Lower standard of Chinese for easy learning

There is an interesting article in Viewpoints in mypaper by a Chua Chern Nee on teaching and learning Chinese in Singapore. Many parents have been so frustrated and desperate as their children just could not learn the language or find it so difficult and boring. And many fled to foreign countries where they don't have to learn Chinese. And we have come out with a solution, lower standard of learning to fit the ability of different students. The writer quoted the case of a Korean boy who came here without any background in basic Chinese and he aced the subject after 10 months of learning the language. How could this happened? My guess is that the Korean boy ate rice as his staple food. And for those who have difficulties learning Chinese, it must be their diet, eating too much kantang. Maybe changing their diet will make a difference. As for those who went overseas, it may become compulsory to learn Chinese as a second language in America and Australia in time to come. Ok, it is a new myth. I like creating myths and I have a column dedicated to myths, all 200+ of them. And I am going to add one more, the Rajaratnam Myth.

The correct definition of Productivity

There have been too many confusing definitions of Productivity. Some believe that Productivity means up skill, re skill, multi skill, be cheaper, better and faster. These are myths. We have been doing all these for so many years but our Productivity remains flat. I think my definition to increase price like my char kway teow example is better. And some workers think that slogging longer hours, work harder or staying longer in the office to show the boss are equivalent to higher productivity. Here is the correct version by Amy Khor. Productivity = doing more but in the same timespan or less. She forgot to post her credential as an example of what is higher productivity. She is MP, Mayor, Chairman of Reach, Chairman of countless committees, Advisors to countless committees, her own profession, and maybe, I am not sure, directors of some companies. And she did that within her 24 hours a day like everyone of us. Now that is productivity, doing more in the same timespan. So those office workers who stay behind to slog late into the night, please think again. You are very unproductive, doing the same amount of work or a little more, but taking so much time. And those who are still thinking of multi skill and mult tasking, please do it within the same timespan or less. Now I can see the brilliance and productivity of people who are directors of many companies. The more directorships or chairmanship the more productive.

That's the way it is! Ah ha, ah ha, ah ha....

China has declared its intention to be the world's number one military power, to overtake the USA. And this ambition will be reflected in the new military budget to be announced. The confidence in the way the Chinese are standing up to face the oppressive bully is a sign that they are already on par with the US. Yes, the US may still have a big edge in military hardware and technology. But China has enough to neutralise the threat of an open war with the Americans. Both can only claim superiority in numbers and on papers. Both knows that they cannot afford to fight each other. They will simply wipe each other out of this world, together with the rest of the world. What does this open declaration of China means? It says that China will no longer kowtow to the US and will stand up for its rights and will take on the US head on in any challenge or threats the Americans throw at them. The Chinese are not going to accept all kinds of rubbish attacks quietly. There will be more tic for tac as the US gets more uncomfortable with China challenging its dominant position and status. What is damaging is that the US will have to spend more for defence which will hasten its downfall when its coffer is already empty. The American strategy is for 10 times or 100 times superiority in hardware and soldiers. And for every dollar or soldier the Chinese add on to their arsenal, the US is going to pay 100 times more. And the US just cannot compete in this expensive game anymore. It can continue to publish its rhetorics that China is an aggressive power and will threaten the smaller countries. Many no longer believe this threat any more except the unthinking tin pot dictators of fictitious demoncracy countries. The aggressive nature of the Americans and the wars it is waging against small countries around the world is testament to its hostile policy of bully small nations. They even force peaceful nations to go to war with them, to share the killings and the guilt, with hands dripping with Arab and Muslim bloods. Go for it China. It will be good for the rest of the world, to keep the bully in check. And to prevent more regime changes and interference with other countries domestic politics.

Can we accept 3% productivity growth?

With the best talents in the world, in monetary terms of course, can we accept 3% productivity growth as our target? I believe we are not paying peanuts for average talents. And we have been told that the last few years of growth were contributed by the foreign workers. And should we be happy and claim to have done well if we can get 2% or 2.5% growth? I am still pondering over this very ambitious goal of 3%, like climbing Mount Everest. Didn't I say that a char kway teow stallholder could increase his productivity by 17% if he raises his price by 50c? Maybe we are being modest and by the end of next year we will declare an achievement of 8%.

Productivity at its lowest ebb

For the past decade or so our productivitiy has reached a point of zero, save only by the influx of foreign workers. They contributed to practically all the growth numbers to our economy. Taking them out of the equation our growth is zero, yes zero. That's why everyone in the know is so grateful to the foreign workers. I am not going to ask what have the supertalents contributed if our growth came from the low down and poorly paid foreign workers. Now we are going to increase or boost productivity. And it seems so simple, a few training courses will do it after languishing for all these years. I think there are easier ways to improve productivity than training courses. Just follow the examples of the property industry. Every 4 or 5 years, the price could be double. That should be the kind of productivity numbers we be looking for. How to go about it? We used to call it asset inflation. But there are many areas that we can inflate the prices, the consumers just pay. By increasing the prices of things and services here and there, productivity will simply go up proportionally. A plate of char kway teow can be increased from $3 to $3.50, giving a 17% increase in productivity without having to do anything except changing the price tag. Some measures could be more ingenuine, like erecting another few toll gates and money will keep rolling in. That is productivity. One thing that will reduce productivity and should not be thought of is pay rise. Any increase in pay will definitely lower productivity unless there is also an increase in goods or services produced, or increase in price. The latter must be more than the hike in pay. Whenever the rental goes up, the stall holders simply raise their prices, several percentages more than the rental hike. So the productivity of the landlords and the stall holders also go up disproportionately. Now we can understand why stallholders are not complaining. They constantly raise their productivity to improve their income. I must add that this kind of productivity growth is only possible in a monopolistic or near monopolistic environment, or insular market when supple and demand can be managed.