Appendix to DPM Tharman's Description of CPF

To be read with the Straits Times article:

CPF is:

1. SUSTAINABLE - for the government that is, because a defined contribution scheme is by definition self-funded and hence the government bears no risk for you not being able to afford your retirement. Whether or not CPF is sustainable for *you* is a different story altogether. 


2. FLEXIBLE - to the extent that you can spend your *own* money only on the things that the government allows you to spend on, subject of course to the alphabet soup of gotcha limits, e.g. MSS, VL and WL, MMS, which incidentally, are moving goalposts.


3. SECURE - to the extent that debt issued by a sovereign government in its own currency can always be repaid in full in nominal terms. Don't ask Tharman about security relative to purchasing power or the continued strength of the Singdollar. He'll think you're being rude.


4. FAIR - in that the rates of interest paid are appropriate given the zero rate interest environment brought on by the Federal Reserve's ZIRP policy. No mention of how the ZIRP environment has been in effect for only a handful of years, while the CPF interest rate has remained unchanged for decades.
   
   Don't ask Tharman about how fair the interest rate is relative to the inflation rate, or how the concept of "illiquidity premium" applies in the case of CPF. He'll think you're an ungrateful git for not realizing how generous the government is compared to the interest accruing on your bank account.

Sumptuary Laws - the MOE Edition

“Sumptuary laws (from Latin sumptuariae leges) are laws that attempt to regulate permitted consumption… In the Late Middle Ages, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to cap the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie of medieval cities, and they continued to be used for these purposes well into the 17th century.“ – Wikipedia entry

The Straits Times ran an article today on funding cuts for six independent schools, as well as requesting that schools moderate fund-raising activities.

I agree with Bertha Harian. The article was poorly reported and instead of informing the reader, left him or her with more questions.

It’s not hard to see where the motivation behind these cuts (and the accompanying loud but incoherent publicity) come from. Income and wealth inequality have become sensitive topics, and the government, in an effort to convince the citizenry that it’s behind the little guy (and hence not lose votes in the next election) is suddenly draping itself in socialist vestments.

Leaving aside how genuine the sentiment behind wanting to narrow inequities is, as opposed to merely a cynical exercise in electioneering, one really must tease apart how effective such measures are in achieving their purported goal. This post also aims to address other peripheral issues.

My thoughts:

1.       Even with official frowning over fund-raising for lavish new swimming pools and tennis courts, “good” schools will always find a way a differentiate themselves, just as the wealthy subverted sumptuary laws in centuries past. Latest example: five star hotels in China seeking to “de-star”themselves (but probably finding some other way to up the luxury ante) so that corrupt Chinese officials can continue to stay there. Gold leaf mooncakes are so passé.

Who knows what elite Singapore schools will spend on, now that conspicuous consumption is out?

I can think of a few ideas. I attended Anglo Chinese School in my salad days years ago on government largesse. I was in the school band for a year, and the set-up in the ACS band then was that new recruits had to sign up (and pay) for a few months of private group lessons with instructors. These lessons were held by section (e.g. clarinets, flutes, trumpets etc.)

The conductor for the band was an active member of the Singapore Symphony Orchestra (he played the trumpet), and the instructors were his colleagues from the SSO. While lessons were mandatory only for the first few months, we were strongly encouraged to continue having them on an ongoing basis to improve our abilities. I doubt any other secondary school band in Singapore back then (and perhaps even now) enjoyed the advantage of having musicians from the SSO as regular instructors for all their band members.

The lessons were paid for by students ($50 per student per month if I recall correctly). So, as far as I know, ACS didn’t finance the extra training. But that’s not to say ACS couldn’t have chosen to do so.

The experience of how the ACS band operated sure put the Singapore Youth Festival into perspective for me. Early on in life as a student, instead of knowing the SYF as a celebration of a well-rounded education, I instead learnt the importance of the role of money behind excellence and achievement. And school rankings needless to say.

(Post script: As a lower middle class student in the GEP paying just $12 a month in school fees, my father found it ridiculous that he had to pay $50 a month for private music lessons when education under the GEP was supposedly subsidized. There were a few ugly scenes in school, and after some wrangling between my parents and my teachers, to save myself embarrassment and long awkward conversations with my teachers, I left the band of my own accord and joined another CCA. On hindsight, this negative experience with money and education probably influenced me signing up for a government scholarship later in life.)

2.       Any curtailment in legacy admissions, which the article highlights as one of the measures to be imposed, is bound to elicit howls of protest or at the very least, grumbling from disgruntled alumni.

Which may not be a bad thing from schools’ perspective. Scarcity goods enjoy a premium. Expect even bigger and fatter donations from alumni parents anxious to get their kids into their alma mater. You know the Chicago song, “When you’re good to Mama…”? Exactly.

All this sort of makes the funding cuts and restrictions on fund-raising moot.

3.       So, what’s to be done if we really want to narrow inequalities in the educational system?

One way is to increase funding to lower ranked schools. One of the ironies in the Singapore educational system is that it is precisely the most advantaged students who receive the most funding, like the Gifted Education Program for instance. Although as a GEP alum I am grateful for the funding, the fact is that even by my time 20 years ago, the majority of the kids in my GEP class in ACS were indistinguishable from the regular ACS kids when it came to socio-economic background. I was one of the rare kids in my class who lived in an HDB flat, something really unusual in ACS. (I was odd in other ways too, such as walking to school and only entering the program in Secondary 1 instead of Primary 4, the so-called ‘supplementary intake’).

