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.

Crossing the Causeway for Medical Care Affects Everyone

The New Paper had a story on Sunday about patients who cross over to Malaysia for cheaper medical services. Lucky Tan had one take on it, and Mr Wang another.

I had some thoughts on the story, but I had refrained from posting as I felt my thoughts didn't seem like they would be give that interesting of a perspective. Now however, since two prominent bloggers have expressed their views, and I share neither of those views, I think I will speak on the issue.

In actuality, I agree with both of them, but neither of these viewpoints were at the forefront of my thoughts as I read the story in The New Paper. Something else occupied my thoughts.

Like Lucky Tan, I consider the burden of providing affordable, and I mean truly affordable, medical care for Singaporeans as a duty incumbent on the government. But just like Mr Wang, I've long since given up hope on trusting, much less relying, on the state to do right by Singaporeans. The flipside of the Singaporean aphorism "you die, your business" is "the only one looking out for you, is you." In this country, you better believe it.

What occurred to me as I read the article was that the cost differential between medical care in Singapore and in Malaysia would have implications for all of us, even those of us who don't intend to ever travel to Malaysia for medical care.

If fewer patients seek medical care in Singapore, prices for medical services here are not going to fall. Medical services are like university education; the price only goes in one direction.

On the contrary, if more patients seek medical care across the Causeway, fixed expenses (such as building, maintenance and staff overheads) in the healthcare sector will need to be spread among a smaller number of patients. This will mean higher prices per patient even though the number of patients (customers) is falling. This is especially so if whatever subsidy the government claims to be providing the healthcare system is on a per patient basis, per admission.

If you're a hospital CEO in Singapore, you would probably respond to the phenomenon of fixed expenses spread among fewer patients in the following two ways.

The first would be to cut your expenses. This might mean a lower quality of service (e.g. foreign-born doctors from developing countries, which is already happening, cheaper medicines, fewer support staff). This is not so different from SMRT running fewer trains during non-peak hours; there might be fewer passengers, but the trains are just as packed and the commuting experience just as frustrating.

The second would be to pursue higher profit margin business: medical tourists. This might serve to cross-subsidise cost inefficiencies in the hospital. After all, it makes a lot more sense to invest resources in the segment of the business that is the most important from a revenue and cost-recovery standpoint. Medical tourists in their A class wards can expect high levels of attention and service, while the lower class wards would probably experience much less attentive service.

If you are Singaporean, all this will just make the prospect of crossing the Causeway for medical care even more attractive.

Even you are financially comfortable (but not wealthy) and are averse to the idea of traveling far from home for medical care, circumstances may change in the future that may warrant you to give this option some serious consideration.

The other option would be to purchase comprehensive and heavy health insurance coverage so that the expected cost of medical bills is transferred to a third party. For example, it is possible to purchase riders on Shield policies to remove deductibles, co-payments and category sub-limits. Under comprehensive cover, the total inpatient (but not outpatient) bill falls to zero. A patient under such cover would become indifferent to the cost of medical care. Such cover, naturally, comes at a commensurately higher price.

Being a lower income student in an "elite" institution

The Straits Times had an article today, "Non-grad parents, but they made it to top schools". No transcript available, but very briefly, it talked about how only a minority of students today in top schools in Singapore hail from households where parents are non-university graduates. It also had some short interview-like snippets from the minority students.

In truth, the title of this article was disingenuous. It would have been more accurate to characterize these students as coming from low-income households rather than with non-grad parents. Perhaps some editor from the Straits Times wanted to avoid any association with that hot potato issue of income inequality.

Reading some of the students' comments stirred some memories. I too, was a lower income student studying in a top school. My family isn't poor by any measure, but disparities were still stark. Some background here.

The truth is, top schools have had a skewed income distribution for several years now. I certainly felt it keenly almost two decades ago. It is NOT a recent phenomenon.

On the off-chance that one of those kids might read this, here's the two cents worth of my reminisces, and some advice, if they will have it:

It is entirely understandable to feel a sense of being apart from your peers who come from much more privileged backgrounds. I call it that sense of "otherness".

Newsflash: It never goes away entirely. So, deal with it as best as you can.

Here's why that feeling of otherness never fades away entirely.

Today, in secondary school, you might feel inadequate because you can't afford to tote the latest iPod, iPad or iPhone. Or you might decline to join your friends at Starbucks or Cafe Cartel, or wherever it is young folks today hang out.

When you reach JC or in the early years of university, some of your wealthier peers will start experimenting with alcohol and clubbing. A few will start driving when their parents gift them with new cars. You'll probably still be taking public transport.

