out of quotes

'My outlook on life is not based on what possessions I own, knowing how transient life is; or what others think of me, knowing how seldom they do.' Peter Lim in Today paper. I don't know which Peter Lim this is. There could be thousands of them in the streets. Personally I have known at least half a dozen. Doesn't matter. But this is crap and dangerous in a way. It will undermine the ethos of our society. People may start to give up the chase for more dollars. People may stop working. We will have employers crying for employees and may end up with more imports of foreign workers. And if people refuse to work, to earn money, to buy those properties, the property market may collapse. We cannot say such things. Quite stupid actually. Money is good. The smell of money is the smell of success and recognition. No money no honey.

whose right balance?

Another great debate in the making - The right balance This time we are seeing learned counsels trained to argue in courts arguing in the media. And we are seeing two of the best taking sides on Champs, Chumps and Chimps. The key issue probably is about who are the Champs, the Chumps and the Chimps. Philip Jayeratnam is not comfortable about the remuneration system in the public sector, including the salaries of Ministers. Shanmugam is now out to defend the goodness of the system. The Today paper reported, 'Mr Shanmugam, however, argues that Singapore must strike the right balance between valuing the contribution to society through public service and paying reasonably for that service.' Now, right balance according to who? Many, including Jeyaratnam, must have disagreed with the present right balance. That's why the issue was hotly talked about in every little corners of the society, including the msm and cyberspace. But this is the right balance, the best balance, in fact less than perfect, as the salaries paid are still below the benchmark provided by the formula. So who should have the final call and say 'I am right. My version of the right balance is the right balance.'

The basics of education

An educated workforce is an asset to the nation. Govt will find it to its advantage, and also its responsibility to educate its people, which in turn benefits both country and people at the same time. Educating the population is thus both a necessity and a responsibility of a govt. The investment ploughed into education will bear its fruits and the country will be rewarded with a better educated and trained workforce. Initially it may appear to be a cost centre. But it is more than just the churning out of more employable workers, it encompasses the whole well being of a nation, the quality of life and the social environment, and everything that got to do with progressing up the ladder towards an advanced country. But education has been seen as an avenue for profit by some wise guys. Which is true to a certain extent. However, when profit is the only driving goal for education, it undermines its reason to exist as an industry. The assumption of private education for profits must be quality education to befit its high price. And quality education, which culminates in producing quality students, does not depend on the infrastructure and the quality of the teachers. It also depends on the quality of the students. Another case of rubbish in rubbish out. Here comes the problem. Quality students will either be provided with scholarships to pursue their studies in quality institutions or will qualify for admission to state universities at a much lower cost. There is no need for them to pay through their nose to private institutions for a quality education. Private institutions will thus be snuffed out of their supply of good quality students. This is a simple fact that they must know. Unless private universities can provide such a high quality education that established universities cannot provide and can attract quality students to pay for it. In reality, only those who cannot get into cheaper state universities will opt for private universities and willing to pay a higher fee. What these students would expect is that the entry requirements must be lower. That is the expectation. This is the contradiction that private universities must live with. Who the hell would want to pay more for admission to a lesser private university when they can get admitted into the best universities at a lower fee? Education for profit must thus compromise the quality of the education for the students. And this has been going on in many countries when grades were inflated to keep paying students happy and coming. Exceptional cases can be made out for niche markets or for very well established universities that can still retain the high entry requirement and command a high fee. A Harvard or MIT campus here will attract some very good students who are willing to pay the high fees which again may be relatively cheaper than pursuing it in the US. Any other average brand universities must reckon with the hard realities that they will only get the second or third best candidates available if they set up business here and want to command a higher fee. Would ivory tower professors understand this simple business logic?

Myth 140 - Unsolvable Problems

It is a myth that Singapore cannot solve any problem. The latest problem on difficulties in finding taxis during peak periods has been solved. This is a problem caused by heavy usage and calls for taxis during the certain hours. The solution, raise the surcharge. This will reduce the demand for taxis. It's so elementary and so ingenius. And any expressway that is too congested, raise the toll fees. Then traffic will be directed from expressway A to expressway B. And when B is congested, raise the toll fees. Traffic will then be diverted back to A which is having lesser traffic. And when it gets congested again, raise the toll fees again. Traffic will then go to B again. Just keep doing it and the problem will be solved. And if people are consuming too much food and there is food shortage, just raise the price. Then people will consume less. Just like saving water. This is the magic formula to problem solving.

