Quick Thoughts - "MPs rev up lobbying for more buses in their estates"

The front page article on today's Straits Times was "MPs rev up lobbying for more buses in their estate."

This is going to be a short and easy post, because shredding this article isn't going to take much effort.

The editors of the Straits Times obviously want to paint the story as one showing how the earnest, hardworking MPs (from the PAP) are doing all they can for their constituents as far as improving bus transportation in their wards go.

There's only one issue. If these PAP MPs truly had their constituents' interests in mind, they would have petitioned the government for better public transportation long ago. Instead, they whistled their way past the problem while hewing to the government's stand that "There's nothing to see here. Move along."

This is not your grandfather's "lobbying", as odious as that word is, bringing to mind bottom-feeding K street lobbyists. No, this is something more objectionable. Your PAP MPs are grandstanding and chest beating, jostling for advantage and strenuously protesting their constituents' needs now that there is official acknowledgement that "a problem exists". Funny how what wasn't a problem before suddenly afflicts every part of Singapore now. Our PAP MPs have never seemed more hollow and self serving.

In addition, to the astute and the observant, this is also a vivid demonstration of political influence. It's not going to be about which ward needs the most help. It's about who's closest to the center, and also where the most political points can be scored. It's about favor, reward and patronage.

Articles like this make me angry. Furious in fact. Our media isn't spineless or irresponsible. It's simply evil. It deliberately misleads, obfuscates and whitewashes. It makes people stupid to read it, smothers citizen engagement and in doing so, saps the vitality of the nation. Good citizens are thinking citizens. Calling the Straits Times the Singapore version of Pravda would be high praise.

Second, it has not escaped my attention that just two days ago, the results of a survey were published showing that overcrowding on public transportation by foreigners was a major gripe of survey respondents when asked about their attitudes towards foreigners and immigration.

It is no surprise then that the government is choosing to move in a big way to address public transportation woes. In doing so, it hopes to blunt criticism of its own immigration policy.

Again, there's just one problem, if you actually think about how people behave and how they think.

I think the unhappiness with foreigners here is multifaceted, and the average Singaporean, while being fed up to the back teeth with the situation, would probably still find it hard to articulate exactly what they're unhappy about. Add to that the fact that most people know instinctively that it is not politically correct to express disquietude over the situation, lest one be accused of being xenophobic. Nonetheless, the negative feelings remain, unexpressed.

This is why there are explosions of anti-foreigner vitriol and rhetoric every time some incident involving a foreigner happens, which in recent weeks have involved, as the stars would have it, traffic accidents. Three words apply here: incoherent, inchoate rage.

What is the most visible sign of what has become increasingly an intolerable situation? Answer: overcrowding on public transportation -- by foreigners. It is visible, and it is OK to criticize. And it's clearly a government created problem through their lack of investment. Types like Saw Phaik Hwa who didn't exactly endear themselves to the public also made public transportation fashionable to criticize.

That doesn't mean that alleviating the public transportation situation will absolve the government of blame for their immigration policy. Wishful thinking.

GE 2011 aftermath, random quick thoughts, and prognostications.

This post is going to be written stream-of-consciousness style...
___

Is the PAP going to mend its ways, or is it going to be business as usual? I would like to think the former will happen, but I am very skeptical. Many PAP politicians seem too ideologically wedded to their positions (Mah Bow Tan, Lim Swee Say, Lui Tuck Yew, the list goes on...). Certainly, few if any would publicly backtrack on their stated policies. The PM apologised in this election for his government's performance (garnering a 3.2% improvement in vote share for Ang Mo Kio relative to GE 2006), but tellingly, no other politician did, least of all those who were responsible for policies causing the most grief to the electorate (e.g. Mah Bow Tan). Still, given the apparent act of contrition by the PM, a wait-and-see approach seems warranted.