The article doesn’t go into specifics as to whether redistributing funding is what MOE is going to do going forward. A related measure is to make ‘bonus’ funding conditional on improving academic outcomes for incoming cohorts of students rather than on absolute achievement. This would favor schools with a lower base of achievement that prove that they can produce improved outcomes.

As for breaking open the “closed circles” that our elite schools have evolved into, encouraging kids from lower income households to apply to higher ranked institutions could be one solution. However, affirmative action or income diversity quotas may have very mixed results. Speaking as a formerlower income student in an elite institution, I can categorically state that psychologically, it’s tough to be a kid from a lower income household in a good school.

And I was one of the top students in my cohort. Without having private tuition which is ubiquitous today. Academics has always been low stress for me (compared to social interactions), but I can imagine that being lower income and struggling academically in an elite institution could be potentially an enormous source of stress.

My preferred strategy for leveling the playing field if I was in charge of setting education policy? Teachers. Sending the best teachers to the most disadvantaged schools.

A conversation with a teacher in my NS platoon during one of our interminably boring ICTs revealed to me that MOE scholars, the crème de la crème of the teaching profession, typically get assigned to the better schools after graduation. Again, this feeds back into the irony that the most advantaged students in our system receive the most and best resources, and you can’t get a better resource than a good teacher.

Ostensibly, the rationale for this is that MOE scholars are being groomed for leadership positions in the educational system and perhaps the larger civil service. So, exposure to opportunities is important for their career development, and what is true for students is just as true for the teachers. Good schools simply have more to offer teachers in terms of resources, interesting projects and resume-building opportunities.

While I understand that there is a master teacher career track for teachers who wish to specialize in *gasp* teaching, I don’t think it’s a terrible leap of imagination to realize that between the management and the teaching track, one track enjoys far greater prestige and money. Ergo, that’s where the talent gravitates to.

Which is why the Equity Project in New York City is so interesting. In this charter school, teachers are paid USD125,000 per year, twice as much as other public school teachers, and the idea is that the quality of the teaching talent will make a real difference in student outcomes These teachers are literally a ‘dream team’ – the Physical Education teacher was Kobe Bryant’s personal trainer. Given the longitudinal nature of educational outcomes, it’s hard to know if this experiment will pan out the way its supporters expect it to. But it certainly bears watching.

Riot in Little India - What could happen next: Considerations and Consequences

I was a little surprised to hear that a riot happened last night in Little India. But not very.

The benefits and necessities of massive immigration have been repeated ad nauseum by the government. In contrast, for years, I have warned of the unintended consequences of immigration, which include erosion of social cohesion and the increased risk of civil unrest.

I do not intend to recap the details of the Little India riot in this post. If you are reading this, you should be well-apprised of the details reported in local media. What I will discuss are perspectives that I think not many people will realize, and what I think will happen next.


That a riot happened is not a surprise. That Singaporeans are genuinely shocked is.

Seriously, with fully 30% of the population here foreign-born, and a large chunk of migrant labor coming from lower educated and poorer countries with more violent histories of protest than Singapore, why should it be a surprise that a riot can occur? Forbes has an article with a similar sentiment as mine.

The police commissioner said that "the incident last night was not the Singapore way".

Indeed. However, one third of the population here is not Singaporean. On balance, looking at the sheer numbers of immigrants, arguing that everyone who lives here should conform to the "Singapore way" is foolhardy at best, and at worst, rings of either naivete or hubris.

As to why foreign workers could be so unhappy as to riot in the streets, I do not know. It could simply be a case of emotions running high after seeing a kinsman fatally knocked down and then escalating into a riot.

What I do know is that based on well-documented incidents by TWC2 of how foreign workers are abused in Singapore, there are plenty of reasons for a foreign worker in Singapore to be less than happy. If later investigations reveal an underlying current of simmering resentment that drove the workers to riot, I would not be surprised to find out.


The government has no good choices of how to respond to this incident. Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again.

A riot by foreign workers happened last night. Nothing can change that fact.

This raises so many obvious questions among Singapore citizens and residents.

Is it safe in Singapore? Is it safe to go to Little India?
Why did the riot happen?
Will riots happen again?
How should the rioters be dealt with?
What will this do to labor relations with our migrant workers?
What does this mean for our country's immigration policy?

The most damaging consequence of this incident is that it illustrates that Singapore is not immune to civil unrest. The illusion that massive uncontrolled immigration is an unalloyed good has been shattered.

That the riot was caused by foreign workers calls into question the wisdom of our immigration policy AND underscores the importance of how we as citizens and Singaporeans navigate our relationships with the foreigners in our midst.

The government has no good choices as to how to respond to this incident. If they are seen as not prosecuting the arrested to the fullest extent of the law and meting out justice, some Singaporeans, the more xenophobic ones, will perceive this as softness. Already, we can read comments online excoriating the rioters and blaming them for threatening Singapore's stability.

If the government does not exercise restraint in its response however, the consequences could be dire too. A harsh response could be reasoned to have a deterrent effect; yet it could equally have a inflammatory effect and lead to a higher likelihood of more riots and civil disturbances, such as strikes.

Remember, there are thousands of foreign workers here. And even though we think of rioting as irrational behavior, when you are a foreign worker in a foreign land incensed at what you perceive as unfair treatment of your peers, the calculus of what is 'rational' is very different.

Even irrational behavior looks reasonable when you can find enough people to agree with you, and again I remind the reader, we have thousands of foreign workers here.

If I were an employer in the construction industry hiring hundreds of foreign workers, I would be worried.


"With so much chaos, someone will do something stupid."

I'm aware that I'm probably hyperventilating a little here, but let's hope that no one actually does something stupid, either foreigner or Singaporean. Something stupid meaning another incident that could fan the flames of discord and lead to another major civil disturbance.

