“If Singapore depends on the talent it can produce out of three million people, it’s not going to punch above its weight. Lee Kuan Yew
We were 1m, then 2m, then 3m before we added all the foreigners to 5m. When we were 1m and 2m, we were already producing the talents that built the foundation for our economic miracles. We were producing talented Singaporeans even then. Unless those were not talents, then we are just slapping our own stupid face.
Now we are 5m. Did the increased population with foreign talents, throw out any great talents? The only foreign talent that is worth mentioning is Olivia Lum of Hyflux. The rest were plain employees, sitting on their fat asses and get fat pay which any Singaporeans can also do so given the chance. Many of the CEO positions can easily be filled by Singaporeans and you will not see any difference in performance, maybe even better.
The three local banks were built by Singaporean talents. Without local talents there would not be any big local banks to think of. SIA, SMRT, Creative, Singtel were also locals. Not sure about Temasek and GIC. The hospitals with their specialists and state of the art equipments were mainly run by Singaporeans and Malaysians. By the way, I think Singaporeans have never regarded the Malaysians as foreigners historically.
Did we produce lesser talents when we were 1m and 2m than we are now? There are some great talents in R and D, imported. But these are instant trees. Would their offsprings be more talented than the offsprings of coolies and labourers, washerwomen and salesmen? What about the risk of offsprings from fake papers and fake talents?
If we can produce talents before, when we were 1m and 2m, I don’t see why we can’t produce talents when we are 3m. The bigger the population, the bigger the pool of genes, but not necessary will produce better talents. Many small countries are producing more talents than bigger countries with bigger populations.
Today we are punching above our weights by individuals who were produced during a time when the population was a million or less.
7/27/2011
Two party system will ruin Singapore
This is LKY’s view. In his one dimensional experience with Singapore, he can only see goodness in one party system and badness in everything else. I could up his ante by claiming that dictatorship is even better, without contention, with a dictator or emperor calling his shot, everything can be done at his beck and call. Super fast and super efficient, for good or for bad.
Really, every system is good and every system is bad. It all boils down to the goodness of the leader. A dictator or emperor can be an excellent leader and can bring progress and greatness to the country and people, provided his intention and goals are benevolent.
Historically the goodness of such leaders was often temporary as they soon got intoxicated by power and their own egoistic pride that they could do no wrong or they were gods. There have been many such examples when the leaders could not see glaring mistakes of their own. They will believe only in themselves and their self serving logic.
We have seen that, and have paid for it. All men are fallible and corrupt to a matter of degree. A one party system can be good but can also entrench corruption and misdeeds of the leaders. And in such a system it is very difficult to dislodge them and undo their wrongs. To make matter worst, one party rule or its dictatorial equivalents are often run by strong men that makes removing them even more difficult.
Two party and multi party systems have their strength and weaknesses as well. But given leaders with good intention, from both sides of the coin, it can be a more amiable system, more compassion, less brutal and brash in policy making. In a mature society where the leaders of both sides are made up of honourable men and women, knowledgeable and wiser, all striving for the good of country and people, and not self serving, it can be much better than single party system that often failed to check itself and its own abuses.
Single party or multi party systems are just systems. It is the leaders that make them good or bad. We have seen how a single party system can be good and also can be bad. It is not the panacea or the only panacea for good governance. It is as flawed as the leaders running it.
Really, every system is good and every system is bad. It all boils down to the goodness of the leader. A dictator or emperor can be an excellent leader and can bring progress and greatness to the country and people, provided his intention and goals are benevolent.
Historically the goodness of such leaders was often temporary as they soon got intoxicated by power and their own egoistic pride that they could do no wrong or they were gods. There have been many such examples when the leaders could not see glaring mistakes of their own. They will believe only in themselves and their self serving logic.