___

More people will be willing to step forward to stand for elections for opposition parties, particularly the WP. The risk-reward ratio has changed with the WP's success in Aljunied. The WP can only grow stronger with their increased popularity and rising public profile. I have no doubt their efforts at recruitment of quality candidates from the private sector will be far more fruitful than the PAP, as I have previously stated.
___

The practice of slipping in weak PAP candidates into Parliament via "safe" GRCs helmed by prominent politicians will be reassessed by the PAP. That doesn't mean that the practice will be abandoned, only that it will be exercised with greater care. Frankly, the fact that the PAP had to scrape up a Tin Pei Ling from the bottom of the barrel to make up the numbers betrays the difficulty they have in recruiting loyal, quality candidates in number. The parachute tactic will continue to be a necessary part of the PAP's election arsenal as long as Tin Pei Ling-types continue to be selected.

However, I am grateful for one thing. Thanks to the fact that Marine Parade GRC was actually contested in GE 2011 (the last time it was contested was in 1991!), it is now possible to quantify the effect of the parachute tactic on vote share (the "Tin Pei Ling effect").

Marine Parade GRC, helmed by Goh Chok Tong in 1991, secured 77.2% of the vote share, versus 56.65% in 2011. The average PAP vote share in 1991 was 61%, versus 60.14% in 2011, virtually the same. The TPL effect could hence have accounted for as much as a 19.69% [(77.2%-56.65%)-(61%-60.14%)] swing in vote share.

This estimate is a high ceiling estimate; the swing in vote share can also be attributed to Goh Chok Tong's diminished popularity, the fact that he is no longer PM as he was in 1991, the generally inferior quality of opposition party candidates in 1991, and of course, the polar opposite "Nicole Seah effect". Granted all that and the fact that 1991 and 2011 are literally 20 years apart, but I think the TPL effect is probably good for a 5% vote swing against the PAP.

Given that the PAP's average vote share in GE 2011 stands at about 60%, that means that a GRC "lifeboat" can probably only comfortably accommodate at most one low quality free-rider, assuming linear additivity. More than that and the PAP risks sinking the entire GRC.

___

Prof Jayakumar has noted that the fact that an Opposition had won a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) proves that the political system in Singapore works and does not benefit only the ruling party (see here). This statement is disingenuous. The fact that it has taken this long for an opposition party to win a GRC, with a team clearly superior to the one fielded by the PAP in Aljunied, in a more favorable political climate, and almost all constituencies contested that hence diluted the PAP's strength, is an exception that proves the rule that GRCs disadvantage opposition parties.

It is possible that with the loss of Aljunied, the PAP may rejig the GRC system to stack the deck further in its favor. Jayakumar's statement above provides the perfect validation for such a tactic.

It is especially important for the PAP to adjust the GRC system if more Tin Pei Ling-types are to be put up by the PAP in future elections. Lifeboats need to get bigger for a wider margin of safety. Equally, the PAP is having difficulty recruiting quality candidates in number to "hold down the fort". Cabinet ministers and other heavy-weights can only be spread so thinly over so many constituencies. We may see the advent of 8-member GRCs in the not-too-distant future.

Perhaps a more stringent requirement to have not one but two minority race candidates in each GRC. Perhaps even a hard requirement to have one Malay and one Indian candidate in each GRC. This would raise barriers to entry for the opposition even higher than they already are now.

___

One of the most startling things I observed when I stepped into a polling station for the very first time was the sheer number of old folks streaming in to vote. They came on walkers, canes and wheelchairs. Singapore's population has aged, and the oldest, staunchest of the PAP's supporters are literally aging and dying.

Lee Kuan Yew *may* have been right in saying that the young don't know better to vote PAP don't appreciate the struggles that we have gone through as a nation. Nonetheless, even the PAP has to acknowledge the relentless tide of mortality that is carrying away its most loyal bloc of voters. It must adjust its strategy and tactics accordingly if it is to remain victorious in the elections ahead. The Generational Shift Effect is starting to make itself felt, and it will grow stronger in the years to come.

