An exclusive talk shop In response to Dr Cherian George’s lament that government restrictions led to the demise of The Roundtable, Michael Heng Swee Hai sent a letter to The Straits Times giving what he thought were the two real reasons that The Roundtable failed.The first reason:The cause of The Roundable’s demise is really its exclusive membership... The Roundtable’s exclusivity clearly created an “affective divide” with ordinary Singaporeans, and explained why it was unable to “mobilise the public”, and not because it activities had to be membership-based.The second reason:The Roundtable’s inability to mobilise the public was also because it was never more than just a “talk shop”... Members’ intellectual preoccupation showed their disdain for political action in support of their passionately expressed political beliefs. The Roundtable had begun as a talk shop, behaved as a talk shop and “died” naturally as a talk shop.While there may be some validity behind these two points, there is a also problem with Michael Heng’s views. Based on the disdainful tone that he takes, it seems that he has based his argument on the premise that there is little value in exclusive talk shops. If so, this is a wrong premise to start with.Exclusivity has always been one of the ways in which organisations maintain quality control within their ranks. That is, after all, why organisations look at a person’s qualifications before employing him. Talk shops generate ideas, which are the first steps to many subsequent actions, political or otherwise. If you think of it, a university is also a form of exclusive talk shop. Would he argue that universities are useless and deserve to “die”?So there is nothing obviously wrong with being an exclusive talk shop, and such a role for an organisation should not be casually dismissed. There is a place for political parties, but there should also be a place for talk shops.This is not to say that Michael Heng is necessarily wrong in saying that its exclusivity and preoccupation with talk as opposed to action are important factors in the demise of The Roundtable. But if he is correct, then perhaps all the more we should be asking whether there is a problem with the rules that leads to this situation. An open, intellectually vibrant society should have a place for exclusive talk shops. Statistics in the mainstream media It’s often said that you need numbers to prove a hypothesis. Well, if you use the right numbers in the right ways, there are a lot of things you can “prove”.Steven McDermott cited a Xinhua report that cited a Channel NewsAsia report that cited the following statistics from Singapore’s Obstetrics and Gynaecology Society: “The number of tertiary-educated married women going for abortions has tripled in the last 16 years, from some 300 in 1988 to more than 1,000 last year.”This is a familiar issue. Back in November last year, I had posted the following excerpt from Today:One group of women yesterday bore the brunt of accusations from a prominent gynaecological group in Singapore. Citing abortion statistics from the Ministry of Health, the Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Singapore (OGSS) chided tertiary-educated married women for a three-fold jump in the numbers of such women going for abortions — from 324 cases in 1988 to 1,070 last year...However, OGSS did not measure the jump in abortion in this group against the corresponding growth in the number of women with higher education over the last 15 years. A check with the Department of Statistics by Today found that the number of university-educated women has increased from 17,300 in 1990 to 68,900 in 2000...Interestingly, in citing the statistics, the Xinhua report added the following statement that was not found in the original Channel NewsAsia report: “while those who are not enough educated tend to use contraceptives”.Journalists do sometimes get tripped up by statistics. Wang Zhen has an example from The Straits Times on the AIDS issue. More on blogging in the press mrbrown complains about the way The Sunday Times reported its interview with him — “they...quoted my remarks selectively” — and of being called an “online diarist” — “what’s up with this bloggers = online diarists crap? Please lah, this is the freakin’ 21st century. Get with the program. I am not a freakin’ diarist.” — but then clarifies that he is not angry at the newspaper.I wonder what he or other bloggers would say of the following comment from today’s Digital Life:For now, blogging is the fad. I call it a fad because personal websites were once popular, but that is now passé. While it lasts, enjoy peeking into the lives of those who invite you in.I wonder whether the writer knows how long blogging has existed, or the fact that for many bloggers, their blogs are — or are parts of — their personal websites. Beware the reaction from cyberspace This article doesn’t have anything directly related to Singapore, but in the light of recent events involving perceived inflammatory remarks by Singaporeans and the reactions that followed, I thought readers might be interested.Bloggers Finger a New VictimFor a glimpse of the blogosphere’s growing power, witness the brouhaha now afflicting PepsiCo over comments earlier this week by President and CFO Indra Nooyi before the graduating class of Columbia University’s B-school.Her comparison of the five major continents to the five fingers on her hand -- with the U.S.(not a continent, mind you) being the controversial middle finger and Africa the often-ignored pinkie -- will strike many as entirely innocuous. As she put it: “Each of us in the U.S. -- the long middle finger -- must be careful that when we extend our arm in either a business or political sense, we take pains to assure we are giving a hand…not the finger…. Unfortunately, I think this is how the rest of the world looks at the U.S. right now. Not as part of the hand -- giving strength and purpose to the rest of the fingers -- but instead scratching our nose and sending a far different signal.”Yet a burst of blog outrage after a May 15 commencement speech has forced the beverage and food giant to post an apology on its home page...Read the whole article and see whether you find anything familiar. Misquoted by the press Huichieh Loy at From a Singapore Angle writes about a scholar who tries to defend herself regarding comments about males becoming whiny after national service. She now says that she was misquoted by The Straits Times or quoted out of context. It reminds me of another recent incident involving Today.I have three comments on the matter.First of all, The Straits Times always seems to want to have the last say on disputes regarding the accuracy of its reports. This particular report is one example (see the editor’s note at the end), but note also how often it gives replies immediately below letters that try to portray anything it writes as inaccurate. It is understandable behaviour, perhaps, since most people would want to protect their reputations, but since such disputes largely revolve around one person’s word against another’s, I doubt that many readers would be too impressed by its continued assertions of its