The quote is from the movie V for Vendetta. It is taken out of context here, but the parallel should be clear. It is right for the government to appeal for calm.

Despite the riot, imposing a curfew, rules on assembly or stricter policing in Little India is asking for trouble.

Why are there so many foreign workers in Little India anyway?

It should not be hard to empathize and understand why. Because Little India feels like home to many foreign workers. And for a few hours at least, a foreign worker can pretend that he is not far away from family and a life he understands and instead in a cold metropolis of glass and steel.

So, why do I think that imposing heavier rules and policing in Little India is a bad idea?

Here's a passage from The Front Runner by Patricia Nell Warren, possibly the most celebrated gay love story ever. The passage is from the protagonist's recollection of the Stonewall riots and I reproduce it here to illustrate what might happen when law enforcement encroaches into a space occupied by a marginalized minority:

"The street was full of cops and flashing red lights.But what was more amazing, the street was full of hundreds of gays, and they were fighting the cops. For years they...submitted to harassments and arrest...But the night of Stonewall, they made the instant visceral decision that they had had enough. They were throwing rocks and bottles...They were fighting New York's Finest with their bare hands.

I watched with growing anger and sorrow. I didn't drink, but those bars were about the only public places where gays could be themselves. No straight could understand how precious they were to us. I had always believed in law and order, supported the police. But those cops were busting me...They were riding over me with their big horses and shoving me into vans handcuffed...

Then an amazing thing happened. I had a rock in my hand, and I threw it."

A enlarged police presence in Little India will likely have the effect of fueling resentment and ironically, may lead to a higher risk for future riots. Yet, some may feel that the government needs to make a show of force to demonstrate it takes public order seriously. I am neither for one or the other. Again, I reiterate. There are no good choices here. Humpty Dumpty lies broken and in pieces.

With what has happened last night, we can only hope that such an incident is a one-off and Singaporeans can put it behind us.

Yet, the disquietude persists.

Straits Times 8 March 2013 - Taking Flight

Long time readers of my blog will know that I am a paragliding pilot.

Last Saturday, a Straits Times journalist who had found our club's Facebook page requested for a photo shoot and an interview. Fortunately, the wind at the field next to Marina Bay Cruise Center was accommodating. =)

The article was published in today's Life!, along with some pretty pictures.

To all my earthbound friends who have not seen me strapped into my wing, well, I'm the one with the silver and azure glider, circled in yellow above. It's a Gin Bolero III model.

The secretary of our club told me that he expects a flood of enquiries after the publication of this article, given the large number of adventure sports enthusiasts in Singapore.

Me? I'm not so sure. The sport has traditionally been small and mostly limited to those comfortable with the risks inherent in an air sport. It's very much a self-selected sport, especially given the constraints faced by paragliding pilots in Singapore. Most Singaporeans in the community had to find ways to learn and practice the sport on their own. I, for example, traveled to Nepal by myself in Winter 2009 to learn.

Incidentally, that's one of the things I love best about the sport. The pilots that I've met have tended to be the independent and free-spirited types that I identify most strongly with. Many of the people I've met through the sport are true kindred spirits.

Still, it would be interesting to see the response to wider publicity of our community in the coming weeks ahead.

On Mainstream Media's Non-Coverage of the White Paper Protest

The recent non-coverage of the protest at Hong Lim Park this past Saturday has once again demonstrated how captured they are by the PAP. Bertha Henson had the best commentary on this, but then again, she should; she used to be part of the establishment, which gives her not just insider information but also the freedom to speak, now that she's no longer working for SPH.

One minor quibble, Bertha, if you're reading this. I would prefer if you distinguished between the PAP and the Government. I know it's understandable to use G. as shorthand for the PAP-controlled government, given Singapore's history, but it should bear repeating that the PAP and the Government of Singapore are not one and the same thing.

Bertha had one good piece of advice. Go read OB Markers by Cheong Yip Seng, former editor-in-chief of the Straits Times.

After reading his memoirs, I can categorically state that I have a better understanding of the pressures that editors and journalists in the mainstream media face, being excoriated sometimes by both the public and cabinet ministers for the same published articles. If there was ever evidence that people view things in a way that confirms their preconceived notions and suspicions...

I can also state categorically that I empathize with the view (espoused by LKY) that the mainstream media has the role to educate and persuade the public to certain points of view for the benefit of the country.

To a point. On matters of national security and foreign policy for example. But I am far from convinced that this is an appropriate role for mainstream media on other matters of national policy where the paths ahead are less clear. Like population growth. Open, informed and vigorous public debate would be preferred to propaganda.

Cheong Yip Seng's memoirs were in fact more interesting for what they did not cover rather than what they did cover. Part apologia and part hagiography (of LKY), they skipped over how the media has been used as a political weapon to silence and/or discredit opposition party politicians, and to muffle criticism or hush up failures by government agencies or processes under the rubric of "protecting confidence in the government".

But to me, this is now all moot. I no longer read the Straits Times, and I stopped watching TV a long time ago. Ergo, I no longer consume mainstream media in toto.

SMRT bus driver strike - 2 years early, but still proven right

Today, local media reported on a strike by SMRT bus drivers hired from mainland China.

Local media called it a "dispute". The headline on asiaone read "SMRT bus drivers refuse to go to work".

What's that called again? Yeah, in other countries, it would be called a "strike", specifically a "wildcat strike" (raise up your hands and do the air quotes, people)

More than 2 years ago, I wrote a post on the unintended consequences of immigration. You can read it here.