___

If the recent PAP campaign is any indicator of how the PAP manages its internal affairs in planning and implementing public policies, then I am apprehensive what the future holds.

We had ministers saying things that contradicted each other, unilateral party reform proposed by one minister, and blame-shifting. Not to forget the MM's vote-WP-and-repent threat. Or the PM's apology that was followed by conspicuous silence by all the other ministers.

Ladies and gentlemen, it appears that we have preliminary indications of schisms and factionalism within the PAP itself. If this is what happens in public, what happens behind closed doors?

Then there is that vexing matter of who the next PM should be, as there is no heir apparent waiting in the wings at the moment. That means that the issue of succession is still very much undecided.

The PM can reshuffle ministers and redeploy those who are the most unpopular but who were nonetheless re-elected (Mah Bow Tan comes to mind). But every time he does so, he expends just that much more of his political capital within the PAP. If you were Mah Bow Tan and you kept insisting that housing was affordable, how kindly would you look on the PM deciding to reassign you to a different portfolio? You can only push people so much before they start pushing back.

The electorate is changing and demanding more choices. Is it possible that the PAP may also be changing and becoming more individualistic? And what might that mean for policy-making in the future?

Quick Thoughts on Sunday Times, 13 March 2011

"Not just an 'ordinary' girl from HDB family" - Think p.37

This article profiled Rachel Eng, a managing partner from the top law firm WongPartnership. Interestingly, Ms. Eng said little, if anything, about social mobility in her interview, but the Sunday Times chose to put a spin on it that way, billing the article as "Rachel Eng: Top Lawyer is a study in social mobility" on the front page sidebar. The writer, Wong Kim Hoh, also started his article by citing her as a prime example of social mobility.

Ms. Eng used the word "lucky", "blessed", and "alignment of the stars" in her interview. Granted, none of the these were in relation to her transcending her humble background to becoming a high-powered lawyer, but more in relation to her current living and working situation. But clearly, this is a woman who knows and counts her blessings.

In contrast, in today's edition, the quote from Ng Eng Hen on social mobility can be found on the next page, Think p. 38, "You are the one who can determine your own success - yes, life might be hard for you, but if you try, you can succeed, and other have."

To relate to a previous post of mine which resonated with many readers, I've found that people who transcend their backgrounds tend to fall into one of two categories. One is exemplified by Ng Eng Hen, who takes the view that "If [insert underprivileged person here] can do it, anyone can." In recent parliamentary proceedings, he used himself as an example.

Ms. Eng fits more closely with the second category. Such a person tends to recognize that while their own talent played a major role in their lives, luck, chance, opportunity and just being in the right place at the right time are also very important. They are more likely to, on seeing someone less privileged, go "There, but for the grace of...".

Ms. Eng's example drew from her own pioneering experiences in the then growing WongPartnership, now one of the largest law firms in Singapore. That must have been a remarkable opportunity for her, and she probably realizes that.

Is there a "correct" view? I am not wise enough to answer that, but I am without question more sympathetic to the latter view, that luck and opportunity are just as great determinants of a person's success as talent. The former view has always struck me as being somewhat narcissistic and presumptuous. Perhaps not coincidentally, Ms. Eng is a woman, while Ng Eng Hen is a man. Make of that what you will.

Needless to say, whichever view a person hews to will have implications on their opinions on what kinds of public policies should be implemented. The fact that we have ministers such as Ng Eng Hen (and Mah Bow Tan) in government who come from very humble backgrounds is no guarantee that they will look out for the little people from their perches. Indeed, the opposite may be truer than not.

"Google Looking for a Bigger Town" - Home p.19

Google Singapore is expanding. But as I realized years ago when I first graduated as a freshly minted engineer, you have a better chance of working for Google in Singapore if you're an accountant or a top sales and business development person than if you are an IT professional.

The same goes for any number of technology and engineering MNCs in Singapore. There are engineering jobs available, but the really interesting engineering jobs are simply not here.

