Energy Saving and Energy Security Professor Tommy Koh has written an article in the Straits Times. I've excerpted some of it below:STRAITS TIMES (21 Apr 2007)Mother Earth is sickBy Tommy Koh...Singapore, with a population of only 4.5 million people, is only a small part of humanity. However, all countries, big and small, developed and developing, rich and poor, can and should make an appropriate contribution to the common cause.What can Singapore do? I commend the following 10 suggestions for your consideration.First, Singapore should set a time-frame, for example, three years, to phase out incandescent light bulbs and to replace them with energy-saving bulbs [...]Second, technology has invented an even more energy-saving method [...] I hope our authorities will examine the feasibility of using LEDs.Third, I hope that the Singapore Government will set an example by adopting a policy of purchasing hybrid, or other energy-efficient and low-polluting, vehicles [...]Fourth, [...] benchmark best international practice in the design and construction of our new buildings for the efficient use of energy, water and other resources. [...]Fifth, [...] adopt Japanese best practices in the efficient use of energy. [...]Sixth, the Singapore Government should consider adopting the United States Environmental Protection Agency's energy efficiency rating system. [...]Seventh, [...] thermostats at a temperature which some National University of Singapore scholars have found to be our comfort level, that is, 23 deg C. [...]Eighth, the Singapore Government should encourage all government offices to have an assigned person who would ensure that the office lights are switched off during the lunch break and, at the end of the day, ensure that all unnecessary lights, computers, monitors, printers, fax machines are turned off.Ninth, [...] promote the growth in Singapore of research, development and businesses in energy efficiency; in clean and renewable energy sources [...]Tenth, the battle against global warming and climate change cannot be won by the actions of the Government and business alone. It can only be won if each of us is persuaded by the urgency of the problem and is prepared to make adjustments to our lifestyle, our values and our attitude towards nature and Mother Earth. We can reduce the consumption of energy and emission of CO2. We can aspire to lead simple lives rather than lives of conspicuous consumption.I have not included the original article here for space reasons, but what I like about Prof Koh's article is how he combines stated goals with suggested approaches to implementation, and also a mention of which agencies might be best placed to do the job. Sometimes a new agency must be created, or an existing one remade, but when an existing agency could do the job, why not task it to do so?Now, one might argue that a little red dot like Singapore cannot make a big difference to the world environment: after all, our carbon emissions would be dwarfed by the major industrial powers.But energy saving goes beyond the issue of Singapore's obligations to the world environment. If we use less energy, then our energy resources will go further -- and we will be less pressurised in an energy squeeze. Singapore's long-term future depends on energy security, which I've written a bit about here and in a longer article on Singapore Angle. The Dilemma of Abandoned Elderly Parents: An Ongoing Debate A couple of months back, there was some discussion around the blogosphere about who should look after the aged, and whether it is wrong for the State to expect children to do so.Huichieh on Singapore Angle: Perspectives wrote an article, On a Not Uncommon Line of Argument, analysing one of the oft-cited lines of argument in this debate. It attracted a good number of comments, encompassing a variety of viewpoints.Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong has since written a piece on social welfare. In reply to a mention of Huichieh's article, he has posted his further thoughts, in an article titled "Response to speranza nuova: who should pick up the bill for social assistance?".It raises some important and thought-provoking questions. I have since joined the debate to help explore the issue. My follow-up comment is reproduced here: [Link]Mr Siew,I think you may have misunderstood Huichieh's article. His underlying point was about whether the State should look after the aged, and whether it is wrong to expect children to take care of their parents.I agree with you completely that we as a society must have a heart.Yet some elderly parents are abandoned by their children -- not because these children cannot provide support, but because the children choose not to.Who picks up the pieces when this happens? We can say it is the State, but the State is funded by taxes. So the burden is borne by all of us, including filial children from other families -- and some of these filial children are from poorer backgrounds than the unfilial.You're right that we can't put a monetary value on some things:- The joy an elderly parent feels from having their own family care for them, rather than a social worker or a paper cheque.- Or the doubt gnawing at the soul of a filial child, as he wonders whether it's easier to join the ranks of the unfilial -- after all, other people are copping out and passing the buck to him, so why not join them in doing so?One can certainly argue for more support to be given out, but I think one should also be candid about what one is asking for. e.g. Asking filial children to support other people's parents -- even when those other people are better off, could have done so, but didn't want to.I am quite snowed under with commitments at the moment, but hope to revisit this issue and think further upon it. My apologies to the regular readers of this blog -- I am aware that do not write as much as I used to. Media Literacy: Every Man a Thinker The Intelligent Singaporean has posted an article, The Perils of Attempting to Regulate the Internet. It's an interesting read and I recommend taking a look at it, if you haven't already done so.I posted the following comment in response:I think any strategic approach to media must consider the increasing porosity of censorship. Perhaps the solution entails educating the citizenry to be media literate. Citizens should ask themselves who is writing, what the vested interest is, what is writ between the lines, and what is the motive of the writer, etc.It is worth noting, however, that both establishmentarians and anti-establishmentarians might find new challenges in such a milieu. Governments would have to work harder to convince — but in a world of media-literate consumers, critics would also find their claims subject to similar scrutiny.I hope to write more on this at a later date, but one of my aspirations for this island we live in, is to have an informed, thinking citizenry -- and not purely in the book-learning or academic sense. Our people should be street smart and not easily deceived by fallacy, caught out by fine print, or taken in by intellectual or rhetorical sleight of hand. We are getting there, but it is an ongoing journey.Tom Clancy and Chuck Horner used the title Every Man a Tiger for their book on the air campaign in the first Gulf War. Dare we imagine a Singapore with every man and woman a thinker? Redistribution, Tax Structure and the Budget I posted this comment in response to the Kway Teow Man's article on Singapore Angle -- On The Budget. Unfortunately I've been very busy with work and other matters, so my blog has gone a bit dormant.Anyway here's the comment, reproduced here for archival purposes:I was initially trying to figure out where all the money for citizens would come from (i.e. how come everybody seems to get something?), but it then struck me: While PRs and work permit holders will still be consumers and pay the extra 2% GST, the redistribution will be towards Singaporeans. Presumably it is this "unmentioned" redistribution that will fund many of the Budget's programmes.Regarding the shift in taxation structure, my theory is that it is related to the projected ageing population.e.g. If we consider the extreme example of a taxation system based purely on income taxes, then the tax burden falls on the workers. In this model, an ageing population (with its need for additional social services and healthcare expenditure) would generate a squeeze on two fronts: more government expenditure, drawn from a shrinking pool of working adults. In extremis, it might reach a situation akin to the UK -- my back-of-envelope estimate suggests the equivalent system in Singapore would result in income tax being payable from S$983 per month gross wages onwards (correcting for purchasing power parity, etc).Given this, it would appear that a shift towards consumption taxes actually benefits the younger Singaporean, since it is we who'll be mid-career in 20 years' time, when the ageing population crunch will be tighter than today.If I can find some more time over the next few weeks, I'll go into the analysis in greater depth. Building a better Gini index Singapore's Department of Statistics issued a press release today on household income trends. An interesting point was made in paragraph 5 of the press release:"The Progress Package including the Workfare Bonus helped to improve the incomes of all households, but gave a more significant boost to those in the lower-income groups. Hence, after adjusting for Government benefits and taxes, the Gini coefficient among employed households was reduced to 0.439 in 2006."As mentioned in a previous article, a Gini coefficient based only on income misses the bigger picture, since the actual take-home pay is influenced by taxation and welfare benefits. Incorporating these factors into the Gini calculation for 2006 is a positive move by the Department of Statistics.However it would have been even better if they had done similar calculations for the years 2000 to 2005. After all, can one really compare the "taxes and benefits included" year 2006 Gini of 0.439 against the "income-only" year 2000 Gini of 0.442? It's like apples and oranges -- or peeled lemons and oranges, depending on how you want to stretch the metaphor. "No Pork" Podcast: The Evil That Men Broadcast [Originally published on Singapore Angle on 02 Feb 2007; reproduced here for future reference. Please read the Addendums at the bottom of the article, as they document some subsequent events.]The "No Pork" podcast URL was forwarded to me some days back, but I refrained from blogging on the matter because I did not want to confer publicity upon such material.Events have since overtaken this resolution. Xiaxue posted the podcast on her blog. Her mention of it, in turn, was cited in a Forum letter to the Straits Times. Other bloggers have also weighed in.I will not dignify the recording by providing a URL link. But allow me to mention its contents briefly.The podcast is in video format, although most of the content is on the audio track, the video track being used for subtitles.Singapore Patriot has succinctly summarised the contents: in the podcast "two Chinese Singaporean men are poking fun at an Indian Muslim food stallholder by insisting on ordering pork, despite the stallholder repeatedly telling them he serves only halal food."Why the "No Pork" podcast is wrong1. Although it purports to be an attempt at humour, its "humour" relies on provoking a man to anger by repeatedly asking him to do something contrary to his religion (i.e. asking a Muslim stallholder to provide pork). It also attempts to make the Indian Muslim stallholder's manner of speech into a form of amusement.2. The closed, racist mindset of the podcast producers can also be deduced from the subtitles. Where Chinese is spoken on the audio track, the subtitles are also in Chinese. This suggests that the filmmakers included subtitles for those already conversant in the language of the provocateurs. These subtitles were not about improving accessibility of the video to minority viewers.The following example may help readers from the majority race understand what is at stake here:Imagine a group of white supremacists going up to a Chinese Singaporean who wears spectacles. They take away his spectacles, asking if he can see without them. Comments are also made about how "they all seem to wear spectacles". As he protests, comments are made about the way he speaks English. They parody his accent by imitating old Hong Kong movies, with questions like "Doo dey speek Engrish een der Sharowleen Teempul?"Why the "No Pork" podcast is dangerous1. It can provoke communal emotions. Whether it was an enactment or a recording of an actual incident, it can stir up strong emotions.2. It can incite copycat behaviour. Enactment or not, what if a group of people, having experienced the material, decide to visit a Muslim food stall and insist on ordering pork? What YOU can doFirst and foremost, this is a good time to reflect on your own views and behaviour towards other communities. Nobody is perfect, and self-reflection is an important part of how we can become better people. For example:The last time you heard a racist joke, was anybody from that community within earshot?Did you laugh at the joke or keep quiet? If you laughed, was it because you found it funny, or because other people were laughing and you didn't want to be left out?If you found it funny, why was that the case? Would you have found it equally funny if you were of the minority community and the butt of the joke?Some people are known to make police reports about such racist content. But in some ways that is the easier path to take: it passes the buck to the State, when the battle against racism is fought through the hearts, minds and actions of individual citizens.And there are many things you can do as an active citizen:Speak out. You can speak out against the "No Pork" podcast. Don't let people laugh it off as a harmless joke, because it is neither a joke nor harmless. If you are forwarded a link to the recording, send a reply expressing your disgust at it. If you are offended but do not speak out, people may assume that your silence implies approval.Make your concerns known. You can make your concerns known to the authorities. You can click on the "Flag as Inappropriate" button in YouTube. You can also write to your elected representatives and public officials, asking them to take action.Avoid doing business with such people. You can refuse to do business with companies engaging in discriminatory employment practices. (Some of these companies have been named by Singapore Patriot on his own blog.) As a consumer, you can refuse to purchase their products.Boycotts. If a celebrity engages in or condones racist behaviour, you can write to his/her sponsors, saying that you will boycott any products endorsed by said celebrity. A celebrity has freedom of speech, like the rest of us -- but we also have freedom to choose where we shop, and to tell sponsors what we will not purchase, and why. Consumer activism works, as seen by Jade Goody's loss of sponsorship in the wake of her comments toward Shilpa Shetty in the UK's Celebrity Big Brother Show.Above all, do not remain silent, and do not remain apathetic.[Addendum 1: Since this article was written, the original podcast file has been taken down. The U.S.-based online video hosting service cited a "terms of use violation" as the reason.][Addendum 2: There is an extensive comments thread for the original article on Singapore Angle.] Thoughts on Drug Addiction The topic of drug trafficking has been much discussed lately, in the wake of the tragic death of Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi.A couple of my comments on other blogs are replicated here for future reference.From a comments thread on Singapore Angle:I notice you cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and its:- Article 3 (on right to life, liberty and security of person);- Article 7 (all are equal before the law...)