own accuracy. Furthermore, as a newspaper, The Straits Times already has a natural advantage in such disputes as it controls what is published (see for example, a recent case highlighted by Steven McDermott), and when it exploits this advantage by having the last say, its action risks being construed by others as bullying. The fact that in this case — as pointed out by Wows and Huichieh — the editor’s note also apparently does not make much sense makes things worse. Secondly, it would be interesting to know why there seems to be so many “misquotes” in the newspapers. Verbal interviews tend to generate misquotes, since the interviewee does not have enough time to think through what he says. If The Straits Times is really interested in accuracy, it might want to rethink how it conducts interviews. On the other hand, if The Straits Times is intentionally trying to elicit juicy “misquotes” in disregard of the true, complete views of the originators — with all their associated nuances — then it might want to consider what such disputes over the accuracy of its quotes can do to its credibility and whether such potential loss of credibility is worth the attention that such “misquotes” garners.Thirdly, these incidents should serve as a lesson to all those being interviewed by The Straits Times and, in fact, any media organisation. Be careful what you say to them. To be safe, avoid giving interviews altogether, especially those where you don’t have a chance to vet what is to be published before publication. But this advice may be a bit difficult for some people to follow. After all, many people do want to have their minute of fame. Integrated resort not for family? Parts of the planned integrated resorts may end up as white elephants, if the following report is anything to go by.Integrated Resort for family will not workThe integrated resort (IR) proposed for Sentosa with attractions for the whole family will not work, casino mogul Steve Wynn, Steve Wynn said. An IR with a casino is essentially an adult entertainment facility, he told Singapore newsmen visiting the gambling capital of the United States. “I know a family theme IR is planned for Sentosa but I do not want to go that route. I want the pops and mums to come to my IR. Let the children go to Disney World,” he said...Mr Wynn also reiterated his belief that Singapore officials would be in a better position to know what they wanted in an IR if they were to come to Las Vegas today as their impression of the city could have been based on projects like Treasure Island with its pirate ship and the Mirage with its volcano. “Both these projects with a family theme no longer drew the crowds,” he said. “Treasure Island’s ship no longer featured fearsome pirates but scantily-clad nubile women. And the erupting volcano at the Mirage no longer drew oohs and ahhs. People watched the show from the street but few ventured into the complex.” Clearly, he said, the family resort theme, had failed. But I’m sanguine. After all, the Singapore Tourism Board has some practice dealing with white elephants. Maturity at 22 In his interview published in The Sunday Times, Philip Yeo was reported to have shown “little patience” with the view that scholars are too young to know what they want. He reportedly said:They are no longer 18 or 19 years old. Cannot be still immature at the age of 22! When will they grow up?He also reportedly called it “amazing logic”.I wonder what he would make of this. Public transport fares debate Christopher Tan adds his voice to the debate over the proposed increase in public transport fares. Excerpt from The Straits Times:All too often, debate over proposed increases in public transport fares centres on the profitability of transport companies. The consumer voice almost always argues that if transport companies are making good profits, they should not raise fares.That logic is flawed. If an operator that makes $50 million a year charges an average 90 cents per trip, how much should it charge if it makes $100 million a year? 45 cents? Surely not. Or what if it makes $1 million a year? Or incurs a loss of $10 million, for that matter?Profits and fares should be delinked. Instead, transport operators should be allowed to command prices the way most other purveyors of goods and services are — by the quality of their goods and services.His article is largely on the right track, although he oversimplifies things when he says that profits and fares should be delinked. Of course they should be linked — just not in the simplistic way that some people think.Most people whose views have been published in the mainstream media have argued on the basis of broad principles — service and affordability should be considered, profits at the transport companies should not be excessive, an increase should be implemented at a more opportune time.But what the debate really needs are specifics — specific fare revision formula, specific benchmarks. These are in fact already in place, they implicitly take all the above factors broadly into consideration, and they guide the fare revision process. Those who want to debate on this issue need to debate these specifics, not the broad principles. The Financial Times on rights issues in Singapore The Financial Times yesterday summed up some of the issues that have recently occupied many Singapore bloggers’ minds. Excerpt:Singapore’s arts ambitions caught up in rights debateThe hanging yesterday of a former Singapore champion athlete for smuggling cannabis has sparked a rare activist protest against the city-state’s draconian anti-drug laws and has helped fuel a debate about civil liberties.The issue of human rights in Singapore has received increased attention in recent weeks after the government appeared to be curbing free speech on the internet, while a local film-maker could face imprisonment for making a documentary about a leading opposition leader.The issue of civil liberties is becoming more important in Singapore as it seeks to create a vibrant culture to attract tourists and permanent residents from aboard, while trying to stem a brain drain of local talent.A study released this week by the World Bank on global political governance said that Singapore’s otherwise excellent record on administrative efficiency, control of corruption and the rule of law was marred by its attitude to civil liberties, which was below average for Asia.But no, I am not going to bother to write about The Straits Times’ recent spate of articles related to blogging. The blogging daddy (belated congratulations) and “blogger Singapore Ink” have already done that. AcidFlask saga continues in Today Today has a follow-up report on the AcidFlask affair entitled “Where does freedom end for bloggers and online journalists?”