If your ambition is to work in manufacturing, quality assurance, batch testing or any number of technical, ok-paying (and perhaps not even that), but relatively dull jobs, you should have no problems.

But if you want really interesting work, the kind that happens in the Googleplex, you can stop hoping right now.

It's a vicious cycle. Because the interesting jobs aren't here, good students are increasingly not taking up engineering. In my time, engineering was a relatively sought after choice (but many engineering graduates did not end up in engineering). Today, as my interns and psychology experiment participants (recruited from local universities) tell me, engineering is a "dumping ground". It is not even a popular choice of study now, much less working in engineering. Popular majors now are economics, business, banking and finance and information systems.

And because good students aren't taking up engineering, there is little reason for companies to relocate high value work here. Not that talent alone is enough to ensure that; there are a multitude of other reasons why high value work does not come here to Singapore.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Well, it's bad if you're hellbent on being an engineer. But, than again, this is a situation that artists, musicians, writers and designers have long had to live with in Singapore. And they cope with it as best as they can, either venturing abroad or moderating their expectations here on this island.

Quick Thoughts on Straits Times, 20-21 February 2011

Budget 2011

At the risk of taking this out of context, my favorite quote regarding the budget:

"The return of the 20 percent personal income tax rebate is designed to benefit the middle-income earners most and will be welcomed by all taxpayers. The changes to personal income tax rates are welcome, but with no adjustment to rates for many years, this is long overdue to bring us back to where we started in real terms."

- Ernst and Young human capital partner, Grahame Wright, p.A6, Saturday 19 February, 2011.

What Wright is saying is that we have been paying more income tax in real terms for the last several years due to inflation-induced bracket creep. The latest adjustments serve simply to correct an underlying unfairness that has been present for many years.

The comment should properly be interpreted only within the context of tax rates, but this is my favorite quote because the last clause of his comment so perfectly captures my sentiment regarding the entire budget.

Thank you for this budget. After losing ground for so many years, in real incomes, job prospects, foreign competition, retirement plans, housing, transport, and with the specter of serious inflation on the horizon, I am certain that Singaporeans are grateful to be returned to the starting line again in real terms.

This time around, perhaps you should remind us which direction we should face? I've never liked walking backwards. Easier for you too, you know, post-elections, when you need us to, uh, bend over.

"Never too old to start new businesses" - Invest, p. 30, Sunday 20 February, 2011.

Mr William Ong indicated that his best investment to date has been in commodities, particularly in gold and silver. $450,000 invested in 2006 is now worth $1.2 million, and with lower volatility than equities, if I may add.

I haven't done nearly as well, having jumped onto the bandwagon only in late 2007, and I certainly didn't have $450 grand of capital just lying around back then. But to recap from a previous post on 3 October, when a commenter raised concerns about the precious metals looking toppy, gold closed at USD1315.40 and silver closed at USD20.02 on that date. The most recent close for gold has been USD1388.20 (respectable but unspectacular) and silver USD32.30 (courtesy of a short squeeze).

Again, don't take this as advice to go long on gold and silver.

"Shrink from Shoebox Apartments" - Invest, p. 31, Sunday 20 February, 2011.

As I argued many moons ago, shoebox apartments are NOT a value proposition. My long form comment here.

My view of the property market has become more nuanced of late. I still hesitate to call it a bubble, but I still believe that prices are likely to come down within a matter of months. Not that that will help anybody. It won't help buyers and it most certainly won't help sellers.

Why not buyers? Because I think that prices are going to fall due to a double whammy of lower real household incomes due to inflation (courtesy of the money printing "Bernank") and rising interest rates (which at this point, can only go in one direction). That will really screw with the affordability of property, regardless of lower prices.

If we stir in a recession into the mix due to say, fresh (or rather, not so fresh but emerging from beneath the carpet) economic problems in the US, China or Europe, or an oil crisis due to unrest in the Middle East, it will only exacerbate matters.