I was early by 2 years, but still proven right in the end. Since I was proven right, it's useful to go back to revisit what I wrote because even I can't remember what thoughts were percolating through my mind back then and what *other* predictions I made that may eventually pan out as well.

The pertinent section from my 2-year old post:

We know of wildcat strikes in China at Honda factories. For better or for worse, immigrants to Singapore are generally not as ... tractable ... as native Singaporeans. If a critical part of our infrastructure like the public bus transport network is heavily dependent on foreigners of a particular ethnicity or creed, what happens if they have reason to get organized and demonstrate, protest or go on strike? 

Like the Falun Gong demonstration that happened in Singapore a while back? Or the diplomatic fracas that came in the wake of the Flor Contemplacion incident? There would potentially be a lot more unhappy Filipinos on Singapore soil today should a diplomatic incident like that happen again. And frankly, before 9/11, Singapore was lucky to not have sourced for immigrants from Muslim states that might subsequently have found our staunch relationship with the USA ... objectionable. 

What about our other industries? Electronics, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, construction? Any possibility of some adverse event occurring simply because we are so critically dependent on "hired help" in those industries? Nobody knows, and the MOM a'int talking. Maybe we should start asking. Just sayin'.

___

Perhaps our numerous generals-turned-cabinet ministers can advise us on what the national security implications are of depending so heavily on foreigners, when fully one third of the warm bodies here are not your typical compliant docile Singaporeans. That should be one area that they can truly claim to have expertise in.

If there has ever been a national policy document that details the risk-adjusted cost-benefit analysis of mass immigration, I'd certainly like to see it.

A word on *that* mindshare survey - the importance of framing

The results of the Mindshare survey first published in the Business Times, and subsequently blogged about everywhere should be known to most Singaporeans who consume online news content.

While I believe that the survey results are broadly reflective of citizen sentiment on the ground, and I am most definitely not a pro-government apologist, I'd like to highlight the importance of framing of questions on surveys of this kind, and how they could influence the survey results.

In my mind (sic), I think the questions in the survey done by Mindshare were poorly phrased. In fact, they were far too leading to be considered well-designed survey questions. More likely, the survey was designed to elicit some form of expected reaction (which would have been anticipated by the surveyors), which would then be parleyed into some kind of media circus (which arguably has happened in the anti-establishment blogosphere).

Tellingly, no serious blogger whom I actually consider noteworthy has commented on the results of the survey. Granted, I probably am not a voracious consumer of online content. Still...

I have reproduced all six presumably Yes-No questions in the survey below. Beneath each question is a parallel version that I have written which I submit would return quite significantly different results.

When you have read all the questions, return to the first one and appraise all the Mindshare questions in their entirety. You will see that they are quite far from being neutrally phrased, and you will appreciate the power of framing in influencing survey results.

MindShare: I don't believe that I will be able to retire comfortably in Singapore.

My version: Do you think that you will be able to retire comfortably in Singapore?

MindShare: We cannot afford to get sick these days due to high medical costs.
My version: Do you think medical costs are affordable or too expensive in Singapore?

MindShare: Public housing prices are getting out of hand these days.
My version: Do you think public housing is reasonably priced today?

MindShare: I should not be spending my entire working life paying off my housing loans.
My version: ...

Honestly, this question has zero value. It has the blatant appeal to emotion behind it, which is why I said earlier that the survey doesn't pass the smell test of a bona fide study. 

The real kicker is not that 75% in the Mindshare survey answered "yes" to this question, but why 25% did NOT answer "yes". I can't imagine why anyone who has an operating brain cell would answer "No, I don't agree" to this statement.

MindShare: Political leaders are paid too much these days.
My version: Would you say that political leaders today are paid too little, too much, or at reasonable levels?

MindShare: There are too many foreign workers taking up job opportunities in our society today.

Depending on what you were specifically looking for, this question could have been framed in many different ways, all of them much more neutral than the Mindshare version, and all of them possibly yielding different responses.

My versions: 

Do you feel disadvantaged looking for a job in Singapore today due to the large foreigner population in Singapore today?

Do you think the large number of foreigners in Singapore makes looking for a job harder (for you)?

Given the large foreign population in Singapore, do you think the number of job opportunities is reduced?

Do you think the number of foreigners in Singapore has affected the unemployment situation?

Mindshare: Singaporeans should be granted priority in employment.

Ah, this question is very easily manipulated to give the desired response, once a suitable interpretation of the result is trotted out. Some examples...

My versions:

Do you think employment should be based on the principle of meritocracy?

If a foreigner is more qualified for a job than a Singaporean, do you think the Singaporean should still be given priority in employment?

All other things being equal, Singaporeans should be granted priority in employment.

If Singaporeans cannot be found to fill certain jobs, those jobs should be made available to foreigners.

Moral of the story: be very careful when reading the results of such surveys. Sometimes, the questions are more telling than the answers themselves.

The drive for more babies...and the wrongheadedness of the approach.

The government is getting there...but still does not quite get it. Or chooses not to get it. Or believes it can have its cake and eat it too. Wishful thinking.

There were 2 articles and an editorial on encouraging Singaporean couples to have more babies. Very briefly, the first article was on NTUC pushing for 6 months paid maternity leave and an option to take a further 6 months unpaid. The second article was on changing employers' mindset to make for a more baby and mother friendly work environment. Finally, the editorial was on how a holistic approach was needed to encourage more babies, ranging from more hands-on fathers, to affordable childcare and preschool.

I shall deal with these one by one.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

The government had previously extended paid maternity leave by one month from 3 to 4 months, with our taxes picking up the tab. This was over and above the Baby Benefits, which are really tax breaks that are applicable only to those families that make enough money to pay taxes.