. The newspaper’s view: “While one is physically circulated and the latter only exists online, the writers of both are equally susceptible to being sued for defamation.”The newspaper also had the following statement: “The incident ended on Monday after graduate student Chen Jiahao, 23, apologised unreservedly for his defamatory remarks, retracted his statements and promised never to repeat them.”Well, A*STAR’s threat of a lawsuit ended on Monday, but as far as the Singapore blogosphere is concerned, the “incident” has hardly ended. See, for example, the posts by Lzydata and mr brown. I’m sure more are in the works.I also noted that the newspaper quoted mr brown, Mr Miyagi and Xiaxue, the three celebrity bloggers. A blogger it probably should have interviewed on this issue but didn’t is Gilbert Koh, a practising lawyer who has blogged on precisely this issue. Unfortunately, Koh is apparently not famous enough, or maybe not accessible enough.In any case, in his post, mr brown pointed out that his views had not been presented fully — always a hazard when you speak to the press. Just as well that he has a blog with which to set the matter straight.One last comment. By making statements such as “While opposing views are welcome, bloggers must be careful not to make scurrilous comments or baseless accusations that could have legal implications”, the article could easily be interpreted to mean that AcidFlask did indeed make “defamatory, serious and untrue” comments.Since the matter has been “closed” without being brought to court and the specific offending comments revealed, the rest of us don’t really know if that is true, which makes the insinuation — even if unintended — rather unfair to AcidFlask, not to mention somewhat ironic. Lessons from Harvard Business School After my previous post, I thought a few remarks on management would be appropriate. The following are some disparate quotes that I culled from HBS Working Knowledge articles that may have some relevance to that post as well as some related issues.From “What Great American Leaders Teach Us” — Tony Mayo, executive director of the Harvard Business School Leadership Initiative, on how leaders are selected:There is a strong tendency to search for a candidate who has a specific track record of success, but board members need to understand the context in which specific CEO candidates were successful. It is all too easy to ignore both the past contextual framework of success and the present one. Are they aligned? Does success in one context predict success in a new one?... Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, boards tend to favor the “proven” talent, but often fail to ask “proven in what context?”From “Time to Treat Toxic Emotions at Work” — Peter J Frost, professor of organizational behavior at the University of British Columbia, on how top management behaviour sets the tone in an organisation:Heavy doses of toxicity (pain that strips people of their self esteem and that disconnects them from their work) can come from a number of sources, including the behavior of immediate bosses, uncooperative employees or even abrasive clients. But the tone in an organization tends to be set from the top and so toxicity is often a top-down phenomenon. As one HR manager I interviewed observed: “Fish stinks from the head!” The higher up the toxic person is, the more widely spread is the pain, and the more people there are who behave in the same way. If you have a CEO who delivers public lashings—in effect does his performance appraisals in public—then you will have the lieutenants begin to join in.From “Are You Supporting Your B Players?” — Harvard Business School professor Thomas J DeLong on why some managers have difficulty relating to their so-called “B” grade workers:Managers who are high achievers themselves find it especially difficult to focus on B players. The Achilles’ heel of these A-type managers is that if they can’t do something right the first time, they give up or they manufacture a compelling rationale that explains why it is not worth the effort to improve employee satisfaction.Furthermore, he said, such managers are afraid of getting labeled. “If you want to threaten a really smart person who is task driven, question his or her competency. That’s the very soul of who they are,” he said. These managers also keep busy schedules and are reluctant to slow down to learn new skills. Sports champions such as Tiger Woods, he said, can do their training out of public view. But managers almost always train on the job.From “What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions” — Harvard Business School professors David A. Garvin and Michael A. Roberto on decision-making:[K]eeping people involved in the process is, in the end, perhaps the most crucial factor in making a decision—and making it stick. It’s a job that lies at the heart of leadership and one that uniquely combines the leader’s numerous talents. It requires the fortitude to promote conflict while accepting ambiguity, the wisdom to know when to bring conversations to a close, the patience to help others understand the reasoning behind your choice, and, not least, a genius for balance—the ability to embrace both the divergence that may characterize early discussions and the unity needed for effective implementation. Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire and a renowned military leader, understood the true hallmark of leadership in the sixth century BC, when he attributed his success to “diversity in counsel, unity in command.”From “Think You Manage Creativity? Here's Why You're Wrong” — Robert I Sutton, professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University in Stanford, California, on fostering creativity:If it’s creativity you want, you should encourage people to ignore and defy superiors and peers—and while you’re at it, get them to fight among themselves. You should reassign people who have settled into productive grooves in their jobs. And you should start rewarding failure, not just success; reserve punishment only for inaction.People who do what they think is right—rather than what they are told or what they anticipate their superiors want—can drive their bosses crazy and get their companies in deep trouble. But they also force companies to try ideas that some boss or powerful group may have rejected as a waste of time or money...[I]n The HP Way, David Packard brags about an employee who defied a direct order from him. “Some years ago,” he writes, “at an HP laboratory in Colorado Springs devoted to oscilloscope technology, one of our bright, energetic engineers, Chuck House, was advised to abandon a display monitor he was developing...” House was convinced he was on to something, so he persisted with the project... The resulting $35 million in revenue proved he was right. Packard continues: “Some years later, at a gathering of HP engineers, I presented Chuck with a medal for ‘extraordinary contempt and defiance beyond the normal call of engineering duty.’”