Property prices may drift lower in the coming months ahead, but it's difficult to say who will be in the mood to buy then, given why they may drift lower. The only positive factors may be increased supply and the government relaxing the newly imposed restrictions on property transactions.

"Poor pickings in Orchard" - Lifestyle, p. 24, Sunday, 20 February, 2011

I have not been to Orchard in literally months. Too busy with other things. But this sure reminds me of an article I wrote. I wonder whether poor pickings are confined only to F&B outlets, or to a wider swathe of the retail scene. Reader comment welcome.

Quick thoughts on the Sunday Times, 3 October 2010

I haven’t had much time or inclination to write on substantive topics lately, but I’ve still had some thoughts. Just not enough to write lengthy posts on.

I’m starting a new tag, “quick thoughts”, to denote short posts that deal with random topics. Today’s quick thoughts are responses to the Sunday Times, 3 October 2010.

“Inflation Up: How to make your money work harder” – Invest, Page 30

No mention by Lorna Tan on the hardest inflation hedge of all: gold. Disclosure: I’ve been heavily invested in the precious metals for the past 2 plus years or so. That gold is still not mentioned in the mainstream media is great news; it means it hasn’t entered bubble territory, yet.

As always, I make no claims to offering investment advice. I do not share the gains or losses of readers, so make your own investment decisions. If you are at all interested in precious metals, please do your own research.

Personally, I’m invested in gold and silver exchange-traded funds, BUT not GLD or SLV. There have been some allegations or suspicions of fraudulent dealing by both. My holdings are in ZKB and ZSIL, both managed by the Zurich Cantonal Bank. Why? You’ll have to do your own research to figure out why. One thing to note: these two exchange traded funds are traded only on the Swiss Exchange, and the last I checked, only one broker in Singapore offers access to the Swiss Exchange, and that’s Saxo Capital Markets.

“Rail-life Stories” – lifestyle, Page 8

The closure of Tanjong Pagar railway station and its relocation to Woodlands is understandable. Sad, but understandable. It’s not just the land that the station sits on is prime and can be redeveloped, but also all the land that the railway currently sits on.

Still, it would be nice if we had the equivalent of a Grand Central Station or Union Station in downtown Singapore. I love the romantic look and feel of grand railway stations, and I have fond memories of Union Station. As a student at Hopkins, I used to take the train between Baltimore and DC when staying in Baltimore got too boring. Also, air tickets from Dulles International Airport were sometimes substantially cheaper compared to tickets from BWI airport.

High-speed rail between downtown Singapore and downtown Kuala Lumpur would lead to all sorts of positive synergistic effects.

“Screen off the sun” – Pulse, Page 10

I’m not a fan of sunscreen. I apply it to prevent sunburn, not out of a desire to be fair (heck, I’m a guy) or prevent skin cancer.

Unknown to many, there is a sunscreen controversy brewing out there. In a nutshell, there is some evidence to suggest that sunscreen, ironically enough, may increase the risk of malignant melanoma.

Personally, I’m more concerned with vitamin D deficiency. More and more studies have found vitamin D to be implicated in many crucial metabolic processes, and it's unclear if each of us is really getting the amount we ought to be getting. What compounds matters is that if we avoid sun exposure, there really aren’t that many dietary sources of the vitamin, especially if you don’t fancy dairy products.

Coldwater fish oil is one non-dairy source. The problem is that to purge fish oil of contaminants like PCBs, most reputable fish oil supplements, which are touted for their Omega acid content, are probably devoid of vitamin D, thanks to extensive purification processes.

So far, I haven’t found a really satisfactory solution. If you take fish oil, there are good fish oil products out there, like Carlson’s fish oil, which unfortunately isn’t available in Singapore, but still, it won’t provide you with Vitamin D. Personally, I just take Michael Pollan’s advice to eat food. So here’s to an extra serving of saba and shishamo whenever I eat Japanese.

Oh and contrary to Mary Schmich's advice, I'm laying off the sunscreen unless absolutely necessary.