Abe not good enough

ABE not good enough. No, I am not referring to Shinzo Abe but A level grade. When a ABE grade cannot find a place in the local universities, this is going to be a bigger issue than the UNSW. In the latter, it concerns only 250 students, and maybe half are foreigners. For a university place, it is going to affect many Singaporeans, dotting parents and their precious wards. Now people are going to question why their children with reasonably good passes are not going to find a place in local universities. Admittedly what are reasonable grades may be subjective depending on the standard of the affected parties and the universities. What will eventually be dragged out to air will be the number of places given to foreigners, including scholarships using public money, and how many local children would have been displaced from such a policy. The parents are now up in arms. We are the citizens of the country. We are the taxpayers. We are the people to defend this country. I could here them say...Welcome to the Hotel California, such a lovely place, such a lovely place...

Faces of anguish

Everyday the papers and the TV flashed faces of anguish of distraught students from UNSW and their parents. It is truly distressing. A very sad episode to put so many innocent people in such a state of uncertainty with their hopes totally smashed.

6th most stressful country

Singapore is 6th most stressful country We are now ranked as more stressful than Hongkong, according to Grant Thornton International Business Report. Can you beat that? I know one sure reason why Singaporeans are feeling stressed. When you are earning $20k a year and queuing to strike toto every week but in vain, but you are told that many people are earning an equivalent of a toto win every 6 months or every 2 months, sure you get stressed. How not to when all the queuing for the next 30 years may not even strike one toto prize?

Najib's pledge of govt support

Najib was in Singapore selling the IDR. No one can doubt his sincerity and the sincerity of the Abdullah govt for what they want to do in the IDR. They will definitely be investor friendly. After so many years of comparing the nonsenses committed by the Mahathir regime and the Indonesians in Riau, and the no nonsense economic policies of Singapore and even China, they should be able to see the impact of economic growth if the policies are correct. But the Malaysian politics is as changeable as the weather and with so many kampong politicians in the wings, anything can happen tomorrow. In order for the present policies to be taken seriously, they need to cast them in iron with all the what if conditions stated clearly in the contract. If not, it will become, for future Malaysian leaders to say, "I don't know. It was the old regime. We are now changing our policies." And the investors will be caught again with their pants down, and pockets empty. And cannot pull out.

UNSW case, signs of progress

Though I posted a different sentiment under the topic Signs of Decline on this issue, I am saying something different here from another perspective. We are progressing towards a kinder and more forgiving nation and mistakes are now taken in their strides. When mistakes were made in the thousands of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars, we are now regarding them as honest mistakes and part and parcel of the risk mechanism. And anyone making such multi million dollar mistake becomes more valuable as we have invested the lost millions in them to learn. And definitely they will not repeat the same mistake again and will become a wiser person. We are progressing in the right track. Just because we are paying top dollars does not mean that the axe must come down every time a mistake is made. We must treasure risk takers and people who made honest mistakes. Otherwise no one will want to be risk takers and no honest mistakes will be made. But for those who did not do enough homework or were tardy, and left a big gap in their decisions and resulting in huge losses, now that is a different matter altogether.

The audacity of Siew Kum Hong

How could Siew Kum Hong questioned the role of EDB in the UNSW fiasco? EDB has came out openly to say that they are not responsible and UNSW is ultimately responsible for the mess. Period. Can we not accept this clear cut position? And the reasons for not disclosing how much public money were lost were logical and for the good of the country. They cannot disclose it as it will compromise our position in future negotiations. Very reasonably put forth. Certain information are best keep undisclosed in the interest of the country. Transparency must have its limits and things of national interest cannot be divulged casually. According to the Financial Times, $80 million of public money were involved. This is only speculation and cannot be proven as no official figure has been given. Anyway it is small change. Money seems to be an issue in the article as Siew Kum Hong said that with world class pay, the public should demand a higher standard of disclosure, transparency and quality from govt employees. Though I take a different position from Siew Kum Hong, I strongly encouraged everyone to read his article in the Today paper today. He makes a lot of sense. And I am proud of him and Today for printing it. It will be better if Siew Kum Hong raises the same issues in Parliament.

good and bad news on medical fees

Good news, govt hospitals to absorb GST increases Bad news, consultation fees to go up between 5% to 20%. Patients visiting govt hospitals should be thankful that the 2% GST increases will not be absorbed by the hospitals. But because of higher demand and higher costs, though many measures were implemented to reduce cost, consultation fees just have to go up. But a reasuring note, these fees are still affordable. Affordable according to who?