... [I]f you want to develop new products and services, I urge you to keep your creative people away from your biggest customers—and for that matter from critics and anyone whose primary concern is money.... Every bit of solid theory and evidence demonstrates that it is impossible to generate a few good ideas without also generating a lot of bad ideas. Former Time Warner chairman Steve Ross had a philosophy that people who didn’t make enough mistakes should be fired...That’s all for today. Class dismissed. AcidFlask saga throws up issues on media control and leadership style The AcidFlask saga continues in the mainstream media. Huichieh Loy has the updates.The Financial Times is the latest to join in the coverage. An excerpt:Singapore threatens to sue internet dissenterA threatened libel suit against a blogger by a Singapore government agency has raised concerns among international press freedom groups that the city-state might be cracking down against dissent on the internet. A*Star, the city-state’s science and technology agency, has set a deadline of Monday for a student who criticised its scholarship system and policies on his web log to make an “unreserved and sincere apology” or else be sued in what would be one of the first such cases in Asia against a blogger...International press freedom groups are watching the case since blogs could challenge the Singapore government’s tight media controls... But A*Star defended its libel threat, saying it had “the responsibility to protect its reputation and also that of Singapore”...It certainly looks like A*STAR has been successful in protecting Singapore’s current reputation. One suspects that government leaders are actually pleased with that.The New Paper also joined in the fray yesterday with two articles — “White knight, Black knight” and “Forget wimps, I prefer women” — focusing on Philip Yeo, chairman of A*STAR.This line from the first article grabbed my attention:”You can call me names,” he said. “I don’t care. Just don’t criticise my work... I will bomb you flat.”Is he saying that he cannot take criticism? If he “bombs” people who criticise his work, what kind of feedback is he likely to get, especially from subordinates? Is he likely to get the critical feedback necessary for him to learn from his mistakes? Or to avoid making them?Or perhaps the question should be: how well does he learn from his mistakes? If not well, how effective can he be as a leader of a research organisation? And what kind of a culture is he — intentionally or not — promoting in his organisation — an organisation dedicated to an activity that is, by its very nature, all about making mistakes and learning from them?And if he cannot be an effective leader in his organisation, or promote the right culture, why is the Singapore government still keeping him in charge of it?But don’t get me wrong. I think Philip Yeo is actually a great leader — if he were a battalion commander leading soldiers into battle. He is a doer who has no patience with dawdling. In many situations — like in the heat of a battle — decisiveness must take precedence over debate and dissent.But not every situation is like that. In many other situations, analysis and subtlety may need to take precedence over decisiveness. Different situations require different kinds of leadership.Dr Kevin Tan puts it well, as cited by The New Paper: Political observer Dr Kevin Tan said Mr Yeo’s style could be seen as loud and colourful.“Yes, we need leaders in the top echelon who dare to make the decision. In that sense, Mr Yeo’s spirit is commendable. But his style can be grating and not go well with others,” said Dr Tan, an expert in constitution and government laws.“So should we have more Philip Yeos? Yes, in terms of his spirit but not his style.”There is also this comment by Zulkifli Baharudin, a former Nominated MP, at the end of the other article in The New Paper:“We should not be dogged by kiasu mentality and avoid controversies. We must look at the net benefit. If they are doing much good work for the nation, we must try to accommodate the personality and style that comes with the man.”True, we need to look at the net benefit, but we must also bear in mind that a leader’s personality and style plays a large part in determining that net benefit. They are not independent of each other.The Singapore government has to seriously reflect on whether it is getting the right people for the right jobs. Especially at a time when it is soliciting opinions and ideas from ordinary citizens and promoting inclusiveness, it needs to think carefully about how it uses leaders who talk about bombing critics, both for the sake of the organisations involved and for Singapore society as a whole. Channel NewsAsia on AcidFlask Channel NewsAsia is attracting caustic comments from Singapore bloggers. The reasons? Its slow response on the AcidFlask affair and its allegedly unbalanced reporting. It’s enough to make Gilbert Koh come out of retirement.As usual, Huichieh Loy compiles all the reactions.There is a wider issue here beyond Channel NewsAsia’s treatment of the AcidFlask affair. I’m referring to the standard of journalism in Singapore.I’m not sure how much effort Channel NewsAsia puts into maintaining a high standard of journalism in its news reports, but in my opinion, its reports — at least those on its website — tend to be shallower than those of The Straits Times (which is itself not exactly an icon of journalistic professionalism). This tendency is possibly a result of its television roots, where speed — ironically — and brevity take precedence over depth and balance, at least compared with a broadsheet.In any case, it would probably be a good idea for Channel NewsAsia to do some serious soul-searching, and not just because of this particular affair. It is in the news broadcasting business where it has to compete with the likes of BBC and CNN. While it occupies a niche — news with an Asian perspective — it is a niche that is not really difficult for its bigger competitors to invade. It needs to do everything it can to build up its credibility as a news organisation.And looking foolish in the eyes of bloggers certainly wouldn’t help. In praises of Singapore Excerpt of a PR Newswire report on the World Trade Week in Singapore:World Trade Week Events to Focus on Singapore: The Gateway to Southeast AsiaBusinesses interested in reaching the more than 500 million people who make up the Southeast Asia market should consider attending World Trade Week 2005, May 11 - 13. Sponsored by the Automation Alley International Business Center and the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Commercial Service, this event will provide attendees with valuable insight on entering Singapore, considered the gateway to the markets of Southeast Asia...