On Fundies Calling for Removing Non "Pro-Family" Children's Books from the Library

An oldie but goodie:

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.

On the Narrowness of Job Descriptions

Given that my current job is pretty much a moribund dead end of a position (I previously described it as managing 2 aunties who have been doing the same thing for 50+ years between the 2 of them), I have been looking for another job.

I haven’t been looking very hard, largely because my current lack of industry-relevant experience and contacts makes it difficult to move to another position. How I got my current position was pretty much of a fluke really. To put it briefly, my current boss needed to fill the position at short notice and seeing as how there were no takers inside or outside the company (like I said, “moribund”), he thought it would be a good idea to put someone who had the maturity and capability to lead a team, but who wasn’t really in a position to bargain for better terms.

On hindsight, it really was something of a poisoned chalice.

To put it simply, I am performing a manager’s role with an executive’s pay. The money issue doesn’t really bother me nearly as much as the severe curtailment of opportunities for professional development. I am getting paid slightly more than a fresh graduate, but with very little direct supervision or work given to me that is interesting or important for professional development. And I have to deal with the aggravation of managing 2 aunties who are, to put it mildly, a little set in their ways. It’s likely that I will leave my current position in 6 months or less, new job offer or no.

But I digress from today’s post, which is on how absurdly unrealistic the requirements for some jobs are.

A recruiter contacted me recently regarding a position that had opened up, which he thought would be suitable for me.

I gave the OK for the recruiter to send my CV to the company, but quite honestly, I’m not expecting any callbacks. My CV is probably there to provide “contrast” to stronger candidates (not that I think there will be many serious CVs that actually fit the bill, you’ll see why in a moment).

The potential employer for this position is looking for a number of things. Let’s ignore for a moment the fact that I don’t really meet many of the requirements in the job description. This post isn’t an exercise in sour grapes.

I’ve reproduced the job description below along with my interpretation of the requirements and my other comments. You can also find the JD here.

  

Associate - Innovation Solution Center (Strategy and Management) Asia, Singapore

Central (Singapore) - Raffles Place / Shenton Way

Responsibilities:

Associate - Innovation Solution Center

Center for Innovation, Strategy and Management; Asia - Singapore

Budget: S$5k to S$6k per month

Summary of Responsibilities:

1.        Develop algorithms, datasets and models that support Health and Benefits field consultants

•         The employer is asking for financial modeling experience, specifically in the realm of Health and Benefits consulting.

2.        Build prototype tools to test new concepts and demonstrate potential functionality and assist in revisions and improvements to existing models

•         They want rapid prototyping experience, as opposed to carrying out routine procedural work. This implies some form of concept development and/or creative input.

3.        Develop reporting templates and interfaces for use by field consultants and clients

•         They are looking for skills in designing and developing reporting dashboards. This implies not just software engineering skills, but also some usability engineering expertise. Obviously, the knowledge of what goes into the dashboard needs to come from existing experience in Health and Benefits consulting.

4.        Document models and algorithms to facilitate programming by developers and educate client consultants about functionality

•         They want solid communication skills, especially in technical writing. Not unreasonable to ask for, but technical professionals that are strong in both their technical skills as well as communication skills tend to be uncommon, and quite well paid.

5.        Work across multiple internal departments to develop and execute on project requirements and business testing

•         They’re looking for some form of project management or coordination experience. This is not a formal project manager role, so this is probably less heavily emphasized, which explains its low ranking in the list of requirements.

Requirements:

• Bachelor's degree in a Technical Science, Mathematics, Actuarial Science, Statistics, Economics or related field
• Strong mathematical background and familiarity with insurance and financial concepts
• Track-record of independent learning and technical problem-solving
• Demonstrated ability to work collaboratively in a team
• Excellent written and verbal communication skills
• Ability to develop and communicate creative solutions to technical problems
• Interest in pursuing actuarial exams and certification is a plus
• Though not particularly difficult relative to other technical fields I’ve experienced, completing the actuarial exams is time-consuming, tedious and arduous. It’s certainly not something that everyone would want to do.