I will say this even if no one else wants to say it. Our Baby Benefits are targeted at couples in the upper middle class and above to have more kids, and no one else. The provenance of new babies matters to our government; heaven forbid that the poor go forth and multiply. This is one more example of how our government's policies favor the rich rather than the less privileged.

Let's also not forget state subsidies for in vitro fertilization, which is largely an option open only to the upper middle class.

After several years of the fertility rate continuing to languish at below replacement levels, I think we can conclude one thing. Throwing money at the problem, and increasing maternity leave is throwing money at the problem, is not a solution.

Why do I say increasing maternity leave is throwing money at the problem? Because no one makes the decision to have kids, a lifelong commitment, just for one or two more months of leave. Just like no one is fooled by the government's one-off or X-off GST rebates and Medisave top-ups in the face of what are permanent GST hikes and increased Medishield premiums.

My opinion on baby benefits has evolved over the years. Today, I believe that the couples who desire kids will have kids regardless of these Baby Benefits and perks. And those who won't, won't. The benefits are really just gravy for whoever already wants kids. In which case, these incremental benefits are a waste of tax dollars.

Is having a few months of maternity leave important? Yes. But is increasing it from 4 to 6 months going to help boost the fertility rate? No, I don't think so.

Thinking that applying the Scandinavian approach outside Scandinavia will work reflects an appalling lack of big picture perspective.


The second article was a wonder in naivete and ignorance.

In it, Ms Cham Hui Fong spoke on wanting to create a mini Denmark where there was high GDP growth, high female participation in the workforce and a high fertility rate.

Honey, we live in one of the most unequal societies on earth, where money is worshiped like a god, status is tied to how much you make and how much you spend, and the myth of meritocracy has taken root like the state religion. With meritocracy, you should get what you deserve, but the flipside is that you resent when people get what you feel they don't deserve. This is about as far from Scandinavia as you can get.

In a Scandinavian country like Denmark, the income and wealth distribution is relatively flat and taxes are progressive and high. This lends credence to the ideals of shared sacrifice both among individuals and companies, income redistribution, equal opportunity, societal values where family and relationships are prioritized, and work environments where workers are respected and valued.


In Singapore, GDP is what is valued. Economic growth is what is valued. Every time some form of social assistance is broached as an idea, the bogeyman of higher taxes is trotted out, we are reminded of what it will mean to our collective pocketbooks, and the idea is shot down.


Ms Cham is part of the establishment. She should know. We live in a society where we are taught to hold our noses to the grindstone early in life, that we need to scramble constantly for advantage.


Ms Cham spoke of changing employers' and colleagues' mindsets, saying that "Women need the peace of mind that they are not being victimized and marginalized just because they have a baby or have to spend more time at home."


Well, honey, guess what? In this country, when companies like SMEs are compelled to give say, 6 months of maternity leave, they feel victimized. In this country, when the norm for most working professionals is to knock off at 7, 8 pm, or even later, if they have to pick up the slack for a colleague on maternity leave, they feel victimized. When an unmarried worker has to shift their work patterns on account of flexi-work arrangements made specially for a worker with kids, they feel victimized.


Am I being anti-family? No, I am not. I am simply speaking of the realities on the ground. If we lived in a country where everyone knocked off at 5 pm and could go home and relax, the environment would be naturally kid-friendly and no one would bat an eyelid at maternity leave, paternity leave or family-friendly work arrangements.


But we don't live in such a country. Ms Cham talked about changing employers' and colleagues' mindsets. I have a news flash for her. You need to change the entire country's mindset.


A holistic approach is needed. 


Isn't it always the case? The editorial has it right in that affordable and available childcare and preschool must be part of the equation. I don't think the lack of hands-on fathers is a problem anymore, particularly among the upper middle class that the government is especially anxious to see reproducing.

However, I have one caveat to add, and this is linked to my second point above about changing society's mindset.

While it is thought to be important, providing greater and greater incentives to encourage couples to have kids may in fact, prove to have a divisive side-effect in this highly unequal, mercenary society of ours.

The benefits provided so far are in fact a form of affirmative action, but the reason that nobody complains is because most people see themselves starting families and having kids at some predefined point in their lives. But that may change in the not too distant future.



We already see sizeable segments of the population choosing not to have kids for various reasons. There are the avowed singles, the childless couples unwilling to sacrifice their careers and lifestyles, the LGBT community, and the marginalized minority, such as single parents.

In a Scandinavian country, such generous benefits would, as I have mentioned, not cause a furore, but be seen instead as a societal good.

In a country like ours however, some people may take issue with these benefits instead. Remember, we live in a country where being single practically bars you from owning your own home due to stratospheric property prices, the lack of a housing grant and affordable HDB loans, and being shut out from the market for new HDB flats.

Who can tell when benefits become too generous and arouse disgruntlement and resentment among sections of the population? I know I myself feel some disquietude already.

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.

Trouble in (Research) Paradise

Front page article in the Straits Times - "$180m doled out from stalled biomed fund", the title of which is itself an anodyne sounding palliative.

I wrote on the capriciousness of research funding in Singapore and the impact it has on individuals two years ago, almost to the day, in my post Picking Winners.

I wrote then:

If there is a lesson to be drawn here, it is that the government in Singapore likes to 'pick winners', hence the title of this post. Like it or not, major segments of our economy are centrally planned. Even the number of doctors, lawyers, teachers and PhDs in Singapore is centrally planned.