If you do well in school and decide to take up a scholarship to fully fund your university studies, congratulations, you'll have a fairly generous allowance to live on. Finally, some cash in hand!

Unfortunately, that's about the same time your wealthier peers, who might be studying abroad in the same university as you, start talking about ski vacations at Aspen, Whistler or Lake Tahoe. Or weekend getaways to New York for Restaurant Week (Nobu apparently is a great deal). Not exactly your average student's weekend plan.

[For the record, a scholarship allowance probably could pay for these luxuries in moderation, with cutbacks in other areas. But if you were raised in privation, you would find it difficult to justify the expense.]

And when you finally start working, you might see your better-off peers land prestigious unpaid internships, get a new car as a gift from their parents, or have their lavish wedding or new apartment paid for by family.

If you've been following so far, you would probably start wondering why any kid would voluntarily hang out with richer folk after they've grown up when the risk of feeling inferior is so great.

The problem is, when a student joins a top school, whether they realize it or not, important parameters for their social life are being set that will persist for years into the future.

There's a reason socio goes with economic in socio-economic status.

A person's education and upbringing determine their ambitions, drives, values, concerns and perspectives.

A student that has attended a top school will share a very similar set of characteristics (for want of a better word) as their peer group in their school, irrespective of financial background. But, family finances will impose very practical constraints that prevent the student from truly feeling a sense of kinship with their peers.

On the other hand, while a student attending a top school will empathize with someone who comes from a similarly less privileged background, they won't be able to identify with them because their set of characteristics are completely different.

This is just a very convoluted way of telling those lower income kids who attend top schools that they might find that they don't feel like they truly belong anywhere. Now, and in the future.

I first realized this to true when I had the privilege of serving as a man (that is, a corporal. I sooo did not want to liable until I am 50.) during NS. My platoon mates came from fairly average backgrounds, and their concerns were quite different from the friends that I had in school. Some clearly had family problems, and even today, their worries concern more about things like saving up for their parents' medical bills.

In contrast, friends I know from school are generally concerned with weighty matters like, which are the top MBA programs to apply for, what are the opportunities to work as a quant in a hedge fund, or is membership in One o-15 marina a good investment?

The problem is not that I can't appreciate why no one should attend an MBA program outside the top 8. The problem is that I can. Just like I know that getting Wilmott certification is advantageous for working as a quant. I just don't see myself getting hung up over stuff like that. Nor could I ever see myself discussing matters like this over a mess tin of Maggi noodles with my platoon mates during an outfield exercise.

This incongruity between social and economic status is something that any lower-income kid who attends a top school is going to have to grapple with in the years to come.

Do I have advice for lower-income kids who attend top schools? Absolutely.

First, if at all possible, get a part-time job. It can be at McDonalds, Starbucks or just giving tuition. It's something I didn't do as a kid, and I wonder if I made the right decision.

This might sound like irresponsible advice, but hear me out.

It's enormously empowering to make, and spend, your own money. On a practical note, it gives work experience at an early age, and it exposes you to different perspectives. Even minority lower income kids are cloistered to a certain extent in a top school. For once, you'll meet people who don't view not getting an "A" in Physics as an absolute disaster.

As for time taken away from studies, there is always enough time. It's only a matter of priorities. You don't need to top the class in a subject, especially if there is no financial incentive to go with it. If you were smart enough to get into a top school despite being financially disadvantaged, you're smart enough to wing an "A", if just scraping in. Don't work beyond what's required to get the maximum marginal benefit of good grades. That's valuable time you could be spending on something else.

As for how you might spend your income, there's no need to splash out on designer goods. You probably couldn't keep up with your peers anyway. But it would be nice to pay for the occasional meal out or movie.

And not to have to ask parents for the money to attend the school prom, and to actually have something nice to wear to it, priceless! Really, not having money just makes the awkwardness of the teenage years that much harder to bear.

Second piece of advice comes courtesy of Tim Ferriss, author of the 4-hour Workweek, whom I had the pleasure of transcribing an interview of on mturk not long ago.

Diversify your identity.

This is, in fact, very good advice for anybody. Ferriss advises the start-up founders he consults for to take up at least two activities outside of work, one of which is a sport. The rationale is that start-up entrepreneurs have a tendency to get caught up with and obsess over their companies. If they had a bad week at work because of setbacks, which are common with start-ups, it can still be a good week if they, say, clocked a new personal best for their running, or finally succeeded in their personal project at home.