Technical Skills: 

• Strong understanding of software technology and computational models
• Project experience in Microsoft Excel and Visual Basic for Applications
• Project experience in Java, Microsoft.NET(C# or Visual Basic) or other object-oriented coding environment
• Seriously, are they looking for an actuary/statistician, or are they really looking for a software developer?
• Experience in working with and manipulating large data sets and/or databases
• Is that code (sic) for experience with SAS, Oracle or some other database system? Why not just out-and-out ask for SQL fluency? It’s not like they haven’t already requested for familiarity with specific languages in the previous requirement (C# and VB).
• Web development or mobile-development experience is a plus
• So, application development for a Windows environment under the .Net framework isn’t quite enough, but they want some development experience with what essentially amounts to iOS and Android as well. Probably to cater to their smartphone-toting field consultants.

If it isn’t clear by now, I’m highlighting what are the unrealistically demanding requirements for this position, advertised for the “princely” sum of $5k to $6k per month.

This ad is targeted at least in part at actuarial professionals. As a benchmark, actuarial science fresh graduates with an average number of actuarial exam passes can realistically expect something in the low 3k range, with rapid salary increments once they start passing exams. And these are kids without any work experience, financial modeling-related or otherwise, and probably no formal training in programming in any language.

Heck, even your regular fresh graduate who finds work in a bank could probably pull down something in the 4k range.

And yet, for all that they are asking for, this potential employer is offering not very much more in compensation terms. Let’s not even talk about the opportunities for training and exposure that other roles may offer, or what this position essentially amounts to: a backroom support role to field consultants with probably limited opportunities for further development.

Salary aside, is it just me, or are job descriptions these days written so narrowly that no one could possibly meet all the requirements unless they were doing exactly the same things in their current or previous job? In the case of this particular job ad, I’m not even sure what they’re looking for: an actuary, a statistician, or a software engineer?

Seriously, if I was the hiring manager for this position, I probably wouldn’t even bother with placing job ads, not unless the salary offer was much improved. The fact that this job ad has gone out to so many different recruiters probably means the employer hasn’t been very successful in sourcing suitable candidates that tick all the boxes.

Bear in mind that in the more recent versions of this job ad (which has circulated far and wide among many recruiters), the ad calls for at least 5 years of experience. The part on the estimated salary of 5k – 6k was noticeably missing in those ads. I guess someone in the company got the memo on realistic market rates for salaries.

One thought that did cross my mind was that the hiring manager would probably have had better luck scouring the graduate student lounges of the applied math departments at the local universities. The grad students would at least have extensive computational and mathematical modeling experience, and fluency in a few programming languages. Granted, the average applied math grad student would probably have greater fluency with R or Python than C# or VB, but still, that’s way more programming proficiency than the average actuary based in Singapore, experienced or not.

And that 5k-6k package probably wouldn’t look shabby next to a graduate student’s stipend.

Scenario Forecasting - Singapore 201X

I'm not a regular reader of Senang Diri, but his latest post seriously irked me.

As much as I get the idea behind him exploring the security implications of a political transition to a non-PAP government, the post was heavy on the scaremongering and extrapolation ad infinitum, and thin on substance.

And the final flourish? "This is Year 0 and Singaporeans have gotten the government they deserve." Subtext: You would be a fool to risk the PAP falling from power. Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't. Stay safe: vote for the men in white.


You know what that sounds like to me? Too big to fail. Like banksters holding everyone hostage while they pile up their bonuses and construct their grand plans for everyone else. Having the PAP continue to have their way is no reason to feel secure. Quite the opposite in fact.


While flaneurose may not have as many page views as Senang Diri, I think I too will channel my inner Peter Schwartz, and try my hand at scenario forecasting.

I'll take creative licence to scaremonger and extrapolate endlessly too, but let me paint for you a different, and dare I say, more plausible scenario for Singapore in 201X.

________________________

With the massive debt overhang from decades of trade and fiscal deficits, largely brought on by the abandonment of the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system, as well as having in possession the exorbitant privilege of issuing the world’s reserve currency, the US government’s debt situation finally comes to a head in 201X.

The proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back are the massive debts from the Great Recession of 2008 that were never written off, but were instead transferred onto sovereign balance sheets. The Federal Reserve and the US government, captured by financial and special interests, continues their destructive policy of quantitative easing in an effort to inflate away debts and avoid writedowns of US debt. They are confident that the US dollar will continue to maintain its reserve currency status as “there is no credible alternative”.

Meanwhile, the European Union (and the UK) first implodes under a mountain of debt, then breaks up in spectacular fashion. Belatedly, the European Central Bank also revs up its own printing presses to arrest the crisis, but the damage has already been done.