- Article 11 (presumption of innocence until proven guilty according to law in a public trial; also that retroactivity shall not apply)But it is no coincidence that ahead of Article 3 comes Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."In the UDHR, even as the most fundamental of rights is declared, it also comes with a reminder that humanity is endowed with precious gifts of reason and conscience, and an exhortation of the responsibility that human beings should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.An alternative perspective is to consider -- how should we deal with actions taken contrary to all spirit of brotherhood, where free born men and women may be stripped of their will, their reason and conscience, and placed into slavery or servitude (Article 4).Because some would say that is what drug traffickers do: their drugs make men and women into addicts, hijacking their will and reason more effectively than any propaganda or censorship can. Addiction may even take away that final freedom which no totalitarian state has yet succeeded at depriving: freedom of thought, enslaving the mind with a single unminded desire for that next drug fix.It may have been a Singaporean hangman who opened the trapdoor, allowing the noose to snap poor Tochi's neck and end his life. But the thread of Tochi's life was cut far earlier, in a faraway land, when some cynical mastermind thought up a clever idea -- to send an aspiring footballer with a shipment of drugs to Singapore, despite all public warnings on all incoming flights, and all pre-existing adverse publicity about Singapore's death penalty.In response to a question on "What makes you think that stealing is any less than drug trafficking? Is that an assumption or a fact?":[The comment appears to have been caught by a spam filter...]Well, in the list of possible crimes, drug trafficking would be worse than stealing, because:Drugs create their own demand. While the initial choice to use them may be voluntary, their addictive nature removes free choice from the user.Because they create their own demand, they at the very least are linked (if not causative of) to additional crime and hardship, as a White House report and United Kingdom Home Office webpage state.The nature of injectable drug administration, unlike theft, contributes to the HIV/AIDS problem, as stated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.Unlike stealing, the problem of drug trafficking has become the subject of International Conventions and hundreds of United Nations resolutions and reports.To return to your question on whether drug trafficking and stealing are functionally or morally equivalent, I (and possibly even the staunchest opponents of the death penalty for drug trafficking) would have to say they are not equal.A highly addictive drug instils in its user the equivalent of insatiable hunger. Your 40-year old jobless man, if he were a drug addict, might steal from even his own family [see this UK Hansard link for a UK parliamentary debate citing such instances], and where would his starving kid be then?Or, to put it differently, drug addiction deprives men and women of their dignity. It strips them of their free will -- which is why those who successfully beat addiction are as respected as they are rarities.We often criticise our Gahmen for being authoritarian. But even the most authoritarian government in the world cannot take a man's freedom of thought. Drug addiction can. An Insurance Problem: Whack By The Future Based on this Straits Times report (see below), Aviva's stance is very disturbing. A few thoughts come to mind:1. Should it be held against Ms Vaz that Aviva did not require a health check?2. How does one define "pre-existing"? Do we look at the state of the art at the time the insurance policy was issued? Do we look at the state of medical science at the time the claim is made? Or do we decide based on whatever pre-insurance health check was required at the time of application for the policy?3. Depending on the interpretation of "pre-existing condition", a very large number of insured persons could be disadvantaged, as the state of medical knowledge advances. Consider:a. What if, 10 years from now, as part of Personalised Medicine, a test emerges that will customise your medical treatment to maximise your chances of cure? It also happens that the test will detect cancer predisposition. If you take the test, and are found to have been at higher risk all along, does this mean your policy could be voided -- by technology not even invented at the time you bought the insurance? Does this mean you must forego these modern treatments, or risk losing your coverage?b. What is the smallest size of tumour that would qualify as a pre-existing condition? 1 centimetre? 1 millimetre? A single cancerous cell? This definition could extend the shadow of "pre-existing" further back in time. Aviva's independent medical experts cited a time frame of "three to nine months for the tumour to grow to 9cm from 1cm". This is an increase of 729 times in volume*, suggesting a doubling time of 0.32 to 0.95 months.Now, if a 1 cm tumour contains 1 billion cells, this implies 30 doubling times (log10 1 billion divided by log10 2) from the point where a single cancer cell appeared.Using the estimate above, 30 doubling times adds up to 9.6 to 28.5 months -- i.e. nearly 2½ years. Tumours may also grow slowly before starting on a rapid exponential phase of growth, so the actual time might be even longer than 2½ years.[*If we double the length of an object, its volume goes up by 8 times. This is because volume is a cubed function of length. Hence a 1cm tumour must grow by 93, or 729 times, to reach 9cm in size. To calculate the number of doublings in a 729-fold multiplication, we divide the logarithm of 729 by that of 2 -- i.e. log10 729 divided by log10 2. Sorry if this math sends you to sleep...]In short, an adversely rigorous definition of "pre-existing" could void coverage of your breast cancer, so long as you bought the policy anytime sooner than 2½ years ago. For slow-growing cancers, this shadow might be even longer.If it sounds absurd, that is because it is.Historically, insurance companies have been described to be at a disadvantage, due to the asymmetry of information between client and insurer (this is an example of what economists call adverse selection). But the appropriate response is to have deductibles, and a mandatory health screening check -- so the insurer knows the customer's risk profile on the basis of the best medical evidence available today.By using the clause of "any injury, illness, condition or symptom which originated...prior to the policy commencement date whether or not treatment, or medication, or advice, or diagnosis was sought or received", without adequate safeguards, this means that today's insurance policies may be adjudicated or voided on the basis of tomorrow's state of medical knowledge. This shifts asymmetry of information to the other extreme: the customer's policy may be retroactively invalidated through medical sciences not yet developed, and technology not yet invented.In the meantime, if you have an insurance policy (from any source), it would be a very good idea to read the policy details carefully. Your health status might be judged not by today's medical practices, but by future standards of medical knowledge. And you may not even have a Minority Report to fall back on.STRAITS TIMES - Jan 31, 2007'Pre-existing condition' strikes out cancer patient's insurance claimPlan excludes coverage, but some rival firms say they would have paidBy Finance Correspondent, Lorna TanA 45-YEAR-OLD woman diagnosed with breast cancer thought her medical bill was covered by her insurance policy, but a rude shock awaited her.Backed by medical reports, her insurer Aviva said that the 9cm lump found in her breast had begun growing before her policy took effect.It refused to pay, saying her cancer was a pre-existing condition at the time that she signed up for her MyShield hospitalisation policy - never mind that she had no idea at the time.Fortunately for Ms Simone Vaz, her company has paid for the bulk of her medical bills. She also managed to receive payouts from two critical illness policies, one of which she had signed up for at the same time as her MyShield plan.Still, her case has turned the spotlight on an often-overlooked but vital issue in medical insurance - the definition of a pre-existing condition.And the details of Ms Vaz's case underline the complexity of the question and the differing approaches of insurers in dealing with the question.She signed up for a MyShield plan with Aviva here in January last year and it took effect on April 1. Based in Shanghai, Ms Vaz works as a communications manager at a telecommunications firm.She was not required to take a health test by Aviva. Prior to that, the last time she had a health check was in 2004 when she applied for her China visa. Ms Vaz had never undergone a mammogram prior to the diagnosis.The first indication that something was amiss occurred during a spa massage in Shanghai in mid-June last year when she experienced pain.She saw a doctor in Singapore and was diagnosed as having advanced or 'stage three' breast cancer. The tumour in her breast was removed immediately at Mount Alvernia Hospital.Her initial medical bill of $15,000 was rejected by Aviva on the grounds that the condition existed before her policy was issued.Aviva backed this up with medical opinion.In a letter to Ms Vaz's lawyer, Aviva stated that independent medical specialists had advised that it would have taken three to nine months for the tumour to grow to 9cm from 1cm.Ms Vaz's claim was rejected not because of non-disclosure on her part.It was rejected because the Aviva plan excludes all pre-existing conditions regardless of whether there is disclosure or non-disclosure or whether the insured has knowledge of the condition.Its 'pre-existing condition' clause states that 'any injury, illness, condition or symptom which originated...prior to the policy commencement date whether or not treatment, or medication, or advice, or diagnosis was sought or received' is excluded under the policy.When contacted on the rationale for its policy, Aviva's chief executive, Mr Keith Perkins, said that by having an objective evaluation on when an illness originated, it is protecting the interests of the majority of its policyholders.This guards against potential abuse which may lead to higher premiums if claims go up. 'If we rely on what customers know, we'll never know,' said Mr Perkins.Aviva receives about 5,000 MyShield claims per year and less than 1 per cent of these claims are rejected because of pre-existing conditions.Currently it has nearly 100,000 MyShield policyholders.An insurance adviser told The Straits Times that Aviva's policy may come as a surprise to many medical insurance policyholders.They probably assume that if they are unaware of a given condition at the time they sign up for the insurance policy, they would be covered, he said. And most of the time, they would be right.A Straits Times check with rival insurers AIA, Great Eastern (GE), NTUC Income and Prudential found that they adhere to this principle and would have paid Ms Vaz's claim.The clauses of GE and Prudential are similar. Prudential's clause states that 'a pre-existing condition is the existence of any signs or symptoms for which treatment, medication, consultation, advice or diagnosis has been sought or received by the life assured or would have caused an ordinary prudent person to seek treatment, diagnosis or cure, prior to the cover start date of this benefit or the date of any reinstatement'.GE added in response to queries about Ms Vaz's situation that even if the doctor were able to estimate how long the condition had existed, it 'would not be fair' on the policyholder if the insurer declined the claim.The clauses of AIA and Income are similar to each other, but more ambiguously phrased. AIA's clause states that 'any pre-existing illnesses, diseases, impairments or conditions from which the insured is suffering prior to the policy date...will not be covered', without specifying if the policyholder needs to be aware that he is suffering from the illness.However, both insurers told The Straits Times that if a policyholder is genuinely unaware of a medical condition which is diagnosed only after the policy inception, they would pay the claim. AIA added that the insured must not have any symptoms at the time he took up the policy.Aviva's Mr Perkins disagreed with that approach, maintaining that an independent medical opinion is crucial for an 'objective evaluation of claims'.'A clause based on customers knowing about an illness cannot be objectively evaluated as it relies on us knowing customers' personal knowledge,' he said.'I'm not concerned that we're different from other insurers. I'm happy that we are.'Ms Vaz said Aviva's pre-existing condition clause put an insured person 'at a complete disadvantage'. Her bills have skyrocketed to more than $70,000 due to the operation, chemotherapy and radiation sessions.She added that her fear was that her health care would suffer due to a lack of finances when she retires or if she is retrenched.Aviva gave her an ex gratia payment of $3,128 which she has not cashed in yet.When contacted, a Ministry of Health spokesman said that private insurers can choose to impose additional exclusions on their Shield plans should the insured have any pre-existing illnesses.The Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) executive director Seah Seng Choon said that in his view, the clause is 'not fair' to customers if they are genuinely unaware and have no intention of omitting information on a medical condition.He added that if there is such a clause, the insurer should stipulate the timeframe for such pre-existing conditions and highlight the requirement to the consumer. The Death Penalty: Questioning Ourselves [This article was initially published on Singapore Angle.]On certain matters, the process by which one's position is decided may be as important as the position itself. The death penalty is one such issue.It is easy to take a position when considering the most sympathetic of examples. However an unchallenging example is an unheated crucible: your views may emerge unchanged, but equally untested. Consider the virtue of public-spirited honesty described in the Chinese idiom 路不拾遗. A wealthy man may refuse to pocket the proverbial banknote left on the road, but that tests not his nature. Yet if the same man has lost his fortune and is penniless, facing starvation: it is at this point that his beliefs are truly put to the test.In this vein, I have drafted a few questions which proponents and opponents of the death penalty should ask themselves.If you SUPPORT the death penalty, then ask yourself:[Warning: The following material may be disturbing, and might challenge your closely held views and assumptions.]P1. The Innocent ManNo criminal justice system is perfect. Even if a system were 99.9999999% accurate , one in a billion defendants will be wrongfully convicted. In short, if every man, woman and child on earth were tried under this system, we would expect six of them to be incorrectly judged guilty.* So how many innocent men would you put to death, in order to achieve your law enforcement aims? Does your position change if this innocent person is chosen at random, off the street?Or consider a less random situation: Suppose you were wrongly convicted under the present regime and sentenced to hang -- would you change your mind?