We have seen that, and have paid for it. All men are fallible and corrupt to a matter of degree. A one party system can be good but can also entrench corruption and misdeeds of the leaders. And in such a system it is very difficult to dislodge them and undo their wrongs. To make matter worst, one party rule or its dictatorial equivalents are often run by strong men that makes removing them even more difficult.
Two party and multi party systems have their strength and weaknesses as well. But given leaders with good intention, from both sides of the coin, it can be a more amiable system, more compassion, less brutal and brash in policy making. In a mature society where the leaders of both sides are made up of honourable men and women, knowledgeable and wiser, all striving for the good of country and people, and not self serving, it can be much better than single party system that often failed to check itself and its own abuses.
Single party or multi party systems are just systems. It is the leaders that make them good or bad. We have seen how a single party system can be good and also can be bad. It is not the panacea or the only panacea for good governance. It is as flawed as the leaders running it.
7/26/2011
Rise of a regional military power?
In his speech to the nation, Benigno Aquino III announced that he will increase the purchase of more weapons, including a patrol boat to defend the Spratley Islands. The Philippines will defend by force, in this case against China, and from his tones, will attack Chinese ships entering the area. China has to be careful of this rising military power and avoid sending its naval crafts as they will be attacked and probably sunk by the mighty Filipino Navy.
Aquino can talk loudly, while standing on the head of the Americans, waving the military treaty they have signed in the 1950s. While the Filipino patrol boats may be good only against fishing vessels, there lies, lurking in the dark and under the South China Sea, a mighty American fleet and submarines that are waiting for the Chinese ships. One can expect the Filipinos to fire at the Chinese fire to draw fire from the latter and the US jumping in to declare that China is bullying its smaller neighbours. And the White Knight will have all the reasons to flex its muscles and entrench their presence in the region.
The Americans may think that the Chinese will back off. They must not forget that China will not blink and will go to war when their territorial sovereignty is at risk, even taking on the mighty Americans. The emerging regional power or flotsam navy can continue shouting their lungs out and think that they have come off age. This dangerous pariah country is a risk to regional stability, thinking that it has the world’s biggest bully on its beck and call, and it can take on the Chinese. It is a frivolous and dangerous tribe.
Aquino can talk loudly, while standing on the head of the Americans, waving the military treaty they have signed in the 1950s. While the Filipino patrol boats may be good only against fishing vessels, there lies, lurking in the dark and under the South China Sea, a mighty American fleet and submarines that are waiting for the Chinese ships. One can expect the Filipinos to fire at the Chinese fire to draw fire from the latter and the US jumping in to declare that China is bullying its smaller neighbours. And the White Knight will have all the reasons to flex its muscles and entrench their presence in the region.
The Americans may think that the Chinese will back off. They must not forget that China will not blink and will go to war when their territorial sovereignty is at risk, even taking on the mighty Americans. The emerging regional power or flotsam navy can continue shouting their lungs out and think that they have come off age. This dangerous pariah country is a risk to regional stability, thinking that it has the world’s biggest bully on its beck and call, and it can take on the Chinese. It is a frivolous and dangerous tribe.
Legally right but morally wrong?
The issue of life long pensions in the millions is going to bug the govt and the people for a long time to come. Though everything has been above board, approved and passed in Parliament, something seems to be missing. Why are the people so unhappy about this pension scheme for the ministers and political office bearers?
Recently two ministers and an office holder lost their parliamentary seats. Several senior ministers were retired from the cabinet for good or not so good reasons. What is shocking is the revelation that they will all be receiving million dollar pensions for life, even if they are no longer ministers or office holders. What is more shocking is that many are already receiving million dollar pensions on top of their multi million dollar salaries when they hit 55, or have been receiving them for umpteen years. Some have been collecting the huge pensions for more than ten years.
What irks the people more is that the age for CPF withdrawal and retirement age for the public at large have been pushed further back. CPF savings can now be withdrawn partially at the age of 62. And the political leaders, with their huge salaries, are getting their huge pensions at 55.