China, being a mercantilist economy more dependent on its trade partners than it cares to admit, prints as well, keeping the value of the Yuan low to maintain export competitiveness and export-driven growth. But global markets will have none of it. Demand has dried up everywhere. Meanwhile, the massive amounts of bad debt in China’s state banking system start to take their toll. The shadow banking system in China also starts to exert profoundly negative effects on the economy. Stir in a real estate collapse into the mix, and you have politically destabilizing developments in China as once reasonably prosperous Chinese citizens revolt against a situation where growth turns negative for the first time in a generation.

Debt-ridden countries make the conscious decision to default on their debts, either through outright repudiation of debt, or through stealth default via inflation. Inflation everywhere runs at a rate of at least 7% per annum for the foreseeable future. Interest rates respond by rising concomitantly, leading to more rounds of default. The astronomical notional value of derivatives in the global financial system acts as an accelerant to the crisis, nay, apocalypse.

Global trade and commerce dries up everywhere as developed countries that formerly ran trade deficits erect trade, capital, currency and immigration controls to ringfence their own economies from global economic turmoil, and to husband their most valuable resource: domestic aggregate demand. These measures are largely implemented by politicians swept into power on a wave of nationalistic sentiment and a revolt against the status quo. A new era of trade protectionism dawns.

Small countries highly dependent on external trade and capital flows, and who have deliberately structured their economies that way, are the biggest losers.

In Singapore, the economy suddenly grinds to a halt from a reversal in the hitherto-thought unstoppable trend of increasing international trade and globalization. At the same time, with globally high inflation and interest rates (and bond yields), the real value of Singapore’s sovereign wealth funds, tied up in various “investments”, plummets. All of a sudden, the emperor wears no clothes, and is poverty-stricken to boot. Needless to say, the Sing dollar isn't looking pretty. Singapore politicians start to panic, torn between digging into the kitty to fight the crisis or leaving untouched what has sudden been cut in half, or worse.

The large foreign professional workforce starts leaving, either for better prospects elsewhere, or at least home, where the living is cheaper or where social safety nets exist, albeit greatly diminished in real terms. This provides cold comfort to the average Singaporean professional, as the number of jobs is vanishing faster than the competition for them.

The sudden loss of such a large proportion of the population creates an accelerating downward spiral in the economy, extremely difficult to reverse even if the will to apply massive fiscal stimulus did exist. Politicians who are penny pinching in good times are unlikely to loosen the purse strings in tough times. The austerity hair shirt beckons. And of course, the local real estate market, fueled by debt and capital flows from since the previous decade, starts to implode. Debt, again, shows itself to be a problem even in the formerly prosperous city state.

Meanwhile, the poor unskilled foreign workforce remains in Singapore, abandoned by irresponsible employers, unable to return home, or unwilling to do so since they borrowed heavily to pay for passage here. Crime of all stripes, petty, violent or venal, starts to skyrocket. The authorities respond by forcibly deporting undesirable foreign elements. Expect riots and violence to ensue.

Too bad the authorities can’t deport the bottom 30% of the local born Singapore population as well. Struggling right through the good times, their collective living situation deteriorates even further into the teeth of the crisis, unrelieved by substantive social safety nets, real or imagined, permanent or stop gap. *They* start to contribute to societal disintegration as well.

The top 20% of the Singapore resident population, fatly fed from the boom years, treated with kid gloves (see Woffles Wu) and feted by the government, start to reconsider their choice of home. After all, they aren’t Singapore citizens, not really, since they’re actually “global citizens”. Turns out the Boston / London / Switzerland / *insert city of reference here* of the East is a lot grubbier than once thought. Hey, if the formerly top property developer here had the tagline of “Own the Original”, why not “Move to the Original” too?

So the elite of Singapore leave, taking their wealth with them. I would not be surprised to see more than one cabinet minister's family among them. The people who were formerly the toast of the town now toast their goodbyes and take off, tossing the last flute of champagne aside at Jet Quay in Changi Airport and breezily swanning through the departure gate. Of course, they don't forget to collect their goodies stashed at FreePort on the way out. 

If you’re smart and lucky, well, you might just be able to slip away right on their heels. Do turn off the lights when you leave.

For everyone else, enjoy the darkness.

On the New Civics and Moral Education Imperative

"Pity the student who does not surpass the master."