“During the World Trade Week sessions, business owners will learn more about why Singapore is such an attractive market,” said Richard Corson, director, Pontiac U.S. Export Assistance Center, U.S. Commercial Service, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. “In addition to the bilateral free trade agreement, Singapore is known for respecting intellectual property...”Some people will say anything...Singapore’s National Library is highly regarded around the world for its innovations. So this — previously reported by Channel NewsAsia — isn’t surprising.Singapore Library Praised As InnovativeSingapore’s nonprofit but entrepreneurial National Library Board has been chosen as one of the country’s most innovative and successful companies, according to a survey by the Institute of Policy Studies and the Monitor Group. The survey cited the library’s speed in letting customers check out and return books, as well as its provision of coffee bars...Having lots of money to throw surely helped — read the linked article.Dr M S Haq says in an editorial in The New Nation that Bangladesh has many things to learn from Singapore. Apparently, naming of newspapers has been one of them. Living with a casino Apparently, some Singaporeans are not only willing to have a casino in Singapore, they want to live right next to one.Residential projects near integrated resorts attract keen buyersProperty developers reported keen buyer interest in the two weeks after the government’s decision to go ahead with two integrated resort projects. This is for both residential properties near the two sites earmarked for the resorts. City Developments, which is developing The Sail at Marina Bay, projected increases in property prices of as much as 10 to 15 percent...Meanwhile, Keppel Land reported heightened interest in its Caribbean at Keppel Bay project which faces Sentosa Island. It said potential buyers were pleased with the idea of having an integrated resort, just a stone’s throw away from their waterfront homes. ERA, one of the marketing agents for Caribbean, said more than 20 deals were clinched, after news of the resort project at Sentosa...I wonder whether these residents will get discounts into the casino/integrated resort. British not interested in educating Singaporeans Charlene Huang, an undergraduate thesis student of Brad DeLong, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, doesn’t have flattering things to say about Britain’s colonial legacy in Singapore as far as education is concerned.An excerpt from her draft:A comparison of primary enrollment ratios in 1960 and the Barro-Lee data on the stock of human capital in 1960 clearly illustrates [that] although Singapore and Korea both have about 100% primary enrollment in 1960, the percentage of the adults over 25 years of age in 1960 who completed primary school was 26.2% for Korea, but only 5.6% for Singapore. It seems that Singapore’s British colonizers were not as interested in educating the masses, as was Lee Kuan Yew’s government.They did leave behind a nice port, though. Racism and eugenics Andy Ho has a commentary in The Straits Times today criticising racism. It is a response to a reader who seems to be justifying “racial purity”.Ho objected strongly to the concept of racial purity. He warned of the prejudices and injustices that accompanied such notions in the past, including the Holocaust in Adolf Hitler’s Germany.Ho’s unease about racial purity is perfectly understandable. However, when he moves on to eugenics, he becomes confusing.Ho says: “Through the mid-1920s, virtually all members of the UK and US scientific communities supported eugenics or scientific racism.” Why “eugenics or scientific racism”? Why not “eugenics, or more specifically, scientific racism”? The way it is actually written could be interpreted to mean that eugenics is all about racism, and that eugenics is solely used to achieve racial purity, that one necessarily leads to the other.Indeed, further in the article, he seems to say a similar thing about the study of genomics: “Today, widely hyped advances in genomics are promoting a resurgent interest in the issues of inheritability and, thus, race.” Again, why “and, thus, race” and not “and, particularly, race”?In reality, genomics is not just about race, and eugenics is not used solely to achieve racial purity. As Ho himself defines it, the goal of eugenics is “to improve the human species through reproductive selection”. This improvement is not necessarily limited to traits relating to race. In fact, Ho himself cites a programme involving the mentally ill and criminally insane. The Wikipedia entry on eugenics mentions some modern uses of eugenics in controlling genetic diseases such as thalassemia.Is Ho aware of these? If he is, why does he write about eugenics in such an imprecise — and potentially misleading — manner?At the very end of his article, Ho says: “There is no such thing as humane, sensitive, or sensible eugenics.” Now, I can’t tell exactly what he means by that. Or is that precisely the point? Reclamation dispute between Singapore and Malaysia resolved It looks like the long drawn-out dispute over Singapore’s land reclamation in the Johor Straits is coming to an end.Singapore and Malaysia resolve land reclamation disputeDiplomats and politicians from both sides of the Causeway have hailed the resolution of a land reclamation dispute as a historic agreement — a win-win solution for Singapore and Malaysia. Representatives from both sides signed a Settlement Agreement at Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday. The agreement was inked by Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh from Singapore and Mr Ahmad Fuzi Abdul Razak, Secretary General of the Malaysian Foreign Ministry. It is a model of how future disputes between the neighbours can be settled through arbitration and dialogue — such as the dispute over Pedra Branca. Singapore will pay Malaysian fishermen nearly 370,000 ringgit for losses resulting from the settlement works... The experts found that Singapore’s reclamation works would not cause any serious impact and of the 57 impacts identitifed, 40 were classified as slight. Almost all the impact was the result of current patterns or wave action caused by the reclamations. So they concluded that if these changes were reduced, most impacts would either be reduced or disappear. Singapore has agreed to modify the final design of the shoreline at Pulau Tekong, and will pay for protection works at the Tanjung Belungkor Jetty in Johor. And Malaysia will pay for works at Pularek Jetty.Singapore’s Chief Negotiator Tommy Koh said: “Both Malaysia and Singapore have won. We have won because we have been able to find an amicable solution that accommodates the essential interests of the two countries, and we have done it in the spirit of friendship and goodwill. So the happy headlines I want to see is that both Malaysia and Singapore have won.”...I think Tommy Koh basically got the “happy headlines”. But Malaysia got the money — 370,000 ringgit — and at least some of the changes it demanded in Singapore’s reclamation works.Look past the inevitable spin from both sides and arrive at your own conclusions.The Straits Times has more:Reclamation row is resolvedReclamation works: Experts found no major impact on environmentAnd on the Malaysian side:M’sia, S’pore Resolve Land Reclamation DisputeSpat with Singapore settled Caustic soda neutralised I guess this is the story of the day as far as the Singapore blogosphere is concerned.Unfortunately in recent days, the price of maintaining the content which used to be accessible at this URL has become too high for the author to afford. AcidFlask thanks readers for their past support and regrets the inconvenience caused.And yes, I agree with Huichieh Loy: It is a sad day for the Singapore blogosphere. Hopefully caustic soda will re-appear in another form — Blogger, perhaps? “Infantilism”, corporate culture and the Singapore blogosphere Steven McDermott continues with his investigation of “infantilism” in Singapore.Corporate Culture Revisited... I am exploring... The idea that if Eric Ellis’ claim is correct, that Singapore is run like a large corporation...