Is this a case of legally right and morally wrong? Of course in cases of morality, everyone has his moral standards and everyone can claim to be on moral high grounds. The only hint of morally wrongdoing is that when the guilty party is afraid to stand up on the high box of morality to state his case. If it is morally right, everyone will jump on it to pronounce their innocence and that they are on high moral grounds for what they are doing.
Would the political leaders stand up and say that the high pensions are not only legally right but morally as well? Would they be able to tell straight in the eyes of entry level superscale admin officers in the H Grade, who are working their guts out, and drawing a couple of hundreds of thousand in annual income while they are receiving millions for life for doing nothing? Would there be a full disclosure on how many political leaders are already on the pension schemes and how many more will qualify and the cost to pay for these pensioned leaders? Even if it is going to cost only 2 plates of char kway teow, it is of public interest that the people should know.
It would be nice if this is reported in the next parliamentary sittings to clear whatever doubts and wrong perceptions there may be among the people. Political leaders must be seen to be standing on high moral grounds, not just legally. This issue has to be raised in Parliament and buried for good as the doubts and uneasiness are spreading quietly. Or would it ever be closed?
Recently two ministers and an office holder lost their parliamentary seats. Several senior ministers were retired from the cabinet for good or not so good reasons. What is shocking is the revelation that they will all be receiving million dollar pensions for life, even if they are no longer ministers or office holders. What is more shocking is that many are already receiving million dollar pensions on top of their multi million dollar salaries when they hit 55, or have been receiving them for umpteen years. Some have been collecting the huge pensions for more than ten years.
What irks the people more is that the age for CPF withdrawal and retirement age for the public at large have been pushed further back. CPF savings can now be withdrawn partially at the age of 62. And the political leaders, with their huge salaries, are getting their huge pensions at 55.
Is this a case of legally right and morally wrong? Of course in cases of morality, everyone has his moral standards and everyone can claim to be on moral high grounds. The only hint of morally wrongdoing is that when the guilty party is afraid to stand up on the high box of morality to state his case. If it is morally right, everyone will jump on it to pronounce their innocence and that they are on high moral grounds for what they are doing.
Would the political leaders stand up and say that the high pensions are not only legally right but morally as well? Would they be able to tell straight in the eyes of entry level superscale admin officers in the H Grade, who are working their guts out, and drawing a couple of hundreds of thousand in annual income while they are receiving millions for life for doing nothing? Would there be a full disclosure on how many political leaders are already on the pension schemes and how many more will qualify and the cost to pay for these pensioned leaders? Even if it is going to cost only 2 plates of char kway teow, it is of public interest that the people should know.
It would be nice if this is reported in the next parliamentary sittings to clear whatever doubts and wrong perceptions there may be among the people. Political leaders must be seen to be standing on high moral grounds, not just legally. This issue has to be raised in Parliament and buried for good as the doubts and uneasiness are spreading quietly. Or would it ever be closed?
7/25/2011
The Rise of Asia Forum at NUSS
Professor Kishore Mahbubani, would be speaking live on 27 July 2011 from 7.30-8.30pm. The event will be webcasted live through the dedicated website (http://ualive.nus.edu.sg) and also includes an interactive forum that allows viewers to send real time comments and questions to the speakers via Facebook, Twitter or MSN messenger while watching the live show. Viewers can watch the seminar live on Wednesday through the URL (http://ualive.nus.edu.sg).
In addition to live participation, we are also trying to encourage interested viewers to post and vote questions here (http://www.google.com/moderator/#15/e=a18b6&t=a18b6.40&f=a18b6.4e0cbe) from now till the actual event. These too will be addressed by the Professor.
In addition to live participation, we are also trying to encourage interested viewers to post and vote questions here (http://www.google.com/moderator/#15/e=a18b6&t=a18b6.40&f=a18b6.4e0cbe) from now till the actual event. These too will be addressed by the Professor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)