The new Education Minister announced a new focus on Civics and Moral Education a few days ago.

Let's leave aside the issue of how ineffective classroom teaching generally is on imparting a values system. If you need comic relief on a related topic (the so-called MBA Oath), look here. 

Mr Heng Swee Keat spoke on the importance of inculcating "social responsibility, personal and citizenship values in students".

What I find remarkable is how anyone can take seriously this pledge to uphold the importance of personal and citizenship values in Singapore. 

Oh, I do not doubt the intent to place high importance on this initiative (although I have much darker things to say about the nature of that intent), but I question how much anyone can really expect to reap in terms of results, when so much in our environment demands a survivor's mentality.

The harsh environment begins as early as childhood, when students have to claw their way to the top of the heap in our highly competitive education system, one that allows no room for failure, since streaming starts so early. This is an education system that gave birth to acronyms such as ITE ("It's the end"). In addition, the fact that so many parents feel the need to resort to extra measures outside the state educational system, such as tuition, reveals the ineffectiveness of the educational system to act as a social leveler, and to improve social mobility here on this island.

Once kids reach adulthood and join the workplace, they have to compete with the numerous foreigners here for employment, and it certainly doesn't help that government imposed handicaps like National Service disadvantage citizens in their own country. Then there are the tax-payer sponsored inducements that are used to attract foreigners to come here that our own citizens aren't entitled to (such as university scholarships).

All the while, we are repeatedly told that there is "no free lunch", that we need to be "hungry" and have "spurs stuck in our hide". All this amid the highest levels of income inequality just about anywhere on Planet Earth.

We are also admonished frequently by the government that we have to avoid the dangers of a welfare state, that we need to take personal responsibility for our employment / health / retirement / elderly years etc. 

It is sometimes ironic how Singapore can be thought of as a nanny state when in reality, many of our policies are designed for mandatory inclusion precisely so that the state can unburden itself of responsibilities onto the individual (e.g. CPF, Medisave and CPF Life), responsibilities that I might add, have traditionally been borne by the state in many developed countries.

The evidence of daily living in Singapore for the average citizen points to an existence marked by individual struggle. 

And the flip side of meritocracy, as it is so avidly pursued here it is almost a state religion, is that individuals that 'make it' often feel they deserve their success, and can blithely ascribe their success solely to their own talents and abilities, and that those that fail deserve every iota of misery they endure.

Here in Singapore, it's every man for himself. If you want lunch, you had better go out there and get it yourself. There is a reason why every NSman knows and understands the acronym of SAF, "Serve and F*** Off".

Daily living in Singapore will inculcate values in students stronger than anything that can be taught in a classroom setting, government-sanctioned, civics, moral or otherwise. What those values are, you need only look around you in everyday Singapore to see. 

And since the experience of daily living is shaped by government policies, it is only natural that students, upon growing to adulthood, will apply those same strictures that they have learnt in life to evaluating their own country and their government, with the same or greater degree of exactitude. 

Pity the student who does not surpass the master.

The government shouldn't expect a free lunch themselves; the ever more pragmatic and survivalist Singaporean of the future will not pledge anything, much less his loyalty, to a place and its people simply because he was born and raised there. This breed of Singaporean includes, perhaps more so than any other group, those who are fervently pro-PAP and supportive of the material benefits that the PAP promises to deliver year after year. 

Here's an interesting chart showing the negative correlation between income inequality and levels of social trust. And let us not forget that we have official confirmation that the income gap is not important. Old fogies like me who are just barely 30 may argue this point with the PM, but the PM need not worry. 

The kids younger than me will be much more obliging towards taking the PM's words at face value. They will simply internalize this truth, adapt to reality, and concentrate on making more money for themselves. Just like the foreigners who come here because this is a great place to make money, enjoy the rich living (if you can afford it), and move on to someplace else if and when the weather changes. Hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Just as the system encourages survivalist and individualistic leanings in its own citizens by design, it attracts foreigners with the same values system.

As for the personal and citizenship values Heng Swee Keat wants so badly, well, let me put it this way. 

The government has long wanted its citizen proletariats to put in their all for the economy, which isn't exactly a positive for family life. Belatedly, the government decided it wanted the fertility rate to be higher, which it is failing miserably at raising.

The government wants "hungry" citizens as well, which students are today internalizing the importance of. Now, the government wants social responsibility, personal and citizenship values to be emphasized in addition. 