[*As a corollary, this also means that those who support the death penalty only for 100% secure convictions are actually de facto abolitionists -- since there is no such thing in this world as a conviction with zero probability of error. In fact most judicial systems use the test of beyond reasonable doubt, rather than beyond all possible doubt. The "beyond all doubt" test has been mooted by some legal academics, but a human yardstick of "beyond all [humanly detectable] doubt" is still more lenient than the rigours of 100% mathematical certainty.]P2. Turnabout TheoryIf an innocent man is executed, and the conviction is subsequently found to have been unsafe, should the presiding judge and jury be liable for manslaughter?P3. Democratic Mandate or Mob Justice?It is murder when one man decides, of his own volition, to end the life of another. It is a gang murder when 10 men band together in a killing. Some call it a lynch mob when 100 men congregate for such a purpose, regardless of the moral code or process by which the decision was arrived. But when a thousand, or a million people vote for a platform that includes the death penalty, it is deemed democratic. How do you reconcile this difference?P4. Knowing What You Do, or Knowing Not?Have you personally witnessed an execution? Can your support for the death penalty be a genuinely informed position if you have never witnessed it being carried out? Should it be mandatory for judges and juries in capital cases to have watched an execution (or video thereof), before being eligible to mete out the death penalty? Should the selfsame judge and jury have to watch the execution of each and every person they have condemned to death?If you OPPOSE the death penalty, then ask yourself:[Warning: The following material may be disturbing, and might challenge your closely held views and assumptions.]O1. The Michael Dukakis TestIn a televised debate during the 1988 American presidential election campaign, Michael Dukakis was asked by moderator Bernard Shaw: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"What would your own position be on this? And are you honestly sure that position would hold up if the situation really came to pass -- i.e. would you sign an irrevocable undertaking in advance, waiving the death penalty if your spouse were tortured and murdered?O2. The Nuremberg TestWould you have opposed the death penalty in the Nuremberg Trials for those found guilty of genocide during the Holocaust? What about for Hitler, had he been captured alive?O3. War, collateral damage and the absence of mens rea (i.e. strict liability)Why is it acceptable to kill in wartime but not in peacetime? How would you define a threat to the existence of your country as you know it?If an airliner were hijacked and used as a weapon in an attempt to repeat the September 11th attacks, would you let it continue on its path or shoot it down?What if a deaf child were strapped with a remote-controlled bomb and unknowingly made to advance upon a crowd (whereupon the bomb will be detonated) -- if law enforcement cannot persuade the child to halt, or evacuate the crowd quickly enough, should they open fire?Now consider:A White House factsheet on drug-related crime, while cautious about its conclusions, notes that "drug users are more likely than nonusers to commit crimes, that arrestees frequently were under the influence of a drug at the time they committed their offense, and that drugs generate violence".The United Kingdom's Home Office notes that "around three-quarters of crack and heroin users claim they commit crime to feed their habit".In addition to the Conventions on drug control and hundreds of Resolutions recognising drug abuse as a problem, the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime cites that East Asia is a region "where intravenous drug use is known to drive the HIV/AIDS epidemic".In view of this, how many lives destroyed by drugs would you regard as acceptable collateral damage, for keeping one drug trafficker alive?O4. The Opportunity Cost and Valuations of Human LifeIn the state of Florida, the cost of keeping an inmate in custody is US$50 per day. For a person on death row, the amount might be a multiple of that -- let's use US$100 as a working figure. If we assume the average age of people sentenced to death is 30 years, that means about 50 years of natural life remaining -- assuming imposition of life imprisonment without parole as an alternative to capital punishment. So we have a cost of US$36,500 per year. Over 50 years, this adds up to US$1.825 million, or about S$2.8 million at today's exchange rates. If we derive an average of 30 executions per year (estimated from Amnesty International's 2003 report), this adds up to an average outlay of S$85 million yearly.It is terrible to count the lives of people in terms of dollars, but now ask yourself: is S$85 million better spent on lifesaving treatment for children with cancer, or on keeping a convicted murderer or drug trafficker alive in prison? Would you be willing to forego or downgrade the quality of medical treatment for your loved ones, to subsidise that life sentence?AfterwordUnlike some exams in our education system, there is no "correct" answer for these questions. Some of these questions may seem hypothetical and far-fetched, but the purpose of asking them is to provoke thought and reflection -- for if we do not reflect on even the matters of life and death in this society, what hope have we?[Acknowledgements: Many thanks to BL and the KTM for their input.][You can link here to the Comments thread for this article on Singapore Angle.] GST increase: Does One plus One equal Two? One question mooted has been whether it's better for the GST increase to be implemented at once, raising the GST to 7% -- or if it should be phased in at 6% initially, before a subsequent raise.Assuming GST has to go up, my own view is that a single jump is better. One reason is the phenomenon known as profiteering -- where vendors increase their prices out of proportion to their increased GST burden.For example, let's look at a $3 plate of chicken rice. If the 2% GST rise affects all the raw materials equally (chicken, oil, garlic, etc.), it should only account for an extra 6 cents on the item, since each component of the dish would go up by 2% in cost.Unfortunately, this doesn't happen in real life. The chicken supplier might decide to raise the cost of chicken by more than 2%. So by the time everything gets to the stall owner, the chicken rice would have to sell for a bit more, in order to keep the same profit margin -- let's say $3.35.But $3.35 isn't a nice round number. Furthermore, there's a temptation to raise prices a bit more since they are going up anyway -- and what better time to raise prices when you can blame it on changing economic conditions? So the chicken rice goes up to $3.50.The problem is compounded if all the sellers of a product decide to raise their prices at the same time, as this prevents consumers from seeking a cheaper alternative.To be fair, not everything can be blamed on profiteering. Every time the GST rates go up, there are transition costs. Companies have to revamp their accounting books. Accounting software may have to be upgraded, especially if you're unlucky enough to have purchased from a vendor who hard-coded GST at 5% into the system. These, too, are passed onto the consumer.Now imagine this happening twice, rather than once. Which is why if GST has to be increased, better that it happens at once, rather than in steps.Because sometimes one plus one adds up to more than two. Factual Statement, or Fact and Statement? I was reading various blogs of late, and was wondering about how the same fact could be interpreted in very different ways.But can a factual statement be misleading? Surely facts are true by definition?Let's examine this issue by considering two separate paragraphs. Read them, then ask yourself which countries they refer to, before continuing."There is transparency regarding all aspects of public figures' lives. This is provided by journalists who will not be deterred from their work. These journalists will not be deterred even if the public figure wants to evade their scrutiny, or if he/she resorts to legal barriers to their reporting.""There is no longer any privacy if you are a public figure. That privacy is invaded by reporters (some from the tabloids) who will not take no for an answer, who will follow you wherever you go, and who are unconstrained by the law and the courts."The answer is that these apparently different statements both refer to the same situation. Both would have been equally applicable to the media surrounding the late Princess Diana. Both statements refer to a media climate where there is little privacy protection for public figures.Yet the two statements will arouse different emotions and reactions. This is because they are more than purely factual statements. The fact is there, but it comes with a presentation that reflects a certain viewpoint.We, as bloggers, should be aware that how we present a fact can be as important as the fact itself. And in the same vein, when evaluating a "factual statement", it is important to ask oneself how that fact has been stated. Inequality and the magic Gini Discussions on income inequality often cite the Gini coefficient. While a useful way to quickly compare countries, it's also important to recognise that it is not a magic number. In fantasy literature, there are tales of the Djinn who offered a magical solution (or three wishes), albeit one with a catch -- and it's important to recognise that this Gini also has pitfalls for the unwary.An introduction to the Gini coefficient can be found on Wikipedia (and also on a United Nations website). In mathematical terms, it's a way to look at how something is distributed across a population. Most of the time, when commentators refer to the Gini coefficient, they are talking about distribution of income. But it could also refer to distribution of wealth, or land ownership, or number of children. i.e. Do the poorest 20% take home 5% or 10% of total income? Do the smallest 30% of families have 30% of the children?So when people mention Gini in a debate on inequality, most of the time they are really talking about the Gini coefficient for income.The Income Gini: does it answer our wishes?The United Nations and CIA World Factbook calculate their Gini index on the basis of income. One reason for this is the ready availability of income statistics. Household income is a relatively easy measurement to obtain, and most national governments publish this information.But the easy calculation isn't always the most accurate calculation. Let's see why:Income Taxes. What matters to your pocket isn't the raw salary -- it's how much you get to take home. For example, a base pay of $2000 without income tax is no different from a $2500 salary with a 25% overall income tax. It's important to check if the Gini index was calculated using raw salary or take-home salary.Efficiency of Income Use. Regressive taxes and expenditure can cause greater inequality than a plain Gini index would suggest. For example, let's make the reasonable assumption that every household has to buy essential goods like food, water, shelter, education and basic healthcare. We can see that for a poor household, the leftover (or "disposable") income is proportionately much less than for their well-off counterparts. Unfortunately the Gini index does not factor this in.Welfare Benefits. Depending on where and how these are given, it may affect the validity of the Gini index. For example, if the poor in a country are given food stamps, utility vouchers or other support goods, an income Gini index would not reflect this. On the other hand, a minimum wage intervention would influence the Gini index. So would a Friedman-style Negative Income Tax, if income were assessed after taxation rather than before.Absolute vs Relative Quality of Life. Let's do an imaginary (and admittedly slightly simplistic) experiment: If we parachuted in a thousand multinational CEOs while letting them draw the same salaries, it would increase the Gini coefficient of income. In fact it would be very bad for income inequality. But it would also make no difference to your take-home pay. In short, the Gini index is a relative measure. In fact the United Nations recognises this limitation, which is why they have the Human Development Index, which incorporates absolute measures of human welfare.Purchasing Power. This relates to the absolute versus relative Quality of Life discussion. The cost of basic goods and services is as important a consideration as a raw income statistic.In short, what we need is a better Gini index -- one that considers the effects of income tax, regressive taxes, welfare benefits and also real-life purchasing power. CPR & Defibrillators: Comments from a Physician Spacefan, an emergency medicine physician who blogs, has written a comment on CPR and access to Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs). I'm grateful for her permission to reproduce her comment here:speranza nuova: i read your post and think it's accurate and well-informed. you may want to try this link as well:http://www.sma.org.sg/sma_news/newspast.html[This is a link to an index; the article itself is here: Saving Hearts]i can't retrieve the issue due to server problems [Link now working], but it should be either Jan or Feb 2006. look for the article titled "Working Towards a Heartsafe Singapore".as you can see, this campaign about CPR and AEDs kicked off a year ago, but met with significant resistance and hasn't been as warmly received as we would've hoped. the foremost authority on this subject is Prof Anantharaman, whose optimism is laudable. Another expert is Dr Marcus Ong - also from SGH - who specializes in the pre-hospital aspect of emergency medicine and has done extensive research on out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.A friend with politicial contacts also assures me he's highlighted this problem to the "powers that be". We'll see what comes out of that.Perhaps I'll write more about this at a later date - ie. after my exam - but at this juncture, I'm not particularly hopeful in view of the local population's reluctance ( among both doctors and laypeople ) to take on the responsibility of bystander CPR and AED storage / maintenance and use.spacefan | 01.09.07 - 3:53 pmThe article is worth a read. And whatever the current situation, there is still something you can do today: enroll yourself in a course on CPR. While it is true that many of our citizens already are exposed to CPR during National Service, it might have been a while since those skills were refreshed. Public Shaming & CCTV: Same Coin, Two Sides? While catching up on my blog reading, two articles (among others) caught my eye.The Kway Teow Man has an article on public shaming via cameraphone, in response to Andy Ho's Straits Times article. A central thesis of his argument states: "At the end of the day, a public place is a public place. Anything that is done in a public place, except for (indecent) acts forbidden by the law, is for public consumption."Wayne Soon has written a piece on cameras in public places, in relation to CCTV in Singapore. He mentions the tradeoff between security and freedom, and also discusses the issues of privacy, as well as checks and balances.It is interesting when an idea can be interpreted as libertarian or authoritarian. Here the central idea is that any act performed in public is part of the public domain.I hope to revisit this analysis in future, but it is a curious conceptual tension. Let's follow the logic a little distance, and see where it leads us:For example, does this mean that advocates of public shaming (or at least the right to film others in public) are implicitly supporting CCTV surveillance in the principle? After all, if it is fine for an ordinary citizen to film another, why should it suddenly be unacceptable when the filming is done by a citizen who happens to be employed by the State?Similarly, does this mean that opponents of CCTV must - to be consistent in their position - also oppose the right to citizen journalism via people filming each others' public acts?Food for thought, isn't it? Mooch Ado About Something: Illegal Wireless Access [This article was originally published on Singapore Angle. You can link to the original version, and the discussion in its Comments section.]A second person in Singapore has been prosecuted for illegal wireless access. He allegedly used an unsecured wireless network to post a bomb threat. Police raided the home of the wireless network owner and seized her computer, but analysis of the machine showed she was not responsible for the bomb hoax.There has been ongoing debate about the legality of unauthorised access to an unsecured network -- a phenomenon also known as mooching. Some interesting posts have been written by Dr Huang and Aaron Ng, with equally interesting discussion in their respective Comments sections.I'm going to look at this from another angle: that of policy incentives (or disincentives), in relation to information security. In short, what kind of policy would address the problem?Incentives and Information SecurityIn 1993, a now-classic article called Why Cryptosystems Fail compared approaches to credit card fraud in the USA and UK. In the USA, there was the case of Dorothy Judd v Citibank, where a bank customer's word that she had not made an ATM withdrawal was found to outweigh the bank experts' word that she must have done. Following this, the US Federal Reserve required banks to refund all disputed transactions, unless they could prove fraud by the customer.In Britain at the time, the situation was different. Banks took the stand that their systems were incapable of fault. Customers complaining about unexplained debits (i.e. "phantom withdrawals") were told that they were lying, were mistaken, or had been defrauded by friends and relatives.As it turns out, the UK banks suffered more fraud.This is because of what economists call a moral hazard effect. For example, if somebody has automobile insurance, they may be less careful about avoiding damage to their car.In the case of the UK banks, customer complaints were not taken seriously, leading to laziness and carelessness by bank employees, with a consequent increase in fraud -- since it is the consumer who would be suffering the damage, not the bank.