, the size for foreign population (now 36%) is set to continue rising until Singaporeans become a minority in the own country because that is the path of least resistance to satisfy the extensive interests of the PAP govt. Unless Singaporeans make the right decisions at the next elections, things will not change and the outcome for ordinary citizens can easily be predicted.-----------------------------------Singapore's Expat Surge Fuels Economic FearsBy PATRICK BARTA And TOM WRIGHTSINGAPORE—For years, this rich city-state has marketed itself as one of the world's most open economies.But as Singapore recovers from recession, its residents are questioning a key part of the country's economic model: its long-standing openness to foreigners.Singapore Struggles with Immigration Issues1:55As Singapore grapples with an uncertain future amid weak demand for its exports to the U.S. and Europe, it faces a sensitive subject: the role of foreign labor in sustaining its multi-decade economic boom.Singapore has thrown open its doors to bankers and expatriates in recent years, making it easy in many cases to establish residency and hastening the country's emergence as an Asian version of Dubai. It also welcomed low-skilled laborers from Bangladesh and other developing countries to help man construction sites and factories.The goal was to capture more Asian wealth and offset Singapore's low birth rate with immigrants, spurring economic growth. But the push has also fueled discontent, turning immigration into a red-hot political issue in a country where dissent is still tightly controlled by the government.Between 2005 and 2009, Singapore's population surged by roughly 150,000 people a year to 5 million—among the fastest rates ever there—with 75% or more of the increase coming from foreigners. In-migration continued in 2009 despite expectations it would collapse because of the global recession.The influx helped boost Singapore's economy in the short run by creating new demand for goods and services and helping manufacturers keep labor costs low. Developers built apartments and posh shopping centers for the new arrivals.View Full Image ReutersCrowds gather at the Ministry of Manpower amid a wage dispute.By some estimates, a third or more of Singapore's 6.8% average annual growth from 2003 to 2008 came from the expansion of its labor force, primarily expatriates, allowing Singapore to post growth more commonly associated with poor developing nations.At the same time, though, foreign workers have driven up real estate and other prices and made the city-state's roads and subways more congested. Their arrival has kept local blue-collar wages lower than they would be otherwise, exacerbating Singapore's gap between rich and poor.Some economists say the most damaging effect of the immigration is that the influx appears to be putting a lid on productivity gains, as manufacturers rely on cheap imported labor instead of making their businesses more efficient. Labor productivity, or output per employee, fell 7.8% in 2008 and 0.8% in 207—a phenomenon that could eventually translate into lower standards of living.Lee Ah Lee, a 58-year-old who makes 850 Singapore dollars a month (about US$600) clearing tables in a cafeteria, says the flood of immigrants has made it hard to make ends meet by pushing down blue-collar pay in Singapore, which has no legal minimum wage. Sitting nearby in a drab apartment block built by Singapore's Housing Development Board, a state-owned body that constructs and sells subsidized housing, 79-year-old Lee Kwang Joo says low-skilled foreign workers are often housed in corporate dormitories, meaning they have no housing costs and can survive on lower pay.On Temasek Review, a Web site dedicated to Singaporean affairs, one writer recently warned Singaporeans would be "replaced" as "3rd class citizens" by foreigners, while another said that immigration "will emerge as the single most important issue" in Singapore's next general election, due by 2011.Immigration "kept our economic growth high but, at a tremendous cost," says Kenneth Jeyaretnam, the secretary-general of Singapore's Reform Party, a small opposition party founded in 2008. Relying on foreign labor to help boost growth is unsustainable, adds Choy Keen Meng, an assistant professor of economics at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University. He says a better model would involve the reining in immigration and accepting that Singapore is becoming a more mature economy like the U.S. or Europe, with a long-term growth rate of 3% to 5% a year.Singapore, unlike many of its neighbors, has a reputation for reliable public services and minimal corruption. Its openness to foreign investment is one reason why gross domestic product is expected to rebound to 4.5% this year, according to the Asian Development Bank, from a contraction of 2.1% in 2009.Still, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, speaking at a Singapore university in September, said there was a need to be "mindful of how quickly our society can absorb and integrate" new arrivals, and vowed to curb immigration.The government is also studying immigration as part of a wide-ranging review of the city-state's economic model launched in 2009. Results of the review, due this month,are expected to include steps to diversify Singapore's economy and reduce its reliance on exports to the United States and Europe by boosting domestic consumption, among other things.Yet people familiar with the government's plans say it is unlikely to press for deep cuts in immigration, and will aim to find other ways to restore productivity growth. Singapore remains committed to a long-term goal of increasing the population to 6.5 million, though it would do so by prioritizing high-skilled residents as opposed to blue-collar workers.Immigration "is not a weakness, it's a strength," said one person familiar with the long-term economic planning process. "People want to come here, why not make use of that strength?"Serious cuts to immigration could also generate a backlash from other interests—notably the factory owners and real-estate developers who rely heavily on foreign arrivals. Many employers complain that local Singaporeans, accustomed to a higher standard of living than most other Southeast Asians, are unwilling to take on menial jobs, and are likely to resist further tightening of foreign labor supply.Write to Patrick Barta at patrick.barta@wsj.com and Tom Wright at tom.wright@wsj.comThoughts of a contented Singaporean who has lived in Singapore for 40 years.