I think that's going to work out about as well as the fertility rate. 

Hard truths you won’t read about elsewhere, Part V

Our systems are brittle and our country is vulnerable. And our government has no desire to encourage a “crutch mentality”. It behoves every Singaporean to have a Plan B.

Many Singaporeans instinctively understand this hard truth, even though they may not articulate it.

The recent survey by the Institute of Policy Studies is telling. About half of young Singaporeans belong to the “Disengaged” and “Explorer” socio-psychological profile.

Interestingly, these profiles come from the more highly educated, higher income groups, who have presumably benefited more from the PAP’s economic policies than the lower income groups. Yet it is precisely the Disengaged and the Explorer who are pessimistic about Singapore’s economic future. The Explorer also feels threatened by foreign talent.

Why this irony?

Perhaps it is because the Disengaged and the Explorer, who have benefited more under the PAP’s policies, understand better the fragility upon which Singapore’s prosperity is built. And they also understand that what appears to be permanent can in fact be transient, that it can all vanish in a blink of the eye.

The PAP assiduously cultivates a siege mentality among the population, telling us that Singapore is highly vulnerable. Yet it would have us all believe that the PAP is the solution to Singapore’s problems, that self-sacrifice is what is required of all of us, that all of us need to close ranks around the PAP. Otherwise, the ship would capsize without the PAP at the helm.

Well, if Singapore were that vulnerable, should we not all express just a bit of scepticism at the PAP’s infallibility? That is a logical extension of the PAP’s own argument.

But no, that is not part of the official catechism. We are required to believe in the daunting odds we face as a nation, while suspending doubts as to the PAP’s abilities to shepherd Singaporeans through any storm.

And the PAP asks for more than just faith in their abilities, but also tolerance for their obscene salaries, and forbearance for personal costs on the part of citizens that grow more exacting with each policy that they implement. No crutch mentality here, thank you very much.

I wonder if the PAP realizes how successful they have been in instilling amongst Singaporeans the fear that Singapore is indeed vulnerable. The spectre of ever present disaster may have helped the PAP to solidify their grip on power over the decades, but at what cost?

We have imbibed the knowledge that tomorrow, this could all be over. And the PAP government has demonstrably shown through its policies and speeches and admonitions that as individual citizens, we're on our own; we shouldn't count on the government for retirement, healthcare, housing...even that ineffable feeling that this place should still feel like home, what with the incredible rate of immigration, and the attendant questions it raises of what citizenship here is really worth.

And we certainly shouldn't trouble the government with our disquietude. If we do, it's our fault, again. The implicit command is for us to be silent and be governed. If we participate, we are meant only to cheer, not to question.

Our national education programs talk loftily of a shared sense of destiny, of how our people are Singapore’s only resource, and yet the government has nurtured a crisis of affinity.

The statistic of importance is not how many youth are contemplating emigration now. It is how many youth would contemplate emigration in a time of countrywide bleakness.

Hard Truth #5 is not about emigration per se. It is about being prepared. As long as the living here is comfortable, there is no fear of Singaporeans activating Plan B. But Plan B exists. And it is ever at the back of everyone’s mind.

Once, while attending a Chinese New Year dinner hosted by the ambassador at the Singapore embassy in Washington DC, I overheard a spiel from a diplomat holding court amongst a group of university students. He claimed that for reasons of national security, our wealth [meaning reserves], must be kept outside of Singapore.

We should all take a leaf from the PAP’s investment playbook and hedge our bets abroad. Don't put all your eggs in the Singapore basket. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander .

I started this post by stating that many Singaporeans instinctively understand Hard Truth #5, even though they may not articulate it. For many of us, it is not a hard truth, but a simple reality, prudence even. I do not think I need to point out who the hard truth is meant for.

Hard truths you won’t read about elsewhere, Part IV

As I should have made clear by now through all my previous posts, it is that unique combination of the PAP’s assuredness of political victory, single-mindedness in achievement of its goals, dismissal of criticism and self-aggrandizing braggadocio that puts us all at the mercy of their policies.

I do not think the result of this upcoming election is in much doubt, just like other elections. The PAP will be returned to power again, and for the foreseeable future. This is because of the PAP’s electioneering tactics, because a large segment of the population is supportive of the current regime, perhaps because they benefit greatly from current policy, and also because there is another very large segment of the population that votes like sheeple, perhaps to their own and others’ detriment.