* Further Reading: Ross Anderson (who wrote the 1993 article) and a colleague have written a more recent analysis, The Economics of Information Security. It discusses the credit card issue and other topics.Risk and Liability: The example of Workplace SafetyThere is a doctrine in legal theory that liability should be assigned to the party that can best manage the risk.To understand this principle, let's look at workplace safety legislation as an historical example.What happens without safety laws? A company may choose to save money by not spending money on worker safety. (This does not necessarily mean that the company is "evil", since a company is a legal entity and has no intrinsic morality, good or bad.) Furthermore, even if a company wanted to be pro-safety, there is nothing to stop the next-door factory from producing widgets more cheaply, at greater risk to workers' lives. Assuming the distant purchaser only cares about price, this means that the "non-evil" factories will go out of business as they have higher operating costs.Such abuses were one factor in the creation of workplace safety laws, which in effect made it more expensive to ignore safety than to ensure it. [Also reviewed in an Economics of Law blog, Part 1 and Part 2]Or looking at it another way: Employers have better information on workplace risks, are in a position to reduce those risks, and are pressured by costs (and undercutting by others) to ignore those risks. Thus they are a nexus point where an incentive can be applied.Securing Wireless Networks: applying the incentiveLet's look once again at the problem of unsecured wireless access, and people mooching on it. The risks of mooching to the network owner include:Excess bandwidth use. It does not cost the subscriber on an unlimited access plan, but might mean less bandwidth for another user at the same exchange.Password & Data Harvesting. If the network is open, people can also start sniffing for network data packets, which may contain passwords, e-mails and so on.Incorrect accusation. This is a bigger problem. With Wireless@SG slowly rolling out across the island, there will soon be fewer "benign" reasons to mooch an unsecured network. We see this with the bomb threat that was sent through somebody else's network. The poor lady's home kena raided and computer seized. Jialat...Sabotage. This is slightly different from the above, in that a victim is specifically targeted, rather than being an incidental casualty. Somebody might purposely sabo his neighbour by doing illegal stuff through the mooched network.The problem with the status quo is that many users do not really know how to secure their home networks. Furthermore, because the wireless router operates "out of the box", the less technically savvy users (or the more bo chap ones) may plug everything in and assume all is well once the web shows up in their browser. Thus users are in a situation of inadequate information -- and therefore open networks will still be prevalent even if we adopt a doctrine of abetment (as Aaron Ng and Dr Huang have discussed). This is analogous to holding a worker responsible for all aspects of workplace safety -- he may not know enough about the risks, or how to change them, even if he can.It is also not enough to hold the moocher liable, since there are many unsecured networks, and there may also be moochers who are good at covering their tracks. So cracking down on moochers is not the whole solution.Is the Default the Fault?Perhaps the incentive should be shifted to the wireless router manufacturers and their local distributors. Many items of equipment require IDA approval (complete with sticker), so it would be a simple step for IDA to make this one of the conditions for sale in Singapore.Two possible ways to do this:Requiring a password to be entered, when the router is first set up. The downside is that an inexperienced user might blur blur enter the password and then lose or forget it. However a hard reset of the router would allow one to start anew.Requiring a secure network as the out-of-box default. A secure encrypted network would be the default configuration, with the access password printed on a piece of paper inside the box. Of course, the password must be different for each box, but this should not be an issue unless the vendor is blur sotong.The common theme is that a positive action is required from the customer (not passiveinaction) to render the network unsecure.This will not stop people from blur blur buying unsecured routers overseas and then setting them up, but hopefully those savvy enough to go shopping for routers overseas will also be savvy enough to secure their networks. It also won't stop the determined hacker who can crack into encrypted wireless networks.But it will address the bulk of the problem -- which is widespread unintentionally unsecured networks.Note: No offence is intended by the word "blur". Sometimes recognising that a consumer can be blur (not everybody is super zai techno expert wat...) is the first step towards better consumer protection. :-)[Acknowledgements: Many thanks to HC, BL and KTM for their input.] When Hearts Stop: CPR & Defibrillators The Straits Times today covered the issue of Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs):STRAITS TIMESJan 7, 2007Why is this life-saving device not found in many workplaces?It's not cheap, say companies; it's not necessary, say doctorsBy Nur Dianah SuhaimiLAST month, a man running a marathon suffered a heart attack and collapsed metres from the finish line.He survived, largely because an automated external defibrillator (AED) was on hand, and a doctor happened to be running beside him.The incident prompted a Sunday Times reader to suggest that all offices should invest in a defibrillator, since the workplace is where people spend most of their time.Many workers here agreed. Companies and doctors did not.A defibrillator can make a big difference between life and death.When a person goes into cardiac arrest, the heart rhythm will be chaotic and irregular. This hinders blood flow, limits oxygen supply to the brain and can kill a person in five to 10 minutes.With a defibrillator, the heart can be shocked into action again and resume its normal pumping pattern. However, the shock has to be delivered within a matter of minutes for the patient to survive.According to a National Heart Centre survey in 2004, an average of one to two Singaporeans under the age of 60 die from sudden cardiac arrest every day.If the cardiac arrest takes place outside a hospital, there is only a 2.7 per cent chance of surviving. Defibrillators here are mostly found in hospitals and ambulances.In the United States, where such devices can be found in offices, schools and even casinos, the survival rate is 45 per cent.Professor V. Anantharaman, senior consultant at Singapore General Hospital's department of emergency medicine, said that ideally, the life-saving device should be as ubiquitous as the fire extinguisher. ...I think the article may have missed out on some of the bigger issues. The figure below is reproduced from the National Heart Centre website. It compares the survival odds for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in various scenarios:[Source: CPR Training Guidelines 2006 Update in Advanced Cardiac Life Support, National Heart Centre]Firstly, a defibrillator alone is not the solution. While it is true that access to one will increase your chance of surviving a cardiac arrest (from certain death to 2%), it is also important to have immediate access to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (also known as CPR). You do not need to be a healthcare worker to give CPR -- lay people can learn how to do it, and there are courses on this.Giving CPR early on, while the defibrillator is on its way (currently this is via ambulance or paramedic), will improve survival odds to around 8%.These odds improve further to 20%, if the defibrillator arrives sooner on the scene. But it is important to recognise that defibrillators save lives in conjunction with early CPR. The defibrillator's usefulness is limited if nobody at the scene knows CPR -- while the defibrillator may get the heart to start beating on its own again, CPR keeps the heart beating while waiting for help to arrive.Public-Access Defibrillation: the United States experienceIn 2004, a study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Community areas (e.g. shopping malls and apartment complexes) were assigned to a structured emergency-response system run by lay person volunteers. One group was trained for CPR alone. The other was trained in CPR and the use of AEDs. Nearly 1000 community areas took part in the study, with 19000 volunteers. The findings showed:CPR with a public access defibrillator is superior to CPR alone. Of the people who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in these community areas, more people survived to leave hospital alive in the group with CPR and AED (23%), versus the group that did CPR alone (14%).Most survivors were rescued in public areas. In the study, only 2 survivors were from residential complexes. This finding appears logical: a person collapsing in a public venue is more likely to be seen by bystanders, compared to being at home with nobody nearby. It also suggests that most beneficiaries of access to out-of-hospital CPR and early defibrillation will be those who had their cardiac arrest in a public area.This study shows that training volunteers and equipping them to give CPR and early defibrillation can improve the survival odds of cardiac arrest victims. Furthermore, these volunteers can be drawn from among laypersons -- such as ordinary men and women on the street.Saving lives and making a differenceSo what can we do to make a difference in our dire survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest? (Currently it is 2.7%, which means that out of 100 people having cardiac arrest outside a hospital, 97 are going to die.)Firstly, you can enrol yourself in a course on CPR. You can also encourage your employer or institution to organise CPR training. The chart above shows that just giving CPR (while waiting for the ambulance to arrive with a defibrillator) improves the victim's survival to 8%.As part of a CPR training initiative, you and your organisation can explore the implementation of Automated External Defibrillators. A layperson can use these with training, and the American experience has shown that the odds improve further to at least 20%.The authorities should also roll out defibrillators (also training on-site staff in CPR and their use) in public venues such as Changi Airport, MRT stations, community centres and schools. Each such device is about $3,000 plus some ongoing maintenance, but this should not be too onerous a cost for the public purse. In addition to the survival value of such training and equipment, there are also the benefits of improved awareness of CPR, and greater knowledge of heart disease and health matters.These are things which we, as concerned citizens, can work towards.You too can make a difference today, by educating yourself in CPR and how to help save a life.[Addendum (16 Jan 2007): An emergency medicine physician has provided her viewpoint on this topic.] Saddam Snuff Pornography Saddam Hussein committed crimes against humanity and atrocities upon his people, but -- whatever your views on the death penalty -- it does not justify the theater and circus which his execution has degenerated into.Videos of him being led to the gallows have been splashed across television screens. First there was the "official" video without soundtrack, which ended when the executioners put the rope around his neck.Then a second "unofficial" video was leaked to the news networks. An audio track was present on this recording, likely made on a mobile phone. As recounted in a John Simpson article and another report on BBC News Online:"Far from being a quiet and dignified business, the new video shows that several of the witnesses taunted Saddam during the last seconds of his life, chanted the name of one of his many enemies, and told him he was going to hell."This second, audio-intact recording of Saddam Hussein's death spoke as much about his executioners as it did about him. The world community's view of Iraq and her government will have been shaped by the broadcast. Most will agree that Saddam was a perpetuator of atrocities, but some will now ask if he was but first among equals.Is the broadcasting of Saddam's death really a case of news reporting? I never thought I'd see the day when a celebrity snuff film was broadcast on prime time television. Taiwan Quake: Communications Considerations A major earthquake occurred off Taiwan on Tuesday evening. In addition to the human cost and property damage, inter-nation communications across Asia have been disrupted or impeded. This was caused by damage to several undersea data cables carrying both voice and data communications. [Quake knocks Asia back to pre-Internet days, CNN]Some e-commerce operations were disrupted. Businesses dependent on rapid Internet updates (e.g. stock trading) also encountered inefficiencies. Personal users were not spared: Google and Yahoo were inaccessible to many.Bandwidth is limited, so I'll keep this entry short. Here are some issues and considerations which flow from this event:International telecoms as a Strategic Resource. Efficient international telecommunications links will increasingly become a strategic resource, as Singapore moves towards a knowledge economy with growing e-commerce and other Internet operations. We may have excellent domestic