For the individual, this works fine if the sector you work in is a 'winner' and the 'picking' part is still in the early stages. You'll do just fine, better than fine even, if you are a foreigner invited to come here.

But if you are late to the cycle, there is a real risk you could get shut out even before you get a foot in the door. Worst, if you are established in the 'winning' field that then becomes less winning, you are left behind, too old to switch fields when you get made redundant.

This Schumpetarian creative destruction may work well for Singapore's economy, but it can leave an exceedingly bitter taste in the mouth of the individual.


The requirement for industrial collaboration and quantifiable economic value generation in order to access government funding was obvious to those who knew where to look, right from the beginning of Singapore's great R&D enterprise. It was de-emphasized early on (otherwise, how else would we have attracted the whales?), but as I expected, not too long after Philip Yeo has exited the scene, the edifice is starting to crumble.


One of the most important lessons I learnt when I first started working in research as a fresh graduate was that running a research lab is a lot like running a small business.  


Passion, curiosity, orginality, drive - these are all important attributes for a successful scientist. But to do science you need money. So, bringing money in is extremely important. It's the reason why if you've ever worked in a not-so-well funded lab, the PI (principal investigator) isn't as involved in the day-to-day running of the lab as you think he or she should be, but instead spends all their time writing grant proposals and making sales pitches to funding authorities.


And if you're really unlucky like I was, the pressures of "business development" start filtering down to the lower echelons of researchers, like fresh graduates. Developing technical expertise takes a backseat to helping to put food on the table.


It sounds strange, but managing tight lines of cash flow is a common activity in small research labs. That's because unlike for-profit companies, there is no luxury of a cash cushion or going to market to raise debt and equity financing. Oftentimes, money from a new project is directed to meeting the costs of an ongoing project due to unexpected delays, cost overruns or just plain overpromising/underbudgeting in the project proposal (usually in order to get the grant money in the first place). 


Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, so to speak. That's why I say running your own research lab, which is what most scientists aspire to, is like running a small business.


So, researchers in Singapore are simply going to have to adapt to the new realities of research funding at A*Star. If you're a returning scholar who has long had your head in the clouds about doing science, and discovering new knowledge, and pursuing noble goals, it's time to wrap your mind around what are the important skills to learn in running a small business, meeting the needs of your industrial partners/customers, and appealing to bureaucrats' unhealthy obsession with KPIs. You're going to have to learn all this on your own; PhD programs generally don't teach these skills.


I have a lot more to say on this sudden change in research funding policies at A*Star, but it's difficult to cohere it all into an article. So, I'm going to take the lazy way out: quoting sections from the Straits Times article and interspersing my comments.


___


"Going to bed with industry makes us all very uneasy...Plus scientists don't make the best negotiators with savvy businessmen."


Especially if the businessmen can smell blood, like they do now. The scientists are desperate and everybody knows it. Negotiating from a position of weakness means extremely unfavorable terms on any deals made, you can count on that for sure.


"I feel very sorry for the younger scientists and scholars as the rules of the game have changed while they were looking the other way."


Read: You're going to be assessed and rewarded on your ability to bring in money, not on your ability to do good science. You can trash your doctoral work now if there's no way to spin it as having industrial or economic value. 


And if your subspeciality happens to have little commercial value, well, sucks to be you.


"The whales are likely to be followed by other big and small research creatures."


Exodus. 'Nuff said. And the whale metaphor is getting so tired, it should be retired, just as Philip Yeo has left the scene. I wonder how many returning scholars are going to feel grateful to him for the scholarships he doled out so aggressively in years past. It's a terrible feeling to feel trapped. 


"I do not know whether you can measure the performance of scientists by KPIs."


Ah, the tyranny of the KPIs again. What can't be measured or is difficult to measure generally won't be measured. See above on being assessed on ability to bring in money rather than ability to do good science.


"They must have signed research agreement with industry, or work with a medical doctor who is also a scientist, or create technology platforms that companies can use."


It is a sweet, sweet time to be a clinician scientist. Suddenly, everyone wants to be your new best friend.


"And he said that $180 million of the $600 million available for the next five years has been given out or will be given out soon, which shows institutes are able to access it successfully."


Let's see, in my experience, that can mean a few things:


1) Relaxation of the guidelines on awarding funding due to massive unhappiness on the ground.
2) Creative interpretation of the guidelines on awarding funding due to massive unhappiness on the ground.
3) Fantasy proposals that can't reasonably be delivered on, but that will only be a problem a few years later.


For (3), you can generally expect the scientists who wrote the proposals to intensify their job search with the time they have bought at A*Star with their unrealistic research proposals. 


Either that, or manage expectations of the funding authorities when project deadlines near. That's not as difficult as it sounds, since in Singapore's bureaucracy, the management people get rotated every few years, so the person assessing project completion is quite often not the same person who approved the project.


"Last week, homegrown biotech firm S*Bio said it was slashing headcount by 80 percent after a deal with a US pharmaceutical firm did not go through as planned."


I'm shocked, shocked! And here I was thinking that everything was going hunky dory. I mean, if something bad had really happened in Biotech Land, I'm sure our authoritative Straits Times, voice of the nation, would have been all over it.  


"But others are concerned about the ethics of working with industry....conflicts of interest."


See Science for Sale for example. Many other good books on this subject.

Fear-mongering before the next immigration surge

The Straits Times had a front page article today entitled "Population will shrink without immigrants".

[Not coincidentally, they also had "Baby and talent dearth in Taiwan's economic spiral" in the Review section. Real subtle, Straits Times editors.]

As expected, post-GE 2011, it's going to be business as usual for the government. The only concession is a softer, more persuasive, consultation style of government. In other words, the packaging will be prettier, but the contents will still be the same.