As much as I and some other Singaporeans would prefer an alternative, hope is not a viable strategy.

Therefore, Hard Truth#4 is:

The PAP will continue to be returned to power for the foreseeable future, and their policies will continue to be set to our benefit, as well as to our detriment. Plan accordingly. 

Some segments of the population do benefit disproportionately from the PAP’s policies.

The rich, the highly educated high income earners, the large business owners, foreign investors, foreign talent, high level corporate executives – these are the ones that Singapore welcomes and bends over backwards to accommodate.

If you are a member of one of these groups, life in Singapore is sweet indeed – so long as you toe the line and ignore the bad social outcomes all round. If you are a current net beneficiary of present day policies, you have less to worry about after elections are over. Does that mean that you should ignore issues of social and economic inequities? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, the shoe may well end up on the other foot one day.

If you are not a current net beneficiary, you should think about what’s going to happen after the elections.

Hard Truth #4 is about containment. It emphasizes mitigation and contingency planning, rather than changing a problematic situation.

What is likely to happen after the PAP returns to power?

A resumption of business as usual. A sequel of the movie we have just seen in the last few years, except that sequels by definition are sophomoric in effort.

Choose your career, your job, your course of study, your lifestyle, the number of kids you intend to have, your house, and your living arrangements with care. 

Think critically about what you hear and read, especially from government-controlled media. Do not make decisions solely on advice from the government. Such advice may be in the best interests of “Singaporeans”, as per Hard Truth #3, but may not be in your best interests.

Hard Truth #4 means being self-sufficient, flexible and accommodative, like living and getting medical care across the border to mitigate the higher cost of living here. Such arrangements may not be ideal, but they are prudent.

It would be unwise to count on a PAP government for assistance when the same government has publicly expressed its desire to discourage a “crutch mentality”.

Hard Truth #5 in the next post will be the last in this series. 

Hard truths you won’t read about elsewhere, Part III

Policy-making in Singapore is indifferent to its ill-effects on large swathes of the population., much less to individuals. The term “Singaporeans” is an abstraction used to justify policy-making. In reality, individuals do not figure in the calculus at all.

Do Singapore’s policies sometimes go against the interests of individual Singaporeans? Do they occasionally curtail Singaporeans’ civil rights and privileges? Do policies sometimes require sacrifices from Singaporeans now and again for a greater good?

Of course they do. And sometimes for good reason. Some policies such as National Service exist for a reason, even if the implementation is unprofessional and the personal cost large. 

But does this standard apply to all of the PAP’s policies? And do some policies result in such harm to individuals that they should not have been countenanced at all?

I can think of several off the top of my head.

As furrybrowndog has highlighted in his excellent post, CPF returns are dismal. And this policy, designed to serve retirement needs, is in fact failing on a grand scale. Instead, CPF Life is being introduced and is being made mandatory, along with the retirement age being raised. Realistically speaking, retirement is receding into the horizon for many Singaporeans. Yet while Rome burns, the PAP has over the years preferred to “invest” excess reserves.

Really, folks, while CPF monies are not directly linked to GIC and Temasek investments, that is just a verbal sleight of hand. The CPF fund holds Singapore government bonds, which means that Singaporeans are general creditors of the Singapore government. The proceeds of bond issuance to the CPF commingle with the working capital on the Singapore government balance sheet. Some of that money on the balance sheet inevitably ends up funding investments. It’s time to call the CPF what it really is, a cheap source of long term financing for the PAP government.

If you’re a low wage worker, think of how the relaxed immigration policy, GST hikes, and strenuous protestations by the PAP against a minimum wage policy, were all meant to boost economic growth, “help” the lower income groups, and increase national competitiveness.

Economic growth has indeed increased over the years, except of course, we all know that economic growth in the last several years has disproportionately benefited the higher income groups, putting paid to the idea that broad benefits accrue to “Singaporeans”. More like the top 20% of Singaporeans, per the Pareto distribution.

If you’re in the market for a house because, say, you’re a newly wed, you’re out of luck. Just like if you have ever been inconvenienced by a completed but unopened MRT station. Well, the just-in-time policy I described in Singapore, Inc. works just fine, according to the government. Too bad for you, the individual who has to delay marriage or deal with the inconvenience of public transportation.