“The system functions like a big corporation, designed to maximise profit. The Government maintains an upbeat information department, frequently holding press briefings lauding economic achievements but rarely or publicly discusses substantive matters of policy and politics.” by Eric Ellis...and coupled with the following article and references to ‘infantilism’ being the result, then is this the case in Singapore? Are Singaporean bloggers willing to accept the label and argue that they have in some way accepted the corporate culture, or do they reject the label but behave childishly? It’s an idea, that’s all...McDermott then quotes from a management article on corporate culture and how the hierarchical organisational structure is becoming obsolete and being replaced by collaborative, self-managed teams where employees contribute towards shaping corporate values rather than having them imposed from the top.The quoted article provides a good summary of current management thinking on how corporate cultures can be shaped. However, in my opinion, it has more relevance to the way that the Singapore government is trying to engender an inclusive culture. To go from the article to the conclusion that Singapore bloggers tend to have “infantile” concerns because of an authoritarian government requires much more work, which I presume McDermott will follow up with.Personally, though, I am more interested in looking at the issue from another angle: Why is there a lack of serious blogs in Singapore? No, this is not exactly the same question as: Why are Singapore blogs so “infantile”? While the prevalence of so-called “infantile” blogs may crowd out serious blogs, I think the lack of the latter is an issue in its own right.In particular, I think that blogs written by experts on their areas of expertise are especially valuable, because they form the anchors around which other serious blogs can congregate, just as blogs also tend to congregate around mainstream media. However, Gilbert Koh has given one reason why we can’t expect much from one potentially important source: government officers; they can only blog about “infantile” concerns, and maybe poetry (I presume Koh did not officially write poetry for the government).In the meantime, the lack of such expertise among blogs means that the mainstream media can usually ignore the Singapore blogosphere with little consequence, as they routinely do — see “Blogs as intellectual platforms” and “The Mainstream Media does not get blogs”. Blogs and business Rob at BusinessPundit points to this BusinessWeek article on blogs and business.See also the magazine’s own blog. It’s only a joke Every now and then, Steven McDermott writes something that attracts the ire of Singapore bloggers. He’s done it again with the post “The Infantile Blogosphere”. Incidentally, I’m irate too, since he calls me “very old” — or “very mature” — or something like that.But this post is not directly about McDermott’s post. Rather, it’s about the idea of using satire or humour in general to discuss issues about Singapore, as suggested by some.In my opinion, satire is one good way to express one’s views on current affairs or government policies, especially the latter. As Anthony points out, a tongue-in-cheek approach helps keep the writer out of trouble without necessarily detracting from the underlying message. I think it also helps in getting the attention of readers who might otherwise not bother to read about weighty issues. Gilbert Koh shows very well how it can be done.However, Singapore bloggers often use satire as disguised rants. Some of the implied criticisms don’t seem well thought-out, but because they are expressed in the form of a satire, readers are unlikely to point them out — the rejoinder “it’s only a joke” is too powerful — and the writers and other readers are poorer for it.This makes satire not a good substitute for serious discussion.So if McDermott is complaining that there is not enough serious discussion about political issues in Singapore, he has my sympathy. As for what people want to blog about, I trust that he would be among the first to agree that freedom of expression is something to be respected. Reactions to the casino decision Huichieh at From a Singapore Angle is compiling the reactions of bloggers on the casino/integrated resort decision.Call for entries--Web Symposium: Blogosphere reactions to the Casino/Integrated Resort decision 2005Nowadays, it’s hard to find someone in Singapore without an opinion about the proposed Casino/Integrated Resort. Even those who are really without an opinion find themselves oblidged to say that they don’t have an opinion, as if the contrary is the default.In the interest of furthering discussion on this issue of the day, From A Singapore Angle is organising a Web Symposium and inviting all interested bloggers to submit entries that will be collated together (roughly in a manner analogous to this, but voluntarily). By having many points of view gathered together under one list, the hope is that the netizens’s search for information and informed opinions will be facilitated.Entries published both during the pre-decision debate and after the decision was announced in parliament are welcomed.And some entries are already in — see here.Meanwhile, The Christian Science Monitor has its own reaction to the decision in a report entitled “In search of buzz, Asia bets on gambling”.Dazzled by the prospect of soaring tax revenues and an influx of free-spending tourists, Asian governments are starting to drop their bans against casino gambling. Singapore became the latest country to join the race for Asia’s gamblers when it announced Monday that it would license two resort casinos in the wealthy city-state. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told Parliament that it had to keep up with the trend. “We cannot stand still. The whole region is on the move. If we don’t change, where will we be in 20 years?”Spying an opportunity, Thailand, Taiwan, and Japan may follow suit. Even India and Indonesia have floated the idea of Vegas-style casinos to draw tourists and create jobs. For many, the ultimate prize is China, where would-be gamblers, faced with a ban at home, travel far and wide to bet their newfound riches...The Singapore government clearly recognises the opportunity. But so does everybody else. Note the following concluding paragraphs from the Monitor report.But the claim that casinos can revitalize tourist industries shouldn’t be taken at face value, says Ms. [Jan] McMillen, [director of the Center for Gambling Research at the Australian National University, in Canberra] who has studied Australia’s experience. Its first casino opened on the island of Tasmania in 1973 and proved a success that other areas replicated, ending the novelty factor. The result was a short-term boom in tax revenues that bottomed out, leaving a rash of gambling addicts and a social backlash. A similar trend emerged in New Zealand, which also found minimal impact on tourism.Both countries have since backpedaled. “It’s fascinating to look at the rest of the