This post isn't another polemic about the evils of immigration, or the problems it creates. That's kind of boring, and my blog is all about fresher perspectives.

Here, I'll be talking about some things which may not be immediately apparent to people thinking about immigration.

I haven't read the report produced by the Institute of Policy Studies, so I can't in fairness comment on their methods, their modeling parameters, and all that dense technical stuff.

That's also not terribly fun to do, or read.

In general, I'm not going to dispute their findings on how the population will shrink if immigration doesn't keep apace. I will take their findings on good faith.

But what I do find interesting is how the the Straits Times article reported on the demographic model's output based on the "net" immigration rate of 0, 30,000 or 60,000 people per annum. The numbers sound nice and pretty and round, but they blithely ignore the messy realities of life (like all models).

"All models are wrong, but some are useful." - George Box.

Let me put it this way by using an analogy.

Let's say you have a cup and you're trying to fill it with water from a running tap. You get to control how much the tap is turned and so the rate at which water drips into the cup.

Your goal is to control how fast the cup is filling up. Note, this is not the same as the rate at which water comes out of the tap. The goal is to attain a target rate for how fast the cup is filling up.

I have this magic device that can poke holes in the bottom of your cup so that water leaks from the bottom of the cup. This device can also magically seal holes in the bottom of the cup, so leakage rates can change moment to moment.

Again, let me reiterate, the goal is to achieve a target rate of how fast the cup is filling up. You only get to control the tap, not the leaks.

Oh, and lest you forget, how much water you have in your cup changes the leakage rate of water out of your cup. The pressure of a higher water level will of course force water to leak out the bottom faster.

Your job is to maintain a constant rate at which the cup is filled, whether it's 30,000 units per year or 60,000 units per year.

You also have a natural concern about how full the cup is. That's because the water is scalding hot and filling it to overflowing will burn you very badly. Oh, and your Mom will beat the crap out of you if the cup becomes too empty.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the faster the tap is flowing, the harder it is to get your job done correctly.

My point here is that increased dependence on immigration will almost certainly lead to greater volatility in population numbers, with attendant consequences on public policy planning, services and infrastructure. Immigration may well be necessary, but it is hardly an unalloyed good.

A previous post of mine during GE 2011 indicated that the data suggests that PRs generally start leaving once they are past the prime of their working life, in their 40s and over. That's hardly surprising. People are here for the economic opportunities and the money. They are not here for the yawning income inequality, the stressful lifestyle, the astronomical property prices and difficulties in starting a family, and all the things that we ungrateful locals complain about.

I wrote then that, "Our new PRs who are now aged in their 20s and 30s today could well leave en masse five, ten or twenty years from now."

A greater outflow rate in the future means a greater rate of immigration (of new people who are then in their 20s and 30s) will be needed to compensate. This means that the flux through our proverbial cup is going to increase. In other words, our cup is going to leak very fast in the future, so the tap had better been turned on really fast too.

Try keeping the cup from being too full or too empty then.

Over the long term, the volatility in population numbers may mean that in some years or decades our public infrastructure may be strained due to too many people (like now), but in some years or decades, when the economy is weak, our population numbers may slide dramatically, with lots of spare capacity everywhere (read: weak property market).

Our government will of course do all they can to ensure a vigorous and growing economy forever.

Forever, however, is a very long time. 

Keep the spin cycle on, and get ready to be hung out to dry...

Today's edition of the Straits Times had the headline on the front page: "Government to review drainage after year's worst flood".

This is refreshing. The Straits Times is often deployed for spin damage control every time the government can't cover up mismanagement bad news. The rule appears to be: Cover up first. If not possible, then obfuscate, mislead and distract. And if that fails, underplay and de-emphasize. We now have a new fourth stage: pre-empt criticism and be seen to be DOING SOMETHING.

The front-page story read in an almost surreal way. Talking about review of drainage before describing the floods was putting the cart before the horse; I wasn't even aware that there had been floods yesterday before I picked up today's newspaper (I was holed up at home with a book over the weekend). The Straits Times seemed to be assuming that everyone knew about the floods before the story was printed today (not an unreasonable assumption to make in light of the digital age), but it certainly carried the faint scent of resignation of old world media.

Keep it up, nation-building press. The PAP government has your jobs, but with its continual expectation that you comply to its spin demands, the importance of those jobs will be eroded as the years roll by.

Conventional local media is already distrusted; it won’t be long before it ceases to be relevant altogether (especially when the older folks that depend on it die off). Then the SPH management will question the very need for investment into conventional media. What will follow will be smaller operating budgets, reduced headcount and dismal attempts at new media (to be repeated at X-year intervals with refreshed roadmaps / business plans).

The local print media need look no further than Mediacorpse to see the future. Diminished mindshare since fewer people tune in to free-to-air TV, diminished production values due to reduced budgets, and diminished advertising revenue due to irrelevance to consumers. Talent flight is a further result (as well as an accelerant to the crisis).

I don’t watch TV anymore, although my parents do, but it hasn’t escaped my attention that many TV ads, particularly outside primetime, are either ads about advertising on Mediacorpse or trailers for other programs. The Straits Times itself too carries its own advertisements exhorting subscriptions, as well as touting lucky draws for new subscribers. A sign of the times indeed.

I would cease reading the Straits Times if not for the fact that my family subscribes to it and it makes for convenient breakfast reading. However, I spend as little as 20 minutes reading the papers. I can often dispense with the Home Section in just 15 seconds; the Forum page is always ignored.

