singtel has a local ceo

Nicholas Yeo, Asian equities investment manager at Aberdeen Asset Management said, "I'm not sure if the market was expecting them to bring in someone from the outside who would be more aggressive, but she is a natural choice in terms of her knowledge of the company. It would not be as difficult for her as it would have been for an outsider," Suddenly everyone realised that the best candidate available and with a wealth of experience was someone within. Luckily they did not throw another tens of millions for an expensive foreign dud. The problem with Chua Sock Koon is that her salary is not high enough. They need to raise her salary to $10 million at least. Then it will be decisions from a $10 million calibre CEO. That will give her more weight. But still a lightweight compare to the $200 million Americans. How about making her a heavyweight and pay her $100 million. She will then have a louder voice in the international arena and can get into Forbes top 100 most powerful woman also. The quality of a person is measured by the amount of salary he/she commands.

gifted programme that was not to be

The Gifted Programme or GEP came to an end today with poor enrolment and competition from better alternative programmes. The much hype programme for gifted children, in my view, fell too far short of its namesake. Where are the results of gifted personalities that were churned out from the programme except for some straight As which other schools are producing in great numbers. One would expect something of an Einstein, a renowned musician, a mathematician, someone who discovers why man can walk on air or a 12 year old professor. The programme produced none of these. Might as well. Maybe we need to grow our population to 8 million and with more foreign talent seeds, then we can revive a more gifted programme with double the chances of producing some genius.

imf-world bank and the little red dot

The Little Red Dot has done it again. It is a coup of another kind over the last 10 days. No litters, no smoking, no chewing gums, and yes, no public and violent demonstration. We have uniformed men all over Suntec City, just like the Thais have their uniformed soldiers all over Bangkok. Both were there to keep the peace, albeit of a different kind. For once, the IMF-World Bank Meeting had gone without a hitch, without demonstrators pushing and fighting with the police. A bloodless coup. And this is Singapore. We have told the world that there can be discussions and exchanges of views in a civil and orderly manner, and getting the points across. Would this brand of protestorless and bloodless Meetings be continued into the future? If it does, then Singapore would have taught the world a lesson, the Singapore way of doing things. There were a little edginess initially. And the strongest or loudest protest came not from the CSOs but from the President of the World Bank himself, Paul Wolfowitz. But I think deep down inside him he was a happy man with Singapore taking the blame for a peaceful and sensible international Meeting here. And so were all the delegates despite the little utterings of how artificial the zoo was. So clean, so free and so safe. And all the food being serve on a silver platter. The Little Red Dot called the shot and set the agenda on how the Meeting should be conducted. And the world is pleased.

me and the new paper

Just a little announcement. I have just signed on the dotted line to be a columnist with The New Paper. And don't be surprised to see my pretty face on the pages of TNP come next month. It is an encouraging sign to see the main stream media taking the initiative to engage the netizens of cyberspace. Cheers

remove affordability and profitability from the equation

I was reading the Secretary of Public Tansport Council, Looi Teik Soon's reply to Lim Boon Hee's 'Absolute fare comparison is misleading.' And after adjusting for Purchasing Power Parity, Singapore's transport fare is still CHEAP compare to HongKong, London and New York. The argument on this basis is perfectly sound and logical. It is based on affordability. The income of those commuters in other cities are higher so they should pay more. Our income is lower, then we should pay lesser. But we should not be paying lesser as the comparison says that all things being equal, we should be paying more. After adjusting for PPP we should and could be made to pay as high as New York. So our average fare should be $1.42 instead of 66c. Anyone sees anything wrong with this logic? The approach for how much the commuters should be paying is not dependent on operating cost or profitability but how much one can afford. Just like our HDB pricing. So if Singaporeans can afford to pay $20, this logic will say our average fare should be $20! I still think that we should return public services back to the govt and remove the idea of profitability and affordability from the thinking and equation. Public services are essential services and should be cost and charged on a different formula from commercial enterprises.