Myth 216 - The Rajaratnam Myth

In a main article in the Editorial section of the ST today, Kishore Mahbubani wrote an article in praise of S Rajaratnam, one of the key founding fathers of modern Singapore. He lamented at the lack of interest and knowledge of this pioneering leader of our country, or city. In honour of Rajaratnam's great contributions to the city or country, Kishore suggested that we should create more myths around this man for posterity and our history. I will not disagree with him for wanting to honour our great leaders of the past and to remember them fondly for the good things they did. But why myth, a word that he agrees, connotes very negative feelings and meaning. The Myths of Rajaratnam! Down the road we may even create the Myths of Goh Keng Swee and the Myths of Lee Kuan Yew. I want to protest and disagree with him on the word myth. Kishore is a great artist in the use of words. But I would rather Kishore choose the word legend instead. Legends may also not be true and can be created, dressed up, but the feelings are more praiseworthy and positive. The Legends of Davy Crockett, the Legends of Huang Fei Hong, the Legends of Rajaratnam, the Legends of Goh Keng Swee, the Legends of Lee Kuan Yew! Sound better right? The Myths of Rajaratnam! Sounds awful to me.

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%.