If you’re single, “lagi worse” as we would say in the army. Regarding property, you can fuhgedditboutit. Private property is currently in the stratosphere, you won’t be eligible for HDB housing until 35, and even then, it’s going to be a pricey resale flat. Family-friendly values never sounded like a dirty word until you wanted your own place, even just a tiny little tenement, but were single and hence ineligible.

And if you’re one of those suckered into a “growth” industry that the Singapore wants to nurture, I hope your career had a roaring start. That is, if you even got a job in the industry. Attracting investment into the chosen industry was ever the apple of the PAP’s eye, never the individual, so take that lesson and learn something from it. [Take note, prospective Yale-NUS liberal arts students. You are lab rats, even if you don't know it.]

Finally, the death penalty could conceivably deter serious crimes, but if you are the one on death row, you as an individual certainly never figured in the policy-making process. Neither did any of us, as I recall. The death penalty in Singapore simply was.

Remember:

Policy-making in Singapore is indifferent to its ill-effects on large swathes of the population, much less to individuals. The term “Singaporeans” is an abstraction used to justify policy-making. In reality, individuals do not figure in the calculus at all.

The next time the PAP claims a policy is necessary for the continued well-being of the nation/“Singaporeans”/economy/the Merlion...

Take a deep breath, and batten down the hatches.

Hard truth #4 in the next post.

Hard truths you won’t read about elsewhere, Part II

The current policies in Singapore have questionable sustainability, and their origins derive from misplaced incentives. As long as the incentive structures remain, we can expect new policies to be equally unsustainable.

For the longest time, strong economic growth has been the paramount policy objective. Yet, for a government so single-mindedly focused on economic growth, and so well-compensated for thinking about it, the PAP’s policies are remarkably unimaginative, loaded with undesirable side-effects, and in many cases, one-shot wonders.

In decades past, we followed a foreign direct investment and growth by exports economic model that was successful beyond our wildest dreams. This strategy has been replicated in economies such as Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and now China. China is the FDI elephant in the room, squeezing just about everybody out. Indeed, the FDI and export-driven model is unsustainable for just China alone; the world is too small to accommodate a mercantilist economy of China’s heft without severe global imbalances building up.

In response, the PAP has employed strategies such as massive immigration, casinos and a policy of keeping wages low. Our race up the value chain to secure higher value-added work is falling flat. Don’t ask about productivity increases.

We are bumping up against limits on every one of these policies. How high can the population go before our infrastructure simply breaks down? What destabilizing effects will continued massive immigration have on the social fabric in Singapore?

Are casinos worth the social problems they cause? And won’t their benefits melt away as more casinos spring up in neighbouring countries to capitalize on the gaming market? Are these transient benefits worth the permanent side-effects?

What about keeping wages low? Doesn’t that run counter to the aspiration of a better life for Singaporeans? And how low can they in fact go, compared to countries with rock-bottom costs like China?

And what of the high inflation period that we are entering into now? How will people with low wages survive in such an environment? What will low wages do to income inequality? A widening income gap already causes all sorts of problems. Do we really want it to be wider than it already is?

It is not just the PAP’s economic policies that are unsustainable.

The CPF scheme has morphed over the years beyond all recognition. It simply will not be sufficient to fund retirement for most people; retirement is going to be a dim possibility for many Singapore citizens. And the PAP’s stop-gap measure is CPF Life, which I have previously stated is simply a means to transfer the burden of longevity risk solely onto the shoulders of the individual. Perhaps it is time to call the CPF scheme what it really is, a cheap source of financing for the government.

The HDB 99 year leasehold problem has been commented on by another blogger. I personally do not think this is a *very* serious problem (for too many reasons to be elaborated here), but there is no question that that is also not a sustainable state of affairs.

Worse than being unsustainable, many policies work at cross-purposes to each other, such as immigration to boost GDP growth and family-friendly policies aimed at increasing the fertility rate.

The manifestation of policy schizophrenia is a reflection of the system’s misplaced incentives, placing GDP growth on a pedestal far above all else. As commenter Ponder Stibbons had previously remarked in my “Policy Schizophrenia” post, it is difficult to discriminate between policies genuinely designed to improve the quality of life for Singaporeans, from policies which improve the quality of life only as an incidental benefit. The main objective of many policies remains GDP growth.

After all, our politicians are incentivized to target this, much as Wall Street banksters game the system for short term gains.