bandwidth, but we also need to be connected to the outside world. Just as air routes joined sea lanes as strategic links, so will telecoms. Being disconnected from cyberspace may soon be as disruptive for a country as isolation from the physical world.More satellite backup is needed. If this resource has strategic value, it requires protection. For example, our domestic Internet Service Providers (ISPs) could diversify their bandwidth portfolio, relying less on undersea cable. There should be additional reserve of satellite Internet. While satellite bandwidth has slower transfer rates and longer latency times, every bit helps when the cables are out of action.Taiwan has another vulnerable front. If I were a strategic scenario planner for Taiwan, I'd be looking very hard at how to protect international telephone and Internet communications in a cross-strait crisis. A communications blockade might be as damaging as interdiction of shipping, yet requires far less expenditure of men and matériel. Some might argue that the collateral damage to other Asia-Pacific nations would be unjustifiable, but it would be foolhardy to take anything for granted in a major crisis, e.g. an imminent declaration of Taiwan independence.As always, feedback and input are welcome. If you can read this, let me know how the Internet blackout affected you (or not, as the case may be), and what you think of it all. A December of Disasters Epilogos has written a post on the many natural disasters that have befallen our region of late:Singapore Life and Times: A dismal DecemberIt's worth a read. As Epilogos says, "While we hope that it never happens again, who can stop the forces of nature?" Thailand's currency controls: a Singapore angle [An earlier version of this article was previously published on Singapore Angle, on 20 Dec 06.]Earlier this week, the Thai government announced measures to restrict currency trading. The response to these capital controls was a precipitous fall in the Thai stock market. Despite a temporary trading suspension, the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) index suffered the biggest one day fall in the 31-year history of the exchange. Other regional stock markets were also hit, including Singapore's.Since then, the Thai government has changed its position. Stock market investment will now be exempt from the capital controls. (A chronology of news coverage can be found as a footnote to this article.)This incident has stimulated commentary from various quarters, including The Economist [Thai markets rout, 19 Dec 06] and the geopolitical intelligence service Stratfor [Thailand's Rash 'Lock-up' Move, 19 Dec 06, subscription required]. The Nation, a Thai newspaper, has also weighed in on the matter [Pridiyathorn's big gamble, 19 Dec 06].Temasek Holdings [2006 Review and Wikipedia entry], an investment arm of the Singapore Government, has investments in Thailand. These include a stake in Shin Corporation [Wikipedia entry] purchased in January 2006 from the family of Thaksin Shinawatra, former Prime Minister of Thailand.In this article I will look at 3 issues:1. Why capital inflow became a concern for Thailand.2. What went wrong with their policy measures.3. Why these events are important for Singapore.[Disclaimer: I am not a trained economist and these comments, like the rest of my blog articles, are in my capacity as a private citizen. Professional advice should be sought before making any investment decisions. Caveat lector!]Why capital inflow became a concern for ThailandInflows of money can be a good thing for a country and its economy. For example, foreign investment may be used to buy real estate and build factories, which in turn create jobs and produce goods which can be exported. This may be regarded as direct investment, as opposed to portfolio investment which includes stocks and bonds.Money invested in local banks contributes to their capital supply, allowing them to provide more loans. Loans to businesses can stimulate enterprise, while personal loans can stimulate demand. (Admittedly this is a bit of a simplification -- while it is true that banks in theory could keep on lending money ad infinitum, most banks prefer to limit this. There are also many nuances to loans, as they influence the money supply and have public policy implications.)Building a factory and exporting the goods for resale is but one way to make a profit. A foreign investor can also gain by buying and selling assets at different times. If a foreigner uses US dollars to buy a Thai asset, he can make a profit by selling the asset after the Thai baht increases in value relative to the US dollar. (Here's an abstract example to help clarify the concept: If one buys 1 packet of foreign currency at US$1, and the same unit is later worth US$2, one can make a US$1 profit by selling after the increase.)Sometimes the market is volatile -- i.e. changes are occurring rapidly and in the short term. This has been the case of late, due to the falling US dollar. If the US dollar falls rapidly, then the above method of buying and selling assets becomes more profitable: one can buy an asset using US dollars and then resell it for more US dollars, as the US dollar weakens and the Thai baht strengthens.Investors can also contribute to volatility. One example would be short selling, where an investor tries to profit from the decline in price of an asset (e.g. stocks, bonds or currency).Volatility can sometimes be a problem. When the value of the Thai baht shifts upwards, it hurts Thai exports. If a local business is not lush with financial reserves, then it may not be able to weather even a temporary fall in exports, and will then have to close -- with consequent unemployment. Beyond the human cost of job losses, there are also broader economic repercussions: unemployed people do not consume as many goods, and this means fewer customers for local retail, and so on.Also, if many foreign investors rapidly withdraw their capital (e.g. once it looks like the US dollar is no longer falling against the Thai baht), it may spark a further wave of selling of Thai assets. This, combined with other investors seeking to short sell, may cause a rapid fall in the market -- a hard landing or a market crash.This would explain Thailand's intention of reducing the inflow of "hot money" (i.e. short-term investments).What went wrong with Thailand's policy measuresAs described by The Economist, Thailand's initial approach to the problem was as follows:"Under the first version of the rules, anyone selling more than [US$] $20,000-worth of foreign currency, other than for the purposes of trade, would have had to deposit 30% of it with the central bank -- at zero interest -- for one year, or forfeit one-third of the deposit."- The Economist, 19 Dec 06 [Link]Thus for every US$1 brought in, only 70 cents would be available to the foreign investor for the originally intended purpose. If the investment was for a duration shorter than 1 year, then one third of the 30 cents deposit would be forfeit -- i.e. a 10% tax on short term investments. To put this in perspective, the Tobin Tax advocated by opponents of currency speculation would have been around 0.1% to 0.25%, much less than a 10% levy.A comparable system existed in Chile from 1991 to 1998, called the encaje. For portfolio investment inflows, foreign investors were required to make a 30% deposit in a zero-interest account with the Chilean central bank. The Chileans also imposed a 3% penalty on early withdrawals, but this was much less than the 10% Thai requirement, and thus less likely to scare investors into leaving. [The encaje is reviewed by Neely (1999) in Review of the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis]Furthermore, it appears that the first version of the Thai policy did not distinguish between stock market and other investments. Thus it had a chilling effect on both.The policy may also have approached the issue from the wrong direction. During the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, Malaysia's capital controls prevented speculators from removing their gains until some time had passed. The strategic effect was to weight the economy in favour of long term investors (and thus long term projects such as businesses, factories and infrastructure). As a tactical decision, it prevented capital flight by imposing capital controls on short-term outflow. New "hot money" investors might have been put off, but investors already committed could not easily cut and run.In contrast, Thailand's approach was to restrict capital inflow without any controls on outflow. While this had the same effect as the Malaysian policy in discouraging the short-term investors out to make a quick profit, it did not prevent investors from running if spooked -- and spooked they were. Thus capital inflow controls were achieved, but with the collateral damage of capital flight.Not all of the sell-offs would have been by foreign investors: once the market dived precipitously, a wave of panic selling would have overtaken local and foreign investors alike, as they sought to cut their losses.It seems to me that the Thai authorities did not adequately anticipate the spooked response of investors. Why else would they have proceeded as they did? Any post-mortem of the incident should explore this.It would be an interesting study to compare investor sentiment in 1990s Chile, as compared to late 2006 Thailand. The 3% versus 10% lock-in levy is one possible reason for the different response, but other factors should also be surveyed. (I was unable to find good references about 1990s Chile online; perhaps a helpful reader could direct me to some.)Why these events are important for SingaporeAny economic turmoil in Thailand is bound to have knock-on effects in the surrounding region, including Singapore. This phenomenon of contagion was a major problem in the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. The region seems to have weathered it better this time round; this is presumably because many countries' financial institutions have been strengthened since 1997.Singapore has investments in Thailand, including Shin Corp. Temasek's investment profile states that 12% of its investments were in ASEAN (not including Singapore), as of 31 Mar 06. Some of this 12% would have been invested in Thailand.The Economist article of 19 Dec 06 notes that other worries besides currency restrictions are weighing on the minds of potential investors. Shin Corp is mentioned:"The confusion over the currency restrictions is not the only thing to give potential investors in Thailand pause for thought. An investigation into Shin Corp, the telecoms business sold to a Singaporean government agency by the deposed prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, has raised doubts about the legal status of many foreign-owned firms in Thailand. Tesco, a British retailer, has been pressured to slow its Thai expansion drive, following protests by small shopkeepers. Above all, it is still unclear how stable and how market-friendly a government will emerge once elections are held, around a year from now."- The Economist, 19 Dec 06 [Link](boldface highlights are my own)Stratfor's assessment is more colloquial in language, but makes related points:"[Following the Thai coup] while most observers -- including Washington and Wall Street -- watched with a wary eye, they withheld judgment and indulged in calming platitudes that Bangkok should soon get back to whatever Thais consider "normal." No firms were nationalized, no opposition (or former government) officials were shot, and life more or less went on."- Stratfor - Thailand's Rash 'Lock-up' Move, 19 Dec 06 [Link](boldface highlights are my own)The two issues highlighted above, among others, are of relevance to Singapore:Foreign ownership of firms in ThailandThere is currently an ongoing Thai investigation into Shin Corp's acquisition by Temasek Holdings [Wikipedia article and Review by Yawning Bread]. One question pertains to Thai shareholders, and whether they should be defined as having nominee or agency relationships. [The existing Thai law on this is reviewed by Bennet & Savage (2006).]The outcome may set precedents regarding the legal status of many foreign-owned firms in Thailand. According to a Bangkok Post article of 23 Aug 06 [Link], Shin Corp would not be alone in facing trouble, were Thailand's rules on corporate foreign ownership to be reinterpreted.In the same vein, Bennet & Savage note that other prominent foreign investors such as Tesco, Holcim and Carrefour might be affected by a negative determination against Shin. The authors conclude:"...foreign investment in Thailand, and the rule of law for which it is respected, will suffer a severe blow if the MOC [Thai Ministry of Commerce], in response to the politically motivated protests against the Shin Deal, were to change the rules, make them effective retrospectively, and issue a ruling adverse to Shin Corporation and its investors."- Bennet & Savage (Oct 2006) Foreign Investment in Thailand: Will the Rules be Changed?[M&A Review, AsiaLaw.com]The prospect of nationalizationInvestor concern might also ensue if private firms undergo nationalization. iTV, a broadcast company owned by Shin and now indirectly owned by Temasek, has been levelled with a fine of 90 billion baht (about Singapore $4 billion) for emphasising entertainment over news, with the fines to be paid within 45 days. [iTV fine decision will not be reversed, The Nation, 20 Dec 06]To put this amount in perspective, in 2004 the European Union fined Microsoft an amount worth US$613 million (equivalent to about 24 billion baht at the time). The iTV fine exceeds this amount.As iTV only has about 1.2 billion baht in liquidity, its only other source of financial support will have to be Shin Corp. But could the parent company justify a 90 billion baht bailout? It is therefore more likely that iTV will declare bankruptcy and close -- or be taken over by the state in a de facto nationalization. [Setback for Temasek as Thai court fines ITV, South China Morning Post 14 Dec 06]ConclusionsThe ongoing Shin saga has implications beyond Singapore's Temasek Holdings. Decisions on Shin Corp may set precedents, which in turn can influence investor sentiment -- one key example would be the rules on foreign ownership of Thai companies.As such, the fate of Shin Corp and its subsidaries will be closely watched by many foreign investors. An adverse decision for Shin could spook investors, especially if the outcome is seen as arbitrary.In the current climate, it is crucial for Thailand to make decisions that preserve investor confidence. So long as this is the guiding principle for the Thai authorities in matters involving Shin Corp, then Singapore's investment in Shin may not be as precarious as some commentators have suggested.[Many thanks to HC and BL for their input.]**Footnotes[1] Some contemporaneous ChannelNewsAsia coverage can be viewed at:19 Dec 06 - 1244hrs: [CNA] Thai stocks suspended after nosediving 10%19 Dec 06 - 1354hrs: [CNA] Thai stocks plunge 12% after central bank moves 19 Dec 06 - 1541hrs: [CNA] Asian stocks punished as Thai govt spooks investors with capital controls19 Dec 06 - 1928hrs: [CNA] Asian stocks slump following sharp losses in Thai shares20 Dec 06 - 0913hrs: [CNA] Thai stocks set to recover from rout after U-turn on curbs Outside Context Problems [In a departure from our regular programming, I'm writing something a bit more fanciful -- especially as it's the holiday season! :o) ]The thought of an Outside Context Problem crossed my mind the other day, and I was reminded of when I'd last seen the phrase, amidst the science fiction writings of Iain M. Banks.In his novel Excession, the Outside Context Problem is described thus:"An Outside Context Problem was the sort of thing most civilisations encountered just once, and which they tended to encounter rather in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop. The usual example given to illustrate an Outside Context Problem was imagining you were a tribe on a largish, fertile island; you'd tamed the land, invented the wheel or writing or whatever, the neighbours were cooperative or enslaved but at any rate peaceful and you were busy raising temples to yourself with all the excess productive capacity you had, you were in a position of near-absolute power and control which your hallowed ancestors could hardly have dreamed of and the whole situation was just running along nicely like a canoe on wet grass... when suddenly this bristling lump of iron appears sailless and trailing steam in the bay and these guys carrying long funny-looking sticks come ashore and announce you've just been discovered, you're all subjects of the Emperor now, he's keen on presents called tax and these bright-eyed holy men would like a word with your priests."