Indonesian Parliament rejects DCA

The refusal by the Indonesian Parliament to ratify the DCA also means that the Extradition Treaty will be thrown out of the window as well. Now, shall we be unhappy or rejoice for this great happening? I think we shall celebrate. If we express any regrets or unhappiness, they will think that they have done the right thing and good for Indonesia. What we should do is to celebrate loudly. That will make them ponder and probably start to worry about what they had done. Let's keep them guessing and questioning their own thinking by throwing a ball.

When altruism is dead

When setting up schools is to make money When setting up hospitals is to make money When standing for election is to make money When public service is to make money When setting up a charity is to make money When recognition of an individual's worthiness is about making money That is, when altruism is dead.

myth 139

The fiction of guilt The Sentosa Resort has been plagued with an assumed guilt that Stanley Ho is linked to the triads and it is not desirable to put his money here. I have earlier commented that many of the casinos in Las Vegas and around the world are also linked in one way or another to the mafias and triads all over the world. So what's the big deal? Now western developed, advanced and high moral countries are accepting that the children of Stanley Ho are innocent and not guilty by relations to Stanley Ho. By the way, who has pronounced that Stanley Ho is guilty? Which God said so? I like what Jesus said. 'Let the one who has not sinned be the first to cast the stone.' Where are all the saints? All in the little red dot I supposed. We shouldn't call ourselves a paradise. That is an insult to our squeaky clean country. We shall call ourselves heaven on earth, Sin free City, the habitat of demigods where no evil man shall be allowed to trample on.

barking up the wrong tree?

By now the whole machinery to achieve a first class transport system and a first class MRT should be in full swing. So far the idea of a first class transport system includes an MRT that is modelled probably after Tokyo. Tokyo seems to be the best model to take us there. I just hope first class does not mean sardine class, where commuters are squeesed, tit to tit, inside a jam pack train. The concept of first class invokes a sense of classiness, comfort, space and a little pampering, something similar to first class air travel or A class hospital wards. If that is the definition of first class, then it makes sense. And don't forget that such first class public transport comes with a first class price tag. Who can afford such services? The top 10% of the population will not be bothered with first class or world class public transport. They have their own classy private transport which they cannot part with. Maybe the next 10 percentile may consider such an option. Or perhaps the lower 5 percentile of the this group. Those who can afford the comfort of private transport will want to keep themselves away from the masses. The 80% of the population are unlikely to take it kindly to a first class price tag. They will love to have the first class service. But many would not be able to afford it or would opt to save the extra dollar for something else. Maybe a business class equivalent rather than a first class MRT to cater for the 20 percentile group at the top. It cannot be for everyone. Half the population will not be able to afford it no matter how affordable it claims to be. Let's hope that the system of first class travel will not be imposed on the population like the hospital ward system where eventually you will get first class and economy class travel. And if not enough takers for first class, means testing will be introduced to ensure that more people pay for first class services that they do not want. It must not be a 'What the provider wants is what the commuters must pay' system.

No need to wait for 6.5 million population

SINGAPORE: The current high occupancy rate at some public hospital is stressing doctors to discharge their patients, admitted Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan yesterday. Occupancy has hit highs of more than 90 per cent for some hospitals recently, above Mr Khaw’s ideal of 85 per cent. “When you run at over 90 per cent, it’s very stressful,” said the Health Minister, who was the chief executive of several hospitals from 1985 to 1992. “Stressful in the sense that, every day, our doctors have to go down to beg the patients (to be discharged).” Occupying a hospital bed for acute illness costs the Government an average of $1,000 a day, compared to “a few hundred dollars” for a community hospital bed. This is “the cost to society”, said Mr Khaw at the sidelines of an event yesterday. “If I don’t actively shift patients down, our total cost will just be heavy.” Reported in Today We are now starting to get a little dosage of what life would be like when we double our population. We will simply break at the seams if we continue to push to the limits.

unsw - money is the end all

UNSW Too hasty a decision University's governing body had 30 seconds to decide on Singapore. Sydney Morning Herald. May 26, 2006 By Harriet Alexander The University of NSW rushed through plans for its now collapsed Singapore campus so quickly that the university's governing body was given just 30 seconds to scrutinise the proposal, a senior academic says. One former member of the governing body said he was so disgusted by the decision in early 2004 that he decided not to stand again for his position on the University of NSW council. Yesterday the university announced it was abandoning the university's Asia operation in Singapore after losing millions of dollars on the venture. Fewer than 150 students had enrolled in the offshore campus this year, far short of plans to have it expand to 15,000 students over the next two decades. It is the latest hitch in the Australian university sector's troubled attempts to exploit the lucrative international student market by setting up offshore campuses. I extracted the above bits from littlespeck.com. This is what will happen when the original objective of education is hijacked into a money making enterprise. It is now all about money. The noble objective of education, the responsibility of educating and training a productive population is discarded and forgotten. Now it is whether there is money to be made. If not, simply close it down, cut your losses, and look for another more lucrative business. Is there anything to learn from this?

legal profession going cuckoo?

