IMD World Competitiveness Center ranked Malaysia 5th and Singapore 16th

‘IMD business school is located in Lausanne, Switzerland. It is one of the world’s premier business and management institutions. It offers the world’s best MBA program according to Forbes ranking in 2011, 2013. In 2014, it was ranked first in open programs worldwide by the Financial Times.’ Singapore Business Times.
 
In its World Talent Report, Malaysia was ranked 5th, ahead of Singapore at 16th. The ranking was based on three key factors of the country:
 
1. its investment and development in home-grown talent
2. its ability to retain local talent and attract those from overseas
3. its readiness to fulfil market demands with the available talent pool
 
It is understandable that Malaysia ranked very high in 1 while Singapore took a rubbing here. Malaysia is very focussed about investing and developing its very own talents. Singapore likely lost 20% of its best talents when their places were given to foreigners in the universities. The IMD must have noticed this flaw in developing own local talents versus developing other countries’ talent.
 
As for factor 2, Malaysia definitely scored better in retaining its own talents while Singapore lost out as it encouraged its local talents to go overseas, maybe due to poor job offers at home. Also, many local talents, especially the middle age PMEs were displaced and ended up unemployed or under employed. This must count strongly against Singapore. But it scored very high in attracting talents from overseas to replace its displaced local talents while Malaysia might lose out in this area. So, for factor 2 the score is likely to be even.
 
In factor 3, Malaysia was likely to fill its market demands from local talents while Singapore would be filling them up with foreign talents. On paper should also be fairly even. The only questionable factor may be that IMD knew that the foreign talents Singapore was attracting were craps or fake talents. As an European institution, it would probably look at those so called talents employed by Singapore and measured them against their own standards. Simply put, if they would not think they are good enough and unemployable in their standards, they would rule them out as rubbish talents. They might have a good laugh at the stupidity of these talents and so did not give Singapore any marks for it.
 
This could explain why Malaysia is at 5th spot and Singapore at 16th spot. But that is just my guess. Maybe there are far more serious reasons for downgrading Singapore to 16th place. The IMD is filled with real talents and would not be fooled by fools and fakes. They are outsiders and could see the picture very clearly and objectively. While the fools are happily deceiving themselves, the IMDs must be having a good laugh.
 
I really cannot find any good reason other than the above to justify Malaysia ranking higher than Singapore. Singapore has been the champion, the pipe piper in recruiting foreign talents. It constantly go for a world wide search when a CEO position is vacant. The first choice seems to be foreign talents and a local talent is considered only after the foreign talent search failed.
 
And I trust that this IMD ranking system is credible compares to those demolished and unrecognised university rankings. Anyone got a better idea why Singapore is so far below Malaysia?

Kopi Level - Green

Nature Society wants Ubin to be gazetted as a nature reserve

‘A nature group has called for Pulau Ubin to be given the same level of protection as a nature reserve, given the concentration of rare and endangered wildlife found on the off shore island.’ This is reported in the Today paper on 19 Nov 14.
 
I can only say fat hope. We don’t even have enough land for 6.9m population, where got land for wildlife? The only kind of wildlife we are protecting are those rogue retailers in the shopping centres and the wild foreigners on bicycles in our roads.
 
Actually I am wrong to say that we don’t have enough land for 6.9m. Some experts claimed that we have land for 10m. I think we have enough land for 100m population. We are preparing to bring the world’s jobless population here because we don’t have enough babies for economic growth. After 6.9m, they will say we need more growth, and it will be 10m. After 10m, they will say need to have economic growth, and it will be 20m, and so on. 100m maybe just a planning number. It could go bigger.
 
Pulau Ubin, Tekong and all the southern islands would need to be filled, expanded, to prepare for 100m in the future. Where got the luxury of land for wildlife?