Diversifying your identity is a way of avoiding or delaying burn-out.

I never experienced burn-out as a student, but I have often regretted spending as much time as I did on studies. I tell myself I should have cut loose and relaxed a bit more when I could.

If you're a lower income student in a top school, you're already under enormous pressure to "succeed", which makes it all the more important that you don't burn-out.

This is why having a job could be useful. If you make coffee part-time at Starbucks, you can be the best barista you can be, instead of just another student.

If not a job, instead of angling for a leadership position in school, take up a CCA just for FUN. If you go to church or temple or mosque, volunteer a few hours a week. It can be very helpful to step out of the bubble that a school, especially a top school, can resemble.

Go widen your social circle a little, get some perspective, and grow in different ways. As a person, you'll grow to become more resilient, not to mention much more interesting.

The Government's Argument Against the Minimum Wage

Lately, there has been a bit of a fracas over whether or not to implement the minimum wage in Singapore (hint: it's not going to happen.)

I am neither for nor against the minimum wage in Singapore. I simply don't know enough to judge whether minimum wage is a good policy to adopt in Singapore.

What I am, however, much more interested in, is dissecting the government's motivations.

From the little that I know, I believe that it is fair to say that the strongest argument against minimum wage is what I shall term here the free market argument. Not coincidentally, it is also the argument that the government is fondest of promulgating.

What is the free market argument? It is that a minimum wage is a floor on the price of labor, and as such, it operates like any price control measure. Econ 101 tells us that if a price floor is below the market price, it has zero effect. When a price floor is above the market price however, it inevitably leads to surplus supply and dumping ("wine lakes" and "butter mountains"). It is the government's claim that distortions from intervening in the labor market will lead to low wage workers losing their jobs, and as such, the government should not implement a minimum wage.

The government's use of the free market argument is considerably weakened by the fact that the government, in fact, intervenes in the labor market ALL THE TIME.

It doesn't take a genius to observe that hordes of lowly paid, lowly skilled foreigners have been imported by the government over the last decade and a half. In an Econ class, that would be called shifting the supply curve to the right.

Tweaks to foreign worker levies, changes to CPF contribution rates, even massive propaganda promotional efforts to herd young people into industries earmarked for future investment and growth, every one of these is an intervention in the labor market. A darker and more sinister observation would be how unions have been systematically co-opted or dismantled since the early days of Singapore's history, with the whole unsavory process given a PR job, rebranded as a 'tripartite framework'.

The micromanagement of the labor market by the government belies its adherence to free market principles.

If they truly believed in free markets, I think they would more readily admit and correct the problems and distortions that have resulted from interventionist policies. These would include:

1. Years of neglect in investing in worker productivity.

2. An over-reliance on cheap foreign labor, which has meant a REDUCTION in our long term national competitiveness. Ceteris paribus, a preponderance of companies and industries that rely on cheap labor mean that much more competition for capital for hi tech and higher value-added companies that could have created higher quality jobs in years past.

3. Following on, a Catch-22 situation, where mis-allocation of capital due to the distortions of cheap foreign labor have resulted in companies that simply cannot survive should labor costs rise. The benefits of cheap labor to GDP growth are falling due to the law of diminishing returns, but if the cheap labor spigot is turned off, the economy will suffer proportionately.

4. Social and economic effects of a large foreigner population. These might include income inequality, a strain on public facilities and resources, the general sense of alienation the native population feels, etc. The list goes on.

The point here is not that intervention in the labor market is good or bad. The point is, for all their pretensions of subscribing to free market ideology, the government lacks the bona fides to claim the use of the free market argument against the minimum wage. Their track record is full of interventionist moves.

So, what's the real reason behind being so vociferous in opposing the minimum wage? The fear of low wage workers losing their jobs is just a cover. I think the real reason lies in point #3 I have highlighted above.

The economy has adapted structurally to an endless supply of cheap, not necessarily, foreign labor. The policy of encouraging cheap foreign immigrant labor is inherently twinned with NOT implementing the minimum wage. To implement something like a minimum wage is akin to cutting the economy off at the knees. There would be an inflationary impact throughout the economy from a domino effect.

The rapid economic growth in years past was assisted, if not directly caused, by massive imports of labor, together with the side effect of keeping local labor cheap. And what is a Singapore politician and civil servant worth if their KPI of economic growth is not being met? Certainly not their Current Estimated Potential.

The problem is that this strategy of cheap labor is starting to see its limits, particularly when we consider the global inflationary environment that is approaching. As inflation ramps up and the costs of other inputs rises, wage costs are going to constitute a smaller and smaller proportion of the total cost of doing business. As wages become less important, competing on wage cost becomes a less viable strategy.

