Tolong, tolong, give back our dreams

4 senior citizens posted an open letter in TRE pleading to the PM to give back the Singaporean Dream of 5Cs, car, condo, credit card, country clubs and cash to their children. It was only a few years back that Singaporeans were all in their highs, dreaming of the 5Cs, to do good in life. Everyone was full of confidence to achieve his dream of a comfortable and better life. The appearance of this letter is kind of a sudden and exudes a sense of despair that things are not getting better.

Is this a true version of the state of affair in the island or just the imagination of some desperadoes? Housing prices are still shooting to the sky, COEs hitting $100k for a car, everyone is still going on holiday. Life must be good and many citizens must be living a life of plenty. A HDB resale EC costing more than a million while a new HDB penthouse is more than $2m. And they are all being taken immediately. They must be very affordable.

Why is there such a despair call? Boon Wan is promising that 2030 will see the life of Singaporeans getting even better with better quality living. Who is out of touch, who is misleading?

Let’s look at the 5Cs. Car is going to be a very rare and expensive item that many Singaporeans will not be able to afford. Their lives will be centred around taking public transport or if they can afford it, taking taxis. One C down. Condo living, this seems to be very affordable as all the launches was a sellout at whatever price. So this C is still standing. Credit cards are being issued to the Singaporeans like toilet papers and everyone is holding a handful in his wallets. So this C is doing very well, not considering the credit is stretched to the limits.

Country clubs are getting cheaper and cheaper from the heady prices they used to fetch. Are Singaporeans forming a queue to snatch up these goodies? Apparently not. So this C is losing its lustre.

What about cash? It is a well know fact that Singaporeans are asset rich but cash strapped. All the cash are wiped out quite quickly now with the new rulings on car purchases and the high property prices. Many are switching to credit cards from cash. Hopefully this interchange is sustainable to provide the people with a good quality life.

What is left of the 5Cs is probably 2, condo and credit cards. Car is out, country club not so attractive, cash a bit of a problem to many except the very rich.

What then is the new Singaporean Dream? Good public transport system, 4 rm HDB flat, more credit cards, and the chance to emigrate? And not to forget, to make new friends with the new citizens and PRs and foreigners, to learn new way of life and new languages? Another controversial dream, retiring early as jobs are getting rare for Singaporeans above 50.

Sinkie or Singaporean or a simpler term

When I used the term Sinkie to refer to Singaporean, it was more or a convenience without any negative connotations. Over time the term Sinkie has becoming more meaningful and prophetic. Many Sinkies or Singaporeans are having this sinking feeling and feeling very unease about it.

Many Sinkies would not mind using this term in its most innocent sense. I also notice that some feel very offended by it and get very heated under the collar. They all prefer to be addressed as Singaporeans. I must say that for Sinkies to want to be called Singaporeans is a good thing. There is still pride and identity left in this diminishing specie. Those abroad, some taken up PRs or foreign citizenships, still feel very Singaporean in them. You can take away his citizenship but you cannot take away their Singaporeaness, of having been a Singaporean.

Would Singaporean be a dying breed just like the peranakans? I will henceforth, in due respect to those Singaporeans who just want to be called Singaporeans, to avoid using the term Sinkie. I will have to find a shorter version to type.

There is still hope that the identity of true blue Singaporeans may survive the current crisis it is going through. Only when Singaporeans want to be Singaporeans, to want to maintain this unique identity in us, not some international citizen label or hotel guests that can go any where they like, will this Singaporean identity continue to exist in the form that we know, a kind of special feeling. But it is a losing battle if we are to constantly dilute it with more and more foreigners that are quite different from us. Another 1.6m is going to do more damage not just the characteristics of being a Singaporean, but we will become more like them, another new concoction, another rojak in the making.

Judge GIC by its long term results

In an interview with the Sunday Times, Ng Kok Song, the retired Group Chief Investment Officer of GIC summed up his views by saying that an organisation like GIC should be judged by its performance over a longer time frame. How long is this time frame is relative and subjective, but definitely not over a year or a handful of years. This kind of view is reasonable in general for a Sovereign Wealth Fund or any funds managed by the fund managers. Investment is a long term process as against gambling or daily trading. The volatility of the assets and equities under management may fluctuate wildly in the short term or even daily when there is a major event or crisis happening. The value of the assets or funds under management could plunge or swing up in response to such events. This is equally true of big institutions, or even the performance of govts. It is thus unfair to wallop a non performing fund over a short interval of time or during a crisis.

Today’s corporate culture and practices are often based on short term performance, or at least the remuneration and reward system is geared towards an annual payout. This has resulted in the management and executives planning and working for instant rewards and instant gratification. And the accounting system and reward packages, bonuses, payouts, handouts, perks, etc etc are all based on short term results or annual results. A good performance in a year could earn the management their life time income. A poor performance in a year could earn them half a life time income. A disastrous performance in a year could earn them multiple life time incomes.

What is the problem? Many fund managers, top management, and even govts, want to be rewarded immediately, on a year to year basis. This is natural as their tenure is short and could be terminated quite quickly. And they all want to be judged over the long term so that their bad performance can be averaged out to look better over time, or maybe a windfall or a lucky streak some years ahead could turn their fortune around. Or they could have left when bad times are here or the bad times that were hidden in the books could not be hidden any longer. The Olympus Camera company is one such example.

Last year, our Govt recorded a once in a life time GDP growth rate of 15%, much higher than any country in the world. And their super world class salaries were given an added boost with super world class bonuses based on this once in a life time growth rate in a year. Like any big institutions, the next few years may end in the red, no growth or minus growth, it doesn’t matter, the big bonuses are already in the bank accounts.

I somehow think the equation or formula is not very right. I thought since performance is best to be assessed over a long term, the remuneration or reward system should also be designed to be paid out over a long term as well. Both will thus average out the performances and the rewards in the long run. Tiok boh?

Why like that one? Still cannot figure out why? Heard of head I win tail you lose? To be reasonable, honest, responsible, accountable and respectable, and to be real, rewards and bonus system of an institution or govt must be in line with the performance assessment system. If the reward is based on immediate payout for the year’s performance, then the measurement must be based on a yearly basis. If not, it is simply screwy.

I like simple logic that every layman can understand.

Sunday morning's joke of the day.

Anyone looking for a joke, please go to TRE and read the article, NTU's Professor speaks against anti immigrant policies. Ok, before I got misunderstood. It is a sick joke. Unbelieveable! I am truly astounded by the pearls of wisdom.

Our parents planted this Singapore tree for us

Singaporeans and the early migrants and the pioneering political leaders, not today's, built Singapore into what it is today. True blue Sinkies must not forget this truth. The political leadership today, many were just born yesterday with the exception of a few oldies, do not build the rich and prosperous Singapore but enjoying all the benefits and privileges that came from yesterday's sweat and tears.

Today, we are inviting so many foreign talents to enjoy the fruits of our parents' labour, the labour of yesterday's generation. And these foreign talents are here to replace the children of yesterday's hardworking Sinkies. They are all sitting in high places, earning big bucks and talking rubbish about why we need them and how able and talented they are. And to bring in more foreign talents at our expense.

True blue Singaporeans must not forget that what we are today is a gift from our parents who slogged for it and getting very little in benefits. They planted this big tree for us, not for foreigners. The foreigners did not plant the tree but are here to pluck the fruits.

True blue Singaporeans can be generous and share some of the fruits to others but not to impoverish themselves and their children and future generations to come.  Singapore is what it is today not because of the foreigners that are here today.