Recently we have been hearing very strange things coming from the legal fraternity. Some said making a lot of money is not important. They were talking about service to the people, and making money is not the end all of becoming lawyers. Now the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said, 'Ethics is what matters most.' When has ethics been an issue among our learned friends? The profession has always been in the thick of things, at the forefront of all important events in the island, and with many distinguished members becoming leaders of the nation. They are the cream of the society, earning big bucks and delivering justice for the wronged citizens. The Chief Justice was giving a lecture on ethics which is normally taught in primary schools to children. We should expect adults and professionals to live ethics as their second nature. The Chief Justice was talking about setting high morals and building trusts with clients. But more surprising is that he was telling them that making money is secondary to leading a straight and narrow path. What is happening or what has happened for the Chief Justice to have to lecture them on ethics and morals? Is the message to the young lawyers a reminder that our society has gone to the dogs and that they should not follow the same slippery path, of just grabbing money at all cost, without a care to their conscience or propriety?

would jbj's new party make a difference?

Would a new party make a difference to the political landscape of Singapore and alter the present political system? In the last election we have seen some life coming into the political tussling for power and the ruling of the country. Everything has quiet down for the moment. JBJ's new quest may be just another yawn. Our political system has reached a mature state in its own way, not that of a western democracy model. It is a different model that has attained a level where it can only stagnate and not getting better. It has been institutionalised as a parallel to the civil service, an employment opportunity for people to build a life long career with all the perks of employment. And it has developed around it a network of systems and controls to ensure its existence for a long time to come, not to be challenged. The system is not just the political party in power. It seeps down to many levels of the govt service, to the industries, GLCs and not GLCs, and an extended linkage of people groomed and associated with the power of the day. Such an extensive network of people working as one, may not be necessarily bad as has been proven over the years. But the possibility of it turning bad is starting to show when over concentration of power leads to a kind inbreeding mindset or mentality. The group think is getting very transparent, that they share the same thinking, the same aspiration, the same value system, the same self gratification as the motivation and reason to protect and perpetuate the existing system. There is no way for new parties to make any inroad into the political fray and challenge the supremacy of the ruling party under the present conditions. At the worst the opposition parties may gain a handful of seats in the next election. We need to have a paradigm shift as they called it, for all Singaporeans to start thinking about what kind of society and political system they want. Not the present kind where serving the group in power is the end all of life. Many just serve the group, defending the group and behave like the group, unthinkingly. Change will only come when everyone, including all those in govt services, start to think for the country and people, that their loyalty is to the country and people and their general good. And when they start to question what they are doing and for whose interests and for whose goods begin to trouble their conscience, of rights and wrongs, and that it is not really right to serve the paymaster at all cost, with no qualms of the longer term good of the country, only then things will change. When the people are free, at all levels, to think freely, act freely, unfettered by power or self interests and self preservation, then only will there be a change in the political framework and a change in the political system. More parties and more new parties will just be laid on the roadside, as another new sideshow.

UNSW students fight on

The students are fighting back. That is the spirit needed when the big boys washed their hands and packed up to go. The UNSW students met to demand that UNSW honours its commitment to them and keep the campus running, at least till they complete their courses. There is a contract, a social and business obligation once they admitted the students to a degree course. And they cannot walk away and offer whatever half bake measures and expecting the students to accept them. The legal route is an option. Where is the professionalism, the integrity, the honour and responsibility to see through a commitment? An university is always highly regarded by the people as an icon of all the virtues of human endeavours. How could UNSW possibly get away with the fiasco by a shock pullout like this and think that its reputation will not be affected? I do not know how much is our side's involvement and responsibility to the mess. But we cannot get away without some shit sticking to us. We will also smell as bad as UNSW. We may say and think that we are going ahead full steam to achieve our goal as an education hub. But will future students and their parents buy it after what had happened? To think that we have nothing to do with it and that our gleaming reputation is untarnished is like putting blinkers on.