- Iain M. Banks, Excession (1996)By definition, there are limitless possibilities for Outside Context Problems which could threaten the existence and viability of a country or civilization. But some could still be hedged against or avoided -- I'll call these Near Outside Context Problems. If a civilization were to expand its conceptual continuum (or Context), then issues in the near-outside might be perceived and analysed, allowing the prospect of surviving a Near Outside Context Problem.For example, biowarfare response protocols should consider not just known pathogens, but also unknown agents which could be classified according to functional criteria. Thus, in addition to a specific list containing smallpox, anthrax and Ebola, one might also create a functional classification. For transmission methods, this might include:Blood-borne (i.e. requires contact with open wound or mucous membrane)Physical contactDropletsAirborneAirborne with distant transmissibilityMind-borne via sensory contact [only exists in science fiction!]Mind-borne across long distances [only exists in science fiction!]In the world which we inhabit, the final two categories do not exist. [The United States Centers for Disease Control has an interesting review of infection control precautions.] But a civilization which had conceived of them might stand a better chance of weathering the onslaught of such an agent.Let's think up something a bit less fanciful. What about the taxonomy of poisons?Biological toxins (e.g. botulinum toxin, saxitoxin)Chemical toxins (e.g. thallium, arsenic, cyanide)Radioactive toxins (e.g. polonium-210)In any poisoning case, the diagnostic thought processes would normally turn to biological and chemical agents. Until November 2006 and the demise of Alexander Litvinenko, few would have considered a radioactive toxin. This would have been an Outside Context Problem for Litvinenko's physicians.While it is important to have a sense of reality and perspective, it may also be prudent for any large organisation to consider the Outside Context from time to time. Exhaustive planning and preparation need not remain the province of comic book characters like Batman, who in the Tower of Babel miniseries was revealed to have developed methods of disabling any Justice League member (in case they went rogue), from Superman to The Flash to Green Lantern. :-) The Elites Debate: Fear, Loathing & Confusion Aaron Ng has written an article on his blog about elitism.I'd like to start this blog article with a pop quiz. Ask yourself which of the following people is an "elite":A taxi driver with 20 years' experience knows the roads well. He left school at Primary 3. Both his children are in university. One child has gotten straight As, and is now achieving in her university economics class. She will one day be an academic and a professor. Is she an elite? Is her father an elite if she becomes an elite?A successful corporate lawyer quits the law to join the priesthood. Was he an elite? Is he now an elite?An up and coming doctor gives up a potentially lucrative career path to work for Médicins Sans Frontiers. Is she an elite?A kway teow man fries some of the best kway teow in the country People from all over come to eat his kway teow, and some even write about him in food guides and lifestyle magazines. He has saved up enough to buy a Mercedes. Is this kway teow man an elite?The son of a rich family drops out of school. He lives off the family wealth, doing nothing each day. Is he an elite?Hopefully you can see from these examples that the word elite is ambiguous. Some people will consider all 5 examples as elite; some will say none of them is really an elite. Yet others will choose in between. Thus any discussion about elites requires further clarification, so that all parties know exactly what is being talked about.Fear, Loathing and ConfusionI think one problem with the current debate on elites is that the word means different things to different people. This causes two problems:Firstly, people may be vehemently arguing about something called "X", but if each has a different idea of what that "X" is, there can be no progress in the discussion.Second, the word elite has negative connotations in some circles. The negative baggage clouds the discussion, in the same way that a discussion on ethnic Chinese would be muddled if the text referred to them as chinks. Of course, if the agenda of the discussant is to include negative baggage, then it might actually be a strategic move to use such words.Words have power, not just in their intrinsic meaning, but also in the additional nuances conferred upon them by the social conditioning of the observer. So it is important to understand the connotations of words, and if necessary avoid the use of unclear language. This is why readers of my blog will notice that I hardly use the word elite -- because it is a nebulous term, and ripe with additional meaning in the local context.How do we talk, if we don't know what we're talking about?In short, the "elites" debate actually might be about whether academic achievement should determine society's valuation of a person. Or whether a person's success in life should be measured by his material goods. Or whether your social background justifies looking down on others. Or whether it is a bad thing for a hawker's son to take a government scholarship and study overseas.Merging all these issues into the ambiguous, charged word "elite" does not help the discussion, and does not help us as a society get any closer to the truth or an answer.Of course, this assumes our aim is to find answers and reach a solution. If the objective is to keep the emotional fires of class division and envy alive and burning, then it makes perfect sense to keep discussants at cross purposes, and to prevent the debate from advancing.* Some previous articles I've written on elites and elitism include:[1] Meritocracy and Elites: On Gifts and Responsibility (21 Oct 2006)[2] If Doing Well Became Doing Wrong (07 Nov 2006) Regressive Taxation and Progressive Means Testing While reading the ongoing discussion about how GST is a regressive tax, a curious idea occurred to me: Does the absence of means testing make a public healthcare system regressive?This question has implications for public policy debates, and also for critics of GST and means testing alike.I'll start by discussing progressive taxation with particular reference to Singapore's income tax policy, followed by an outline of why a flat-rated GST has regressive impact. The final part of this article will broach the question of whether a healthcare system requires means testing to be progressive.What do we mean by a regressive system of taxation?Let's start by looking at what people mean by progressive (as opposed to regressive) in the economic sense. Such economic terms have connotations beyond their original technical context (e.g. progressive has semantic echoes of progress) and it's important to bear this in mind for the following discussion.Often mentioned in the context of income tax, a progressive tax increases the tax rate as the amount being taxed increases. Those with higher incomes are taxed a greater proportion, under a progressive income tax regime.In Singapore, income tax is progressive. For the first $20,000 in chargeable income each year, you do not pay any income tax at all. In fact you could earn substantially more than $20,000 a year and still be exempt from income tax: this is because of tax relief on matters such as CPF contributions and being a parent.Beyond the first $20,000 in chargeable income, you start paying income tax. The tax paid per additional dollar earned (i.e. the marginal tax rate) increases with income, hence it is a progressive tax.I have taken the tax rates from the IRAS website and derived some additional figures, for various levels of chargeable income: (a graph is included at the end, to summarise the data)$20,000 or less. You do not pay income tax. Your income tax is therefore 0%.$20,001 to $30,000. You pay 3.5% on each dollar from $20,001 to $30,000. This means you pay between 3.5¢ to $350 income tax: i.e. anything between 0% and 1.7% of your income.$30,001 to $40,000. You pay 5.5% on each additional dollar in this range. So on top of the $350 from the previous bracket, you pay up to $550 more. Your cumulative income tax is between $350 and $900 -- 1.17% to 2.25% of your income.$40,001 to $80,000. You pay 8.5% on each additional dollar beyond $40,000, on top of everything else. On top of the previous $900, you pay up to $3,400 extra at the top of the bracket. Your income tax would be $900 to $4,300 -- or 2.25% to 5.38% of your total chargeable income.$80,001 to $160,000. The tax rate jumps again, with 14% levied. So you'd pay up to $11,200 on top of the $4,300 from previous tax brackets. You would pay $4,300 to $15,500 in income tax -- or 5.38% to 9.69% of total chargeable income.$160,001 to $320,000. In this bracket there is 17% income tax on each additional dollar earned beyond $160,001. Total income tax is $15,500 to $42,700 -- or 9.69% to 13.34% of total chargeable income.$320,001 and above. If you earn this much a year, you are very fortunate, and you are also charged 20% on every dollar you earn beyond $320,000. Your income tax will be at least $42,700. It will range between 13.34% and 20% of your income -- the amount edges closer to 20% for higher incomes.[Source: Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore - Tax Rates for Resident Individuals]*Figures refer to Year of Assessment 2007[Click on picture for larger version.]What do these figures tell us? Firstly, we can see that income tax eats away a larger proportion of income for high wage earners. More importantly, many people do not need to pay income tax, or pay a very small proportion of their salary -- e.g. If you earn $30,000 a year (or $2,500 per month), you pay at most 1.17% of your salary into income tax. The worker who earns $1,660 or less per month doesn't pay income tax at all.This is what we mean by progressive taxation.Why is GST regressive?Opponents of single-rate GST say that it is regressive because the tax takes a greater proportion of poor peoples' income, compared to the rich. Some commentators have stated this without describing exactly how the regressive nature comes about; here's my own attempt at explaining it.Although people may differ on whether a car, washing machine or television is a luxury or necessity, we can all agree that certain goods are essential for a basic living: rice, sugar, water, shelter, electricity and so on. Everybody has to purchase these basic goods, whether you are rich or poor. The rich man may purchase a more expensive type of rice, but this is conceptually equivalent to purchasing basic no-frills rice plus an additional "luxury factor": imagine Thai fragrant rice as regular rice with extra flavouring and nicer branded packaging.Now imagine that the high-income rich man has chosen to live in the same conditions as the poor person: e.g. a one-room flat with rice, instant noodles and canned food for meals, and minimum use of electricity and water. The "basic needs" expenditure would be the same, and under a fixed GST regime, so would the the amount of GST paid. Furthermore, since basic goods must be purchased, the GST payment on them cannot be avoided under a flat-rate GST system. As the higher-income individual has more money coming in each month, the amount of GST paid is a smaller proportion of his salary -- and a flat-rate GST is therefore regressive.Having a lower rate of GST on essential goods is one way to solve the problem of regressiveness, because it reduces the GST paid on basic necessities, while still enforcing the full rate on elective purchases which only a wealthier consumer would buy. Rebates on essential goods for lower-income households would have a similar effect. Each of these policy instruments has their weaknesses, but that's a discussion for another day. Let's move on to something seemingly unrelated: healthcare.Is it regressive to have healthcare without means testing?Let's extend the same analysis to a public healthcare system. For our purposes, let's consider the subsidised C-class ward in a restructured public hospital in Singapore. [Link to MOH information on hospital fees]Imagine two individuals with the same medical problem. One is wealthy and lives in landed property, with lots of money in the bank. The other lives in the one-room flat mentioned previously. Both people opt for a C-class ward in the hospital. Since the medical problem is identical, and the class of hospital ward is the same, both will be charged the same amount. But for the less well-off consumer, the amount expended on the same treatment is a bigger proportion of his salary -- a regressive situation (in the economic sense of the word).This regressive effect could be offset by means testing. Under such a system, the more wealthy consumer would receive less subsidy, even if the services obtained were the same.But if that's the case, why is it that some people simultaneously oppose GST and means testing for healthcare? In some ways the two come from the same philosophical position: that the poor should pay a smaller proportion of their income on certain essential goods and services.Food for thought indeed![Addendum (12 Dec 06): I've added a graph to accompany the figures.] Surprise Inspections: Seeing Things As They Are I was reading a blog by one Ephraim Loy. He has written the following in his entry of 7th Dec 2006:"If I were a high official, or maybe a civil servant (thanks for the suggestion by a reader) in the Ministry of Defence, I would take time to visit army camps every week.But I will conduct surprise visits..."This touches on an important question in the field of organisational behaviour and management. Leadership is not merely about setting objectives and goals. It is also about understanding the organisation and how it is operating (or not). If a leader does not have a feel for operations, even the best-intentioned of goals may end up as empty decrees. Sometimes the system may need to be incrementally improved or radically overhauled in order to achieve the strategic objective -- if the leader is unaware of this, the mission will be stillborn.In an ideal world where subordinates tell the situation "as it is", and an organisation rewards such candour, visits will automatically be candid. However human nature is such that people want to give a good impression, especially if assessment occurs periodically rather than continuously. Since a senior leader cannot be in all places all of the time, such visits must inevitably be periodic. People, being human and thus exhibiting human nature, will therefore want to put their best foot forward at the time of a visit.This is not necessarily a bad thing, since the assessor can see the organisation at its best. But it is also important to understand the organisation in its day to day existence. A "best quality" performance is rarely sustainable over time -- it is by definition a statistical outlier, requiring a confluence of favourable factors. Or worse still, a "best quality" performance may be put on using a specially prepared flagship sample, rather than a representative sample.This is where the surprise visit has its value. If planned visits do not always result in candid assessments, then some visits should be unplanned, so that people cannot present an artificially rosy situation.A Surprise StoryThere is a story about a Defence Minister from several decades ago. Once a month or so, during the lunch hour, he would get into his car and ask his staff driver to take him to one of the military camps. On arrival outside the guard house, he would ask the guard on duty to take him to the Commanding Officer. The CO would then accompany him on an inspection of the camp! Needless to say, there was very little room for wayang.This story may be apocryphal, but it is worth pondering even today. Although we live in an era of e-mail and instant messages, there is still no substitute for personally seeing things as they are, whatever your line of work.The Limits of SurpriseThe "surprise inspection" approach has its limits, though. Depending on how it is implemented, a culture of fear may result. Working practices may change to put on a show all of the time, rather than only at inspection time. A better solution would be to engender a corporate culture where candour and straight-talking are valued, and where yes-men do not have a place. This is also an aspect of leadership: setting the tone for the organisation.I hope to revisit this topic at a later date. But for now I'd like to point you to an interesting article by Sydney Finkelstein at Dartmouth College: Zombie Businesses - How to Learn from Their Mistakes.