Kopi Level - Green

CECA and Smart Cities in India

I hope the MPs would raise these two issues in Parliament and discuss the merits and demerits for Singapore and Singaporeans. Whose big ideas were they? What is in them for us? How much are we going to spend and how much are we going to get in return? Goodwill is not good enough. Praising Singapore as a good friend is not good enough. Praising Singapore as smart or stupid is not good enough. We cannot be doing charity all over the world and squeezing on the people to do it.
 
We need to know the bottom lines. Parliament must draw a line on major decisions involving big money, big projects that must be approved by Parliament. Not everyone can suka suka go and spend the people’s money on their pet projects or hobbies. No one should travel the world and behave like a philanthropist using the people’s money.

Kopi Level - Green

PAP big gun in Aljunied and Hougang

Lim Boon Heng, the big gun of yesteryears, is seen in a grassroot affair in Aljunied and Hougang, leading a team of freshies that are likely to be the candidates for the next GE. Just my guess. The question, why Boon Heng and not some incumbent ministers? Perhaps Boon Heng has volunteered to throw his weight in Aljunied GRC to carry the new team to victory. By the look of things, Boon Heng is the most worthy heavy weight that could to do the job now, or is the bravest to lead the charge.
 
Boon Heng’s first salvo is to question what would happen if WP would be in charge of SG? For him to ask such a question is like saying what PAP has done is the best, or WP would make a mess of everything. Can WP do anything worst? What do you think?
 
The other issue is about the finance of AHPETC. Boon Heng was horrified that the Town Council has turned a $3m surplus to a $734k deficit. I can understand the surplus part, ie excess revenue collected. Good thing. Collect more is good and better to transfer the excess to the Sinking Fund and sink to the bottom and be forgotten. Another untouchable fund?
 
What is this deficit? Is the deficit due to losses due to bad investments or mismanagement? Or is it because some residents are facing hardship and have problems servicing their monthly conservancy fees? Or is it that some ‘above the law’ citizens chose not to pay because they did not vote for the WP and they have the right not to pay?
 
In the first case, hardship, would it be better to ruthlessly chase for payments by issuing legal letters or threats of evictions? In the second case, are there people above the law that they can choose not to pay their conservancy fees because they did not elect the MP? Is there any law about such hooligan behavior? Can the residents in PAP constituencies who did not elect the PAP MP do the same? If can then it would be a good precedent for more lawlessness in this City with gangsters running wild everywhere. And the best part, no law to apprehend them and to bring them to justice in a rule of law country.
 
What is the issue? What do you think?
 
Please also read TRE’s editorial on the disproportionate distribution of govt grants to GRCs and why AHPETC got among the least and how some GRCs covered their deficits by huge govt grants. The TRE article is titled ‘Desmond Lee, all town councils run deficits.’

Kopi Level - Green

Residents to elect their own mayors?

Someone suggested this to be a better thing. My question, why do we need mayors in the first place? To give more pay to the mayors? What can the mayors do that the MPs cannot do or vice versa? Oh, MPs are part timers, too busy working and making money. Are mayors part timers also? If full timers are needed, why not make MPs full timers? $16,000 pm is not small change and deserves to have a full time person on the job.
Either we make the MPs do their job or replace them with mayors. It is an either or option. There is absolutely no need to have both. We are a little pee sai. Got so much work for mayors, MPs and town councils to do? Got very powerful CCC Chairman some more!
 
Please don’t waste public money and resources. We are too small and no need to create so many levels of appointments and work and money to pay to so many people.
 
Why don’t we create a mayor post for every constituency and 5 or 6 mayors for big GRCs? Are our people that incompetent? London and New York with more than 10m population only has one mayor each. They are not falling apart. Are our HDB estates better run by our mayors than London and New York?
 
Do we need mayors for every 20 blocks of flats or every 100,000 people? Hey, our mayors are all super talents earning super talent salaries, definitely more than the mayor of London and New York.
 
Are we getting value for money? Or are we made to become Santa Claus?

Kopi Level - Green