More importantly, continuing with this strategy makes it harder and harder to turn from it. Leaning on a crutch all the time causes the muscles to atrophy. We had the opportunity to raise productivity in years past and in doing so, the wages of the low skilled worker. We ignored it in favor of continuing with cheap foreign labor. Like a country that has long subsidized petrol, we have failed to invest in fuel economy, and as result, every other car on the road is a gas guzzling SUV. In this case, every other company in our economy relies on cheap labor.

But I don't expect changes from our illustrious government officials anytime soon. As Upton Sinclair once said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Book List Refreshed!

I haven't been blogging lately because I've been busy with a number of things. Just out-pro'ed from my annual Indentured/Conscription Training (ICT) which took away an additional 2 weeks of my life's time.

[And which cost me an estimated $200 - $600 in lost employer's CPF contributions and increased tax liabilities from artificially raised take-home pay. Yes, PAP, I keep a detailed count, thanks to your fine examples of governance over the years, and I will certainly "better the instruction".

Some of my friends lost quite a bit more in the 2 weeks, like lost accounts, sales and commissions.]

I will also be in Nepal in a week or so for paragliding lessons, so I definitely won't be blogging for a while.

On the plus side, I had a chance to catch up on my reading, so here's my book list refreshed.

I have removed:

The Art of Travel by Alain de Botton

Lessons from Private Equity any Company can Use by Hugh Macarthur and Orit Gadiesh

This Time is Different by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff

The Pose Method by Nicholas Romanov

I have added:

America's Bubble Economy by David Wiedemer et al

Richistan by Robert Frank

The Postcatastrophe Economy by Eric Janszen

When Money Dies by Adam Fergusson (which is available for free download here.)

A Disempowered Generation

The Sunday Times, October 31, 2010.

A Disempowered Generation, page A14

Content from the original article was scraped and is available here with an...impassioned discussion.

Only in Singapore will career politicians reframe a political problem so that it appears to belong to the citizenry and not to them.

___

He said he was reflecting a sentiment held by many of his men in the SAF, who had to compete with foreigners for jobs. 'I feel that there is a dilution of the Singapore spirit in youth... We don't really feel comfortable in our country any more.'

Mr Goh's reply was one of deep concern. 'This is one early [early to the clueless, perhaps. Emphasis mine.] sign of danger... If this is happening, it is very serious.'

He asked Mr Lim why he felt disconnected.

...

'This is your country,' SM Goh replied. 'What do you want me to do to make you feel you belong?' [Note the defensive posture, emphasis mine]

___

News flash to Goh Chok Tong: If young Singaporeans are feeling disenchanted, disenfranchised and dissatisfied (I could have a field day with "dis"), it's not OUR problem. It's YOURS.

Young people are the bedrock of the nation. They are the future upon which the country is built. Just telling us to think positive and look at things purely from your privileged Senior Minister's perch isn't going to magically make all the negative feelings, which are grounded in real causes of your doing, go away.

The world is becoming smaller. For better or for worse, people are a lot more mobile now. It's one of the little consequences of globalization that Singapore has so readily embraced.

Telling the most mobile, talented and arguably, valuable demographic of your nation to suck it up and deal with it is practically laying out the red carpet for us to emigrate. Why not? Even if we wanted to hang that massive millstone of an HDB mortgage around our collective necks, even that has been priced out of our reach lately.

Marriage, family, kids to anchor us here? In case you haven't realized, those life stages are being postponed later and later. No thanks to you.

Voting out the current government to agitate for political change that's more responsive to our needs and aspirations? You should be so lucky we have that option. If we did feel our votes counted, fewer young people would feel so disenfranchised that they feel they need to move to a place where they actually have a voice. Sorry, again, political dissent and change is no-go in Singapore. And again, we ask, whose fault is that?

___

'If that is prevalent among young people over here, we've got a real problem,' SM Goh said. 'If the majority feel they don't belong here, then we have a fundamental problem. Then I would ask myself: What am I [GCT referring to himself, emphasis mine] doing here? Why should I [GCT referring to himself, emphasis mine] be working for people who don't feel they belong over here?'

___

Apparently, our politicians are beneath even the banksters responsible for the worst financial crisis in generations. At least bankers are satisfied to be paid lots of money for wrecking the global economy. Our dear Chok Tong doesn't just want millions of dollars in compensation, which he already gets. He wants to be loved and valued for his work too, by people who feel they belong here.