[Belated thanks to The Legal Janitor for discussions.] Elder Employment and The Welfare Dilemma This was published on ChannelNewsAsia:Singaporeans need to work beyond retirement age to provide for their golden yearsBy Noor Mohd Aziz, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 28 November 2006 1552 hrsSingaporeans have been urged to work past the legislated retirement to build up a nest egg for their golden years as the funds might not stretch long enough.Citing figures, the National Trades Union Congress Secretary General Lim Boon Heng said a high proportion of older workers have dropped out of the job market.That is why a tripartite committee comprising NTUC, the government and employers is studying how to help older Singaporeans find work and stay on working.Mr Lim said: "NTUC has long recognised this and therefore pushed for raising the effective retirement age. It is important to focus on the effective retirement age and not on the legislated retirement age. Currently our official retirement age is 62 but many drop out from the age of 55 years." - CNA/ch [Link]Many commentators regard employment in the golden years as a terrible thing. The idea of an able-bodied 60-year old serving clients at McDonald's is revolting to them. But take 30 years off the worker's age, and there is no longer a problem. In fact the selfsame observer might frown upon the able-bodied 30-year old who chooses willful unemployment and a life on the dole.This value judgement may stem from the belief that older people shouldn't be working, especially if the job is "menial". Perhaps it arises from the oft-cited "Asian value" of respect for elders: in these value systems, the elder occupies a privileged position and therefore should be allowed to enjoy his retirement without pressure to work.In this article I'm going to take the controversial position that elder workers may actually have good reasons to work in some capacity: perhaps not a full working week, but on a part-time basis. I am also going to argue that the benefits apply even in "menial" jobs.Let's start by looking at why people work -- for many people, it's because of money. The dilemma of saving up money for old age is founded on a few questions:How long can you expect to live? If everybody could reasonably expect to die within 10 years of retirement, they would know how much to save during their working careers. In the days of poor public health, a fair number of people would die around 65, having worked till 55. But what about now, where better medical care means you might live till 75 or 85? If you stop work at 55, there is the chance you will need sufficient savings to last you for THIRTY years, till you are 85. Or maybe even longer.What health risks will you face in old age? The problem is compounded by the increasing need for medical care as one gets older. An acute medical emergency can eat away one's savings. There is also chronic care, which should be maintained as insurance against the ravages of chronic disease.For example, there is good scientific epidemiological evidence that better control of diabetes will reduce the risk of major diabetic eye disease by a quarter and early kidney damage by a third. Furthermore, good control of high blood pressure will take at least a third each off your risk of stroke, serious vision deterioration and death from long-term complications of diabetes. [UK Prospective Diabetes Study, 1998]Medication to control chronic disease risks, while not as expensive as a heart bypass or dialysis, is still going to require money.When do you stop work? The moment you stop work completely, you no longer have an income stream. If you are wealthy, you may have significant interest income from your investments. But interest rates do not always match inflation, so if you spend the interest income, your nest egg is still going to shrink in real terms (i.e. when adjusted for inflation). Of course, if you - like the majority of potential retirees - are not sitting on a fortune, then your living and healthcare expenses will slowly eat away at your retirement savings.What sources of help will you have? In the days of large families, the financial burden of supporting an aged parent could be spread across many children. Today, with shrinking family sizes, that option may be less feasible.State-funded social security is not a guaranteed solution, because the funds still come from the wider nation: in effect your countrymen become your extended family. And if the demographics of your extended family are those of an aging population, then the net effect is of one where households have just 2 breadwinners to support 4 elderly grandparents. In short, we cannot assume that the breadwinner will always earn enough to support the elderly through filial donations (or taxes, in the broader economy).It also doesn't help that the cost of raising children has increased over the years. So the middle-income family is now squeezed on two fronts: elderly parents and young children.So if you expect to live longer, with ongoing healthcare costs, and if family and society cannot pick up all of the bill for you -- what can you do? How can you protect your retirement funds?A dollar earned is a dollar saved. This is a key benefit of ongoing employment -- every dollar you earn is one less dollar withdrawn from your retirement savings. The opportunity cost of fund withdrawal is actually greater: if your retirement savings are invested with an annual interest of 3%, then each $1 saved will be worth $2.40 in 30 years' time. Inflation will erode its real-world value, but that's even more of an argument for not using those savings unless you really have to. Even if an elder worker doesn't earn enough to cover all his living expenses, it still lessens the drain.Delaying dementia by staying active? In 2003 a provocative study was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. [Verghese et al, 2003] The researchers studied the relation between leisure activities and the risk of dementia in a prospective cohort of otherwise unremarkable elderly.Reading, playing board games, playing musical instruments and dancing were associated with a reduced risk of dementia by any cause (e.g. Alzheimer's disease or vascular dementia). The more often the activity was performed, the greater the reduction in risk.The data were cross-checked to rule out differences in baseline intelligence and educational level, but the results were not affected. The same risk reduction was also found in study participants whose education level was high school or lower (i.e. non-graduates).This led to the proposal that effortful mental activities might protect against dementia, whatever your baseline intelligence or educational background. [Coyle, 2003; a less technical summary can be found on the website of BUPA, a health insurance company.] Of course, it is possible that people destined to develop dementia are also less likely to engage in mental effort; further studies may address this.The Verghese study did not directly test the effect of ongoing employment on dementia. However one might presume that keeping mentally and physically active could help prevent dementia and decline of the body.What does this all mean?There may actually be good reasons for older people to engage in some work (even if part-time or "menial") while they are still of able mind and body. It could delay the onset of dementia, since even a so-called "menial" job exercises brain functions, in addition to physical activity. For example, a shop assistant might use mental arithmetic, or at the very least have a mental picture of where stocks are located, and their prices. The coffeeshop helper still has to take orders and mentally collate them.Working in any capacity will also help one's retirement savings to last longer. A dollar is still a dollar, even if it comes from working at McDonald's or the local kopitiam.It must be emphasised that employment and personal quality time are not mutually exclusive: one can work part-time while leaving aside time for family and leisure. The financial and mental benefits still apply.So the next time you encounter an "auntie" or "uncle" in their Golden Years working at the Golden Arches, think again: because keeping employed in some capacity may be the smart thing to do.[*Many thanks to KTM and The Legal Janitor for their input.] Service Charges: Replace With Tipping? [This article was originally published on Singapore Angle on 21 Nov 2006.]Singapore's service standards have been falling in the world rankings, as mentioned previously. According to the World Economic Forum, this year we are 26th. Last year we were 17th. In 1998, nearly a decade ago, we were in the top ten.For comparison purposes, it's worth noting that Hong Kong has moved up to 4th place.This is not good.A few approaches have been tried, in an effort to raise our service standards. These include:Industry awards for outstanding individuals. These include the SPRING Singapore Excellent Service Awards. In fact it was at one of these award ceremonies that our latest service rankings were unveiled. The difficulty with such awards is that by definition the recipient must be outstanding. This means that the average worker does not have that much of an incentive to improve service quality, especially if he does not expect to be nominated.Tokens of customer recognition. These include the GEMS (Go the Extra Mile for Service) cards; customers can fill in details on these cards and then give them to staff as a gesture of appreciation. However these cards may not be used as often as one might hope: this is because submitting a card to an employee requires a pen to be produced and a card to be filled with data. This may work in a sit-down restaurant setting, but patrons of counter-based staff may be in too much of rush to do anything beyond collecting their goods and opening the wallet for payment. It is also up to the employer to determine how staff members should be rewarded for having received many GEMS cards, and these rewards may not always have incentive power.Service quality campaigns. The above two measures are part of an overall campaign to promote service quality. It is however still up to the employer to decide how quality should be encouraged and recognised. However, as the idiom goes, there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip: employees with good service skills may not be recognised by the employer, and the mode of recognition may not be adequate in the context of other job incentives. For example, if performance is ultimately assessed by how many customers are served, then employee behaviour will tend towards a high throughput of customers, less regard being paid to polite, high quality service.Tipping instead of Service ChargingIs there a way to alter working practices so that service quality becomes the centre of each customer encounter? Here I examine one solution which has been discussed: that we should abolish the existing 10% service charge, and let customers make up the difference with tipping.I tried to obtain the raw data for the World Economic Forum report, so that I could try correlating service standards with tipping practices across different countries. Unfortunately I couldn't find it online — maybe a friendly reader can send it to me? :)In the meantime, let's explore the arguments for and against the proposal. It is important to note that these are just conceptual arguments; any decision on public policy needs to be backed up with evidence.Reasons in favour of abolishing the service charge:Tipping is a more effective incentive for good service. Unlike employer-led bonuses, which depend on a manager's impression of performance, tipping is a direct measure of customer satisfaction. Many of us have heard anecdotes about the employee who wayanged his way towards a good service award, while his more hardworking compatriots missed out despite doing better frontline work. However in a tip-based reward system, the ultimate determinant is the customer's experience of service (or lack thereof!)Every customer encounter is an incentive for good service. Cash motivates more than any GEMS appreciation card or Good Service Award, especially for frontline staff who may not be earning large amounts. While we cannot give awards to every employee, the prospect of a good tip is an incentive for all frontline staff. And with tipping, each and every customer encounter provides an opportunity to be rewarded for providing good service.Customer rights. Under the existing system of 10% service charge, a customer dissatisfied with service quality has to contact the restaurant manager and dispute the bill. Even if the 10% is subsequently waived, the status quo sends an implicit message that the customer is expected to pay a 10% gratuity, since this is the default outcome. Such a social contract is only fair if good quality service is the default as well.Employees are rewarded directly. Currently an employer may distribute the proceeds of the 10% service charge as he/she sees fit. All, some or none of the 10% service charge might reach the service staff.Wage flexibility. If tipping income becomes substantial, it also allows employers more wage flexibility. This would be important in a downturn, as wage flexibility can be the difference between taking a pay cut and being retrenched.Integrated Resort. Visitors to the casinos and Integrated Resorts (IRs) are likely to be high net worth individuals. A satisfied customer at these venues might give significantly larger tips. This may also make IR service jobs more attractive: combined with the "glitter" and "prestige" factor, it could recruit Singaporeans who might otherwise not have considered a job in the service sector.Reasons for keeping the service charge:Singaporeans might not tip. After years of compulsory service charging, there might be no instinct to tip among Singaporean customers.Also, any such legislation must include protection for the tip, so that an employer cannot take it away.Tipping discriminates against some customers. Poorer quality service may be received by customers who have a "low net worth" appearance, or who hail from a culture of not tipping. This may explain the occasional accusations about well-dressed expatriates getting better service in Singapore, since some choose to tip even despite the service charge.Yet this discrimination could happen anyway, tip or not, as a "high net worth" customer is more likely to spend (or return to spend at a later date) if he is feeling well served. The economic incentive is merely less direct.Frontline vs Back-of-House workers. Some opponents also say that tipping is unfair to non-frontline workers such as the kitchen staff in a restaurant, who may be surviving on low wages. I am not sure if this argument holds, though. The mandatory 10% service charge is equivalent to a 10% increase on listed prices; one could easily incorporate it into the menu without calling it a service charge. Furthermore, if back-of-house workers are suffering due to low pay and poor working conditions, that is an argument for a higher base salary.Downward pressure on wages. If tipping income becomes substantial, then employers may lower the base wage for frontline staff. This has subtle knock-on effects. For example, at the same take-home income, under a tipping regime less money would go towards CPF contributions (which for salaried employees is tied to the declared salary). This means more money in the worker's pocket, but less CPF and MediSave for old age.The two systems also have differing effects on the balance of relationships between customer, employee and employer. In a tip-based culture, the serving employee is partly an independent contractor, as a variable component of his salary flows directly from the customer. In a service charge-based culture, the employer controls all remuneration.I don't have a clear answer on this issue, although more data would certainly help the analysis. Maybe a charitable reader could send me some figures on service quality scorings and rankings worldwide?Some links on tipping versus service charging:[1] Steven A. Shaw. "Tipped Off". New York Times, 10 Aug 2005.