A few years ago, I might flip through past editions of the papers after returning from vacation. I no longer do so. In fact, now, if I do not pick up the papers at my appointed breakfast hour (usually because I have an early start that day), that day’s Straits Times edition will be left untouched, permanently. Reading the Straits Times is a function of my breakfast. It is not a goal in itself.

Even for someone like me with newspapers at home, the Straits Times no longer holds my attention. And I am just over 30. To younger Singaporeans, local newspapers are fast becoming an anachronism.

PS: Although causation is difficult to prove, one does have to wonder if road raising works along Orchard Road to deal with previous floods have shunted the problem to the Tanglin area. This could well be the flooding version of whac-a-mole.

Why the PAP is finding it difficult to attract candidates from the private sector

I had thought that more people would have commented on the story published in the Straits Times on 16 April, on how few high flying executives from the private sector are willing to join the PAP. But apparently not.

Someone did comment on it, but while I do agree with some of the ideas in that post, my opinion is a little different, and more nuanced.

Why is the PAP finding it difficult to attract candidates from the private sector?

To answer that question, we must first ask why people enter politics.

People enter politics for a number of reasons, but the most important (and noble) reason must be the idea of wanting to make a difference.

Many of the most celebrated politicians in history took on positions of leadership precisely at the point when they perceived the need for a change in direction for their country. Take FDR for example. He rose to the occasion to become POTUS at the height of the Great Depression. It is in times of crisis that we see great leaders arise. Our Minister Mentor is another example.

When you keep that fact in mind, and you consider the nature and character of the PAP as it is today, it is not a surprise that they have problems recruiting candidates from the private sector.

The PAP today is in the business of maintaining the status quo. And I do mean business. Our economic and other policies have been deemed successful by our political elite, and as such, they have signaled that no change is warranted.

With their electioneering tactics and iron-grip control of the civil service, the PAP has assured itself victory in every election. And even its greenest candidates need not fear being rejected by the electorate; they can just coast in on the coat-tails of a "heavy-weight" under the GRC system. If there were such a thing as a election guarantee in a democracy, this would be it.

In other words, the PAP of today is not a party of fiery orators, impassioned visionaries or trailblazing mavericks, full of piss and vinegar, to borrow that piquant phrase.

They don't have to be. The PAP today is a party of technocrats and functionaries, where an efficient party apparatus guarantees risk-free victory at elections, and continuity of policy after election. Policy which is set at the highest levels of the PAP food chain, if I might add, immune to criticism and disquiet even within the party itself.

Indeed, mavericks are probably personae non grata in the PAP. Some people accuse the PAP of recruiting only those that agree with their policy-making views. I would go further. In the environment of the PAP, they can ONLY recruit those who agree with their views, as a true dissenter would probably find the PAP a lonely and hostile place.

Oh, we hear of various fresh PAP faces saying that they don't agree with this or that PAP policy. Riiight. Just as our national newspaper is fond of printing both sides of an issue to give the appearance of "balance", but inevitably ends on one side of the argument: the PAP's.

Dissenters in the PAP either don't last long, are marginalized (think the late President Ong Teng Cheong when he refused the play the role of a straw puppet and actually had the temerity to request for information on the national reserves), are co-opted, or were never true dissenters to begin with.

In light of this, it is not hard to imagine why, with few exceptions, high flying corporate executives have little desire to join the PAP.

Put yourself in the shoes of a corporate high flyer who actually has aspirations to make a difference, to become a politician.

If you genuinely have issues with the PAP's policies, you are unlikely to want to join them. Trying to change the PAP from within is likely a fool's errand.

Even if you do agree with the PAP's policies, the PAP is unlikely to be a place that can satisfy your political aspirations. It's a monolithic top-down structure, where policy is decided at the top, your role is to support the status quo, and you have to toe the line. Because, after all, it's not like you enjoy an independent power base among your constituents, especially if you coasted in on the coat-tails of another politician. How independent can your opinion be when you owe your place in Parliament to another politician?

Worse, as a former corporate warrior, you would have given up your high salary, perks AND privacy. And for what? For this pale shadow of being a politician? More like a entry level political lackey.

Being a PAP Member of Parliament would be singularly unattractive in this case. It would be a corporate job without the corporate perks. In other words, it would be a step DOWN from being a corporate high flyer. Even a corporate high flyer who agrees he has benefited disproportionately from the PAP's policies and wants them to continue. No thanks, he might say, I just want a free ride on your policies.

Conversely, what kinds of people would view becoming a PAP Member of Parliament as a step up?

Simple. The people who are already in the public eye, think only glowingly of existing policy, and fall very naturally into the position of deferring to authority in the form of senior PAP politicians.

No surprise. The civil service. And the quasi-governmental organizations like the NTUC.

If you are a high-ranking civil servant, becoming a cabinet minister would represent the logical pinnacle of your civil service career progression.

Not so for a private sector corporate executive who has political aspirations. The calculus is far different.

I have a prediction here to make.

The trends are clear. The PAP is recruiting less and less from the private sector, while the converse is occurring for the opposition parties, particularly those with credibility, like the Workers Party.

Should the opposition parties actually make headway in this coming election by, say, winning a GRC, it would be a watershed moment. Being an opposition party member would demonstrably seem less risky, and more people who want to make a difference, who actually have some fire in their hearts, would join the opposition political parties from the private sector.

In contrast, because the PAP is recruiting increasingly from the public sector, it is going to be seen as more and more insular, and will find it ever harder to recruit from the private sector. No outsider wants to belong to an clubby old boys association where every former civil servant knows every other former civil servant. And over time, the PAP will become more homogeneous than it is already.

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.

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.