Funny, I thought the whole point of paying our ministers so much money was to counter the appeal of the private sector and its big bucks over the virtues of working in the public sector. I mean, the reason why we pay you so much was because there was the assumption (asserted by you and your compatriots) that talented people prioritize money over everything else. And here you are claiming that you want to be working, not just for money, but for people who care about your feelings?

What are you, nuts? Bi-polar or something? Afflicted with some affective disorder? Or perhaps you're not the talent we thought you were, since you need more than just millions of dollars. And while we're on that, if your feelings matter, why don't ours?

Let me reiterate my main point. The way young people feel is not our problem. It's YOURS. let me spell that out in case you don't understand one or more parts of it. Y-O-U-R P-R-O-B-L-E-M.

Your government is like a company giving their resigning staff an exit interview, asking for honest feedback, and then systematically rejecting criticism by saying, "It's too bad you feel that way. We're not sorry about it and frankly, we think it's unjustified for you to feel that way."

Fine. Stay on your lonely, delusional moral high ground. Since you're governing in the interests of the foreigners flooding the island, and the top 20% of income earners that benefit disproportionately from your income inequality inducing policies, you guys deserve each other. We'll keep out of your way. Way out.

SGX buying ASX: There are projects and there are "projects"

It's old news that SGX is attempting to acquire ASX.

The merger is probably going to be value-destroying, as most M&A deals are. See here. The mature Australian market, the imminent loss of monopoly status for the ASX, and the massive amounts of debt AND equity that the SGX has to issue will probably drag down earnings badly in coming years.

The question to ask, of course, is the old Latin adage, "Cui Bono?"

SGX's senior management, and especially its new CEO, are the likeliest beneficiaries of any deal. They will reap massive bonuses for such a "bold" and "audacious" move should a deal go through. They might even be lauded as being "visionary" and showing "leadership". Not only that, as a helpful side benefit, CEO pay of financial institutions is highly correlated with the market capitalization of the institution. It's why banks have evolved to become TBTF.

When it's time to pay the piper, however, Magnus Bocker should have departed long ago to greener pastures. And the shareholders will reap a bitter harvest.

Why am I talking about this? Because the government doesn't operate so differently.

The government frequently rotates senior civil servants, especially scholars, among different ministries and government entities, arguing that doing so broadens exposure and helps senior civil servants to network with each other so the wheels of power are greased whenever things need to get done. We saw this most recently for YOG when everything including the kitchen sink was thrown at it to make it a "success".

What is less commonly known is that highly motivated Type-A civil servants like to leave a distinguishing mark on their most recently assumed 2-5 year appointment, a giant ego-stroking "I was here and I did [insert grandiose, high-falutin' project]". Kind of like a mongrel cur leaving a huge stinking piss stain to obliterate the mark left behind by the previous dog.

Indicators of such propensities include but are not limited to: 

a) making deprecating remarks about one’s predecessor’s efforts, particularly remarks that have just the right balance of both obsequiousness, condescension and outright disdain [can’t be too obvious about it, right?].

b) insisting on a new five-year roadmap after just two years into the previous one [which was the length of tenure for the previous appointment holder], with an ironclad requirement that the new roadmap must be sufficiently different from the old one.

c) spending a lot of money underwriting a huge project with nebulous objectives, vague sounding actionable plans, lots of buzzwords, and making sure that it enjoys heavy publicity and the appearance of consultation.

It hasn't been uncommon encountering itinerant, know-it-all, hard-to-please dilettantes in my professional life. I call the phenomenon "Gai3 Chao2 Huan4 Dai4". On a practical note, a proposed project that takes more time to complete than the tenure of the local emperor is usually DOA.  

For c) above, do not ever mistake such a project for a vanity project. A vanity project is frivolous and wasteful, but ultimately transparent and relatively pure in intentions.

Such projects serve deeper, more mercenary objectives, namely to elevate the appointment holder’s prestige, and to pad the resume in a quest for a loftier appointment two or more years down the road. Hardly a vanity project; there’s an important goal firmly in sight, just not the one written in the project proposal.

The especially annoying thing is, when reasonable people point out flaws or problems with such a project, it's never the criticisms that are addressed. Instead, the loyalty of the critics is loudly called into question, their judgment or their lack of "vision" is rubbished, and they and their opinions are otherwise dismissed, naysayers and doubting Thomas' all.

In Singapore, the YOG was only just one example in recent memory. There are, of course, others. Here’s a recent one, for instance. Read the last comment in the article and you will see why.