[2] Patrick McGeehan. "What, No Tip? Service Charge Faces Struggle at Restaurants". New York Times, 15 Aug 2005.[3] James Surowiecki. "Check, Please". The New Yorker, 05 Sep 2005.[4] Jon Bonné. "Per Se's Service Charge". Amuse-Bouche.Net, 11 Aug 2005.[5] Laura Bly. "The tipping point: Will service charges replace voluntary gratuities?". USA Today, 25 Aug 2005.[6] "Tip or Service Charge? Part II". DivisionOfLabour.Com, 24 Aug 2005. Gambling: Do you feel lucky? The Kway Teow Man has raised the question of gambling and its glamourisation. This is quite a timely issue, given that the World Lottery Association recently organised a convention here, and a major Poker Competition was also held. On top of all this, we have Daniel Craig's first outing as James Bond 007 in Casino Royale.Throughout all this, one must realise that in a casino, the house always wins in the long run. Let's go on a little flight of fancy to see how this can happen, even for the ideal gambler with supreme skill.In some games like Blackjack, the perfect player with eidetic recall has a mathematically small chance of beating the house. Such a player would be like Lt. Cmdr. Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation – able to calculate complex odds on the fly, and with a boundless photographic memory. To round off these skills, we would also equip our hypothetical perfect player with the psychological insight of Hannibal Lecter.How might such an ideal player be successful in the ideal world? His photographic memory would allow card counting in meticulous detail. This would provide the foundation for accurate determination of odds in any given round of the game. Where statistics do not yield a clear answer, he can add intuition to the mix by reading his opponents perfectly.But a casino is not an ideal place to play.Casinos may harass suspected card counters. Shuffling may be initiated when a player increases his wager size, to neutralise the advantage of card counting. The casino may even "invite" the player to choose another game besides blackjack, or ban him from the casino itself. It may surprise the casual reader that jurisdictions such as Nevada (where Las Vegas is located) permit such countermeasures against skilled gamblers.So our cyborg hybrid of Data and Hannibal cannot beat the house in a real-world casino (although he might host a compelling reality-TV cooking show!). The house just wouldn't let him. And if the perfect player can't beat the house, what hope have we?Anybody planning to make money at a casino (as opposed to throwing it away for the experience) needs to ask themselves the question from Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry:“Do you feel lucky?” “[Uncensored] Search”: On censorship and narrowcasting [Update (14 Nov 2006): Research results were accurate as of 8am on 13 Nov 2006. A further article discusses what has been updated since, and what problems still remain.]Singapore Election Watch has unveiled a new search engine, entitled "[Uncensored] Search":“Singapore Election Watch Presents [Uncensored] SearchPublished Saturday, November 11, 2006 by Singapore ElectionWith PAP messing with search engines and censoring our good stuffs, we knew we had to do something. So we've come up with our own custom Search engine and we call it [Uncensored] Search. This [Uncensored] Search engine is a powerful tool for optimising your search capabilities and for obtaining information that you are looking for. This Search engine not only include search results from Singapore Election Watch but also includes some of the most popular Singapore political blogs. If your blog/site is missing from [Uncensored] Search please let us know through singaporeelection@hush.com or through comment box and we'll add your blog ASAP...”– Singapore Election Watch, 11 Nov 2006I had a look at the "[Uncensored] Search" website. It uses the Google Co-op technology, which allows users to create custom search engines. As of 8am on 13 Nov 2006, it was said to search 178 sites, including some commentators’ blogs, as well as those of the P65 Members of Parliament.This intrigued me. Can a search engine be uncensored if it only searches 178 websites? I decided to probe the engine with a few queries:Establishment websites. When “PAP” was entered into the engine, the top hit was the Wikipedia disambiguation article; other hits included the SDP website and assorted blog links. Wikipedia links to PAP-related info could be obtained with the more specific query "People's Action Party". However "pap.org.sg" as a search term did not yield any hits for any People's Action Party webpage.Entering "P65" did not yield any hits from the P65 MPs' website, despite the claim that it had been included.Opposition websites. Entering "WP" into the engine did not yield a Workers' Party weblink on the first page. With "workers' party", the Singapore Workers' Party 2006 manifesto was the first hit, followed by Wikipedia links to many worldwide organisations by the the name of "Workers Party". The Singapore Democratic Party was well-represented on the first page of hits for "SDP".Limits of the "[Uncensored] Search" engine. As a rudimentary attempt to test the limits of the "[Uncensored]" engine, I entered "Feynman" as a search term. Almost all search results were from the English edition of Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org). The same applied to "aardvark".So what does the "[Uncensored] Search" engine actually search? The search term "-site:wikipedia.org (singapore OR singaporean)" was entered: this filters out the Wikipedia content. Since "[Uncensored] Search" is directed at Singapore users, this query would likely demonstrate the extent of its catchment. This showed about 309 links. To view them, you can either manually replicate the above research method, or click this link. I encourage you to do both, so as to verify the integrity of the research method. (Some of the results may have changed by the time you read this.)The results showed:Domain (Number of search results)www.singapore-window.org (35)www.thinkcentre.org (33)www.littlespeck.com (28)singabloodypore.blogspot.com (27)intelligentsingaporean.wordpress.com (23)www.sfdonline.org (16)www.singaporedemocrat.org (15)www.newsintercom.org (13)singaporeelection.blogspot.com (12)chemgen.blogspot.com (9)mediawatchsg.blogspot.com (8)singaporemind.blogspot.com (7)www.spp.org.sg (7)www.yawningbread.org (7)atypicalsingaporean.blogspot.com (6)www.singaporeangle.com (6)commentarysingapore.blogspot.com (5)sgrally.blogspot.com (5)singaporealternatives.blogspot.com (5)singaporerebel.blogspot.com (5)singapore-window.org (5)voxleo.blogspot.com (3)waynesoon.blogspot.com (3)mysingaporenews.blogspot.com (2)singaporepatriot.blogspot.com (2)udhr19.blogspot.com (2)www.feer.com (2)www.thevoiddeck.org (2)xenoboysg.blogspot.com (2)akikonomu.blogspot.com (1)conformityisdead.blogspot.com (1)derekwee.blogspot.com (1)diodati.omniscientx.com (1)electionrally.blogspot.com (1)groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/ (1)nofearsingapore.blogspot.com (1)singaporemedia.blogspot.com (1)thepolicestate.blogspot.com (1)uncleyap.blogspot.com (1)urbanrant.blogspot.com (1)www.sgdemocrat.org (1)yesterday.sgblogging.com (1)Sammyboy Forum (1)Has anything been omitted? A follow-up search was performed using "site:gov.sg singapore" [Link]. This search term looks to see if any Singapore Government content has been included in the "[Uncensored] Search" purview. No hits were obtained. Neither were there any hits for "site:mrbrown.com mrbrown" [Link] or "site:tomorrow.sg sg" [Link]. This means that as of this morning MrBrown, Tomorrow.SG and the Singapore Government are an unlikely threesome of bedfellows, having been left out of the "[Uncensored] Search".What do these results tell us?The "[Uncensored] Search" engine only searches a limited representation of Internet content. Basically it covers a list of selected websites, supplemented with the English version of Wikipedia. Some readers will find the selection adequately representative of content pertaining to Singapore; others might feel the choice is biased. You, the reader, will have to decide for yourself.Perhaps I am being cynical, but once you leave out the Wikipedia content (which is not without its weaknesses [1]), the "[Uncensored] Search" seems as unrepresentative as what its creators make out the Singapore mainstream media to be — it seems not so much an uncensored search, but a narrowcast search that directs users to a predetermined selection of content. This is a pity, since it plays straight into the rhetoric of those who disparage Internet content.Call it "Alternative Search" or "Non-Establishment Search", but please don't call it "[Uncensored] Search", unless it is genuinely uncensored. Slogans such as "fair and balanced" or "uncensored" do not mean anything unless the evidence supports the assertion.I've emailed the owners of "[Uncensored] Search" to see if they'll add my website to their "[Uncensored]" list. Watch this space for updates.= =[1] "Wikipedia: Open-source, and open to abuse." International Herald Tribune (05 Dec 2005)Note: Research results were accurate as of this morning (13 Nov 2006). Email me if you want to perform your own analysis and would like my raw data. Measuring Poverty: Pre-Emptive Welfare? I am sure most readers by now will have read about the tragic suicide of Mr Tan Jee Suan, who jumped in front of an oncoming MRT train.An article by The New Paper on 22 Oct 2006 (no longer online but cached at Google) states:‘Family stopped asking for help’MR Tan Jee Suan's MP, Madam Ho Geok Choo (West Coast GRC), felt that he and his family members kept to themselves and that was one possible reason that they did not seek help earlier.‘From what the wife told me, he seemed like a responsible man. But he probably felt that being a man, he should do everything by himself.’She said they did approach the Southwest CDC for help a few years ago. Records show that the family had been receiving some financial help since 1999, which included bursaries for the children, but Madam Ho said she has yet to get the full details.But they suddenly stopped asking for help, she said.She added that according to HDB records, this family has not defaulted on their loan repayment. They still owe about $39,000.‘This shows they are a good family. But I wish they had come to us for help earlier.’As for managing the donations, she said a committee of responsible individuals should advise Madam Lim Sian Hua on how to spend it wisely.Said Madam Ho: ‘We are going to suggest that the money be kept in trust for the family. If they are getting so much money and, with the wife being uneducated and simple, we don't know what kind of attention the money will attract.‘The money has come at a heavy price with the loss of a life.‘I am sure the public will be just as concerned to see how it will used and managed.’Many issues arise from this tragedy, but in this article I will focus on just one. Based on what has been reported, the late Mr Tan's family stopped coming for help, and therefore did not show up on the radar of social services.I have friends who do social work. They tell me that when a recipient of assistance stops asking for help, it may be because circumstances have improved, or because that person has given up. More often than not, it is the former. In an ideal world, a social worker would perform regular follow-up visits to distinguish between these two possibilities. But in an ideal world, social workers and financial support would be unlimited in number and extent.A Modest ProposalGiven limited resources, how could we work smarter? Here's an idea:The Government could request automatic notification from agencies like Singapore Power Services and HDB, if a resident has defaulted on payments beyond 3 months. The Insolvency & Public Trustee's Office would provide updates on new bankruptcies. This information would in turn be made available to social services such as the regional Community Development Council, and also to the local Member of Parliament who can then instruct his or her grassroots team accordingly.Such a system would have benefits:Pre-Emptive Outreach. For example, if a household has defaulted on utility payments for some time, the social services could send somebody to politely ask if help is needed. Information can be offered on the various assistance programmes available. If they choose to take up the offer, the household can receive assistance and guidance before the debt mushrooms to an even more unmanageable amount.Measuring Poverty. Income statistics are aggregate information. They do not present the specific situation of an individual household. Furthermore, some income statistics are only calculated yearly, and may not reflect changing circumstances. Housing data, while indicative of total assets, may not necessarily reflect the realities of cash flow (e.g. in an ‘asset rich but cash poor’ scenario).In contrast, failure to keep up with utility and HDB payments would be a sensitive indicator of financial distress, which may occur through underemployment even in a climate of high employment. Unemployment data, in and of themselves, do not discern the cash flow situation of those employed.There are limitations to this proposed policy. A household may feel their pride has been wounded, if a social worker comes on a pre-emptive visit. Also, should the Government have automatic access to your utility bills, (in)solvency status, and HDB flat repayment details? More pro-active welfare may come at the price of privacy. Some people may not want a Big Brother watching over them, even if Big Brother offers to help. Remaking Transport Transport: It's EverywherePeople travel to and from work. They also travel for leisure, and to visit family and friends. The price of goods is affected by the cost of delivery, and also by the wages paid to the workers who produce, package and sel