world and wonder if they’ve learned from our experience,” says McMillen.Some things have changed since the 1970s. For example, there’s a new market in China. Other things have not — the human being’s gambling instinct and the effect of competition.It’ll be interesting to see which trumps which. Singapore blogosphere getting organised A few Singapore bloggers are taking steps to organise the Singapore blogosphere.Afterthoughts on a recent blogospheric event and a modest proposal — Huichieh LoyPut your blog on the map! — AcidFlaskSingapore Bloglocator anyone? — Wandie Singapore to have two casinos The Singapore government has revealed its decision and given the nod for not one but two casinos, and within a day, Lzydata of Singapore Ink has revealed his diligence by writing not one but two posts on the decision.Casino decisionToday’s political analysis Disengaged workers and bullying bosses Surveys, particularly those done by Gallup, have shown Singaporean workers to be a particularly disengaged lot. According to these surveys, the root of employee disengagement is poor management. In last year's survey, Gallup estimated that the lower productivity of actively disengaged workers penalises Singapore’s economic performance, costing between $4.9 and $6.7 billion annually.An article from The New York Times, however, offers a different view. The article, titled “Fear in the Workplace: The Bullying Boss”, specifically looks at bullying of workers by bosses and concludes that on the whole, such poor management behaviour does not have a significantly adverse impact on worker productivity. The pertinent paragraphs from the article are as follows:The mystifying thing about this pattern is that it does not appear to undercut productivity. Workers may loathe a bullying boss and hate going to work each morning, but they still perform. Researchers find little relationship between people's attitudes toward their jobs and their productivity, as measured by the output and even the quality of their work. Even in the most hostile work environment, conscientious people keep doing the work they are paid for.At the same time, some employees withhold the unpaid extras that help an organization, like being courteous to customers, helping co-workers with problems or speaking well of the company. Yet this falloff in helpfulness and, indirectly, in performance is smaller than might be expected, because fear motivates different people differently, said Dr. Bennett Tepper, an organizational psychologist at the business school of the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. In April, he reported the results from a study of 173 randomly chosen employees in a wide range of work. He found that in situations where bosses were abusive, some employees did little or nothing extra, while others did a lot, partly covering for less helpful peers.“This is not what we expected,” Dr. Tepper said. “And we speculate that one reason people keep doing extra in these abusive situations is to advance themselves at the expense of others. It makes them look good and the others look that much worse.”This article dealt primarily with bullying by bosses. As to why bosses bully their workers, the article cited Dr. Harvey A. Hornstein, a retired professor from Teachers College at Columbia University and the author of “Brutal Bosses and Their Prey” in concluding that most often, “managers bullied subordinates for the sheer pleasure of exercising power”.Such leaders are extensively discussed in the article “Narcissistic Leaders: The Incredible Pros, the Inevitable Cons” by Michael Maccoby. Published in the Harvard Business Review in January 2004, this article won a McKinsey Award, which is normally given to works that are deemed to be likely to have a major influence on the actions of business managers worldwide.The article focuses on the personality type that Sigmund Freud dubbed narcissistic. It is one of three personality types identified by Freud, the other two being erotic and obsessive. The article describes narcissists thus:Narcissists, the third type, are independent and not easily impressed. They are innovators, driven in business to gain power and glory. Productive narcissists are experts in their industries, but they go beyond it. They also pose the critical questions. They want to learn everything about everything that affects the company and its products. Unlike erotics, they want to be admired, not loved. And unlike obsessives, they are not troubled by a punishing superego, so they are able to aggressively pursue their goals. Of all the personality types, narcissists run the greatest risk of isolating themselves at the moment of success. And because of their independence and aggressiveness, they are constantly looking out for enemies, sometimes degenerating into paranoia when they are under extreme stress.The article also mentions that narcissists lack empathy. Combined with their “superego” and “aggressiveness”, it is no wonder then that they become bullies when given power. No job after training In The Straits Times yesterday, it was reported that several workers who trained to become aerospace technicians ended up doing general aviation work because there were no technical jobs available.The workers had been given government-funded training with the help of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Workforce Development Agency (WDA). According to the report, some of the workers had left technical jobs in other industries “to pick up what they believed to be more relevant skills”.It turned out, however, that neither the NTUC nor the WDA had guaranteed the workers jobs as aerospace technicians. According to The Straits Times, both parties acknowledged that “NTUC Joblink, in its briefings to job seekers, may not have been clear enough on the employment arrangements and could have given the impression that permanent positions would be immediately available after training”.There are two problems here.One is that of promising too much. This usually happens with salesmen, but it can also happen with any person whose job involves selling something — even a training place — to others. The temptation to stretch the truth is always there. Or it can be a careless omission of pertinent facts — less malicious in intent but not necessarily in effect.The other problem is the government’s economic restructuring programme. Recognising the need to retrain workers for new types of jobs coming to Singapore, the government has been stressing on workers the need to take up training and upgrading courses.Unfortunately, training is no panacea. There are numerous training programmes available on the market, many government-sponsored, many more not. Many individuals, in their eagerness to upgrade their skills and employability, go for such courses, only to find out that employers are still not willing to take them.Sometimes, it is because the jobs are simply not there, as in the case for the would-be aerospace technicians. While workers need training to get better jobs — or any job at all, for some — getting workers to go for training only to find there is no job available for them is a waste of their time and money.Other factors may also make it difficult for specific groups of workers to get better jobs. Age has been a frequently cited problem. Many unemployed workers above 40 years old find themselves discriminated against by employers.The newspapers have recently highlighted yet another factor: Discrimination against part-time degrees from private educational institutes. Also in The Straits Times yesterday, it was reported that many employers are skeptical about the quality of education received from such institutes. To address this problem, the Economic Development Board and SPRING Singapore would be setting up an accreditation scheme for private schools in Singapore, according to The Straits Times.This is really overdue. If training is really important to Singapore’s workers and its economy, then the quality of that training must be maintained and, equally important, be seen as such.Furthermore, the government intends to make Singapore a regional education hub. Foreigners who come to Singapore to study must be able to rely on some sort of quality assurance for the educational institutes that they go to. Otherwise, foreigners may become disillusioned with the quality of education in Singapore, which would surely have spillover effects on Singapore’s reputation as a whole.And let’s not forget: Trainees are not the only ones who need jobs. Without the trainees, the trainers would not be able to keep their jobs too. No glamour in entrepreneurship Before the Singapore government goes any further with its scholars-turned-entrepreneurs scheme, perhaps it and its scholars should read this post at BusinessPundit.com, “No Glamour Here: The Truth About Entrepreneurship”.High-flying government scholars are usually put on an accelerated career path in the civil service. Once they become entrepreneurs, would the government be prepared to continue to provide assistance? If it is, then it can hardly be called entrepreneurship. If it is not, the scholars/entrepreneurs would have to slog it out on their own.Would they be able to make the necessary psychological adjustment? Can scholars become entrepreneurs? There were more stories in The Straits Times yesterday on the release of scholars from the public sector to the private sector (see also Friday’s post, “Too much talent in government”).“Overwhelmingly, business people, civil servants-turned-businessmen and current scholarship holders are opposed to the idea of creating a system to turn scholars into entrepreneurs,” The Straits Times reported.While most of those interviewed “welcomed the idea of letting the private sector have more brains”, they had misgivings about getting them to become entrepreneurs.Ron Sim, founder of health product firm Osim, thinks they will need to change their mindset. He said: “They may have to shift from thinking administration to execution. You can’t calculate everything, unlike writing a policy paper.”Scholars may also be reluctant to leave the civil service. Loss of pay, privilege and financial stability would be deterrents to a civil servant quitting to go into business, especially for those who have hit superscale grade, where salaries may be higher than most top performers in the private sector.Another problem for civil servants is their lack of knowledge of the market. Some think that it would be helpful for scholars to spend more time in attachments to the private sector.Whatever scheme the government decides upon — assuming it does proceed with the idea of getting more scholars to become entrepreneurs — it must also bear in mind the personality traits that make good entrepreneurs.Entrepreneurship is not about intelligence or intellectual capabilities, the hallmarks of scholars. Rather, entrepreneurship is about passion for the business, a point made frequently in Singapore.However, more importantly — and less-frequently mentioned — entrepreneurship is about the drive for independence. Entrepreneurs are willing to take risks with their businesses and careers because they need independence, freedom from control by others.Scholars who do well in a government organisation are likely to be organisation people and probably make good managers. Are they likely to exhibit the independent streak that entrepreneurs have? Too much talent in government In an interview broadcast on television on Tuesday evening, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew said that in global competitive rankings, Singapore scores very highly on its public sector systems but not on criteria such as the level of entrepreneurship and venture capital. He suggested that there is “too much concentration of talent, drive and energy in the public sector”.His remedy? “Let half go, let one third go and get them to be entrepreneurs, not just managers,” he suggested.Will the suggestion work? Doubts exist.In an editorial today, The Straits Times pointed out: “Business leaders and aspiring businessmen have on occasion assailed civil servants for being rule-bound and tone-deaf to the dynamics that drive businesses. The two categories of talent and energy are as different as chalk and cheese.”Nevertheless, the editorial acknowledged that with talent so scarce, the government would have to allow more to move into the private sector.“In the end, it could boil down to making the public service less of a cocoon,” the editorial suggested. “In some positions, it pays much too well relative to what firms pay. There is security of tenure. Bureaucrats do not face the terrors of market appraisal to the extent found in companies.”What was not mentioned explicitly by either SM Lee or The Straits Times is that a re-allocation of talent from the public sector to the private sector can raise the overall efficiency of the economy, regardless of whether they become entrepreneurs or not.The government bureaucracy is an inherently inefficient form of organisation. Whatever services it provides, it does so as a monopoly. Therefore, there is no proper, free-market-based measure of the value of the services, and hence, no proper measure of the value of its output. That in turn means that there cannot be a proper measure of the efficiency of a government bureaucracy.As the management slogan goes: “If it can’t be measured, it can’t be managed”.So government bureaucracies cannot be properly managed. Having talented management in government probably reduces mismanagement, but it cannot reduce it to the same level as it potentially can in the private sector.However, governments cannot be done away with altogether simply on grounds of its inefficiency. Law and order can only be provided by a government. The same with national defence. And natural monopolies will arise even in a free market; some sort of regulated, arbitrary management will always be required for such services.The only viable solution is to limit the role of government as much as possible in order to avoid its inevitable inefficiency. This in turn means limiting the amount of resources, including the amount of talent, going to the government.The resources and talent can instead go to the private sector, where they can potentially be more efficiently utilised.If this is what SM Lee’s suggestion leads to, then I am for it.