As long as our incentive structures in government remain the same, government policies will continue to be unsustainable, with frequent stop-gap measures such as CPF Life and raising the retirement age, which brings me to Hard Truth #3:

Policy-making in Singapore is indifferent to its ill-effects on large swathes of the population, much less to individuals. “Singaporeans” is an abstraction used to justify policy-making. In reality, individuals do not figure in the calculus at all.

Description forthcoming in the next post.

Hard truths you won’t read about elsewhere, Part I

With elections so near, the Straits Times has gone to town with recent prognostications and opinions by ministers from the ruling party. Coverage has been extensive, and article layout in the paper has been tweaked to give the PAP maximum favourable exposure. Most of all, Straits Times journalists have hung on to every word spoken by our ministers, branding each gem with the moniker of “hard truth”. The most recent egregious example was about how anything more than one strong political party was “unworkable”.

Since the media has seen fit to play fast and loose with the term “hard truths”, why shouldn’t I take a stab at it as well?

Here’s *my* list of hard truths, one you won’t read about in the mainstream media. Readers can judge for themselves how “hard” and how “truthful” they really are, compared to what is in print today.

The PAP government will fail one day. And when it does, it will likely take Singapore with it, permanently.

The long form argument for this is available in my previous post. Additional points follow.

Failure can be measured in many ways, just like success. And as anybody who has measured things over time will attest, measurements are useless unless they are consistent over time.

It wasn’t so very long ago, a decade perhaps, that our government laid down bold plans for Singapore to aspire to a Swiss standard of living, sending a football team to the World Cup (among other grandiloquent visions), and making Singapore a “best home”. For whatever reasons, these goals have been lost along the wayside. The GDP figure is now the primary determinant of success.

The PAP could already be failing Singapore, if held to the same measures of success and failure that were espoused by it so many years ago. That it sees itself as being successful may be a function of shifting metrics rather than a reflection of true performance. In other words, the PAP’s performance has been and continues to degrade, but its decline has been masked by the managing of its appearance.

Even in elections, the PAP chooses to delude itself. Gerrymandering may be a tactical strategy to retain power by the incumbent, but the flipside is that it also has the side effect of distorting the voting signals that political parties rely on. Without consistent GRC boundaries, how will any political party track its performance and endorsement by the population over time?

Unless the PAP knows the vote of each and every individual, and can model its election performance based on the votes cast and the historical drawing of GRC boundaries as they have changed at each election cycle, it will not understand how sentiment towards the PAP has evolved over the years and how this might translate into the political change. Possession of this kind of data is clearly prohibited under the current legal regime, if the regime is in fact adhered to.

Hypothetically (or not so hypothetically), if the PAP was indeed failing, and sentiment on the ground was indeed souring, it would not be apparent at all. And no political change would occur due to this masking of sentiment. The PAP would continue to congratulate itself on a job well done (and pay themselves accordingly). Wrongheaded policy errors would continue to be perpetuated unabated, until their deleterious effects become too late to reverse, and too obvious to ignore.

When an adverse outcome does finally materialize for Singapore, I expect its appearance (but not occurrence) to be non-linear in nature. In other words, it could happen really, really fast.

Consider how the severity of public transportation and housing problems in Singapore are related to the PAP’s immigration policy.

And consider how apparent these policy missteps were when the immigration policy was first conceived (Do the LTA and MND even talk to ICA??? And this is just for a country of all of 4.5 million people, not even as populous as the greater New York or Tokyo metropolitan area).

And consider how much consultation, monitoring and review the immigration policy subsequently received, after problems started becoming apparent. Or were criticisms just pooh-poohed and then superficially addressed only when elections finally rolled around.

Now imagine the effect multiplied a hundred-fold, across all the policies the PAP crafts and implements, those policies that have been articulated publicly, and those that are now being quietly implemented which none of us know about. And which will not brook any argument, criticism or consultation in the future.

The quality of the PAP’s policies is often criticized. But the quality of the PAP’s policy-making processes itself separately deserves scrutiny. The latter could have greater implications for Singapore’s future than any one policy crafted by the political elite, and I do not have a sanguine view of that at all.

Hard Truth #2 to be unveiled in the next post.

When the PAP loses an election, it will be time to leave.

Elections are around the corner. I have not posted anything on the upcoming elections. This isn't because I am politically apathetic. On the contrary, I am politically more aware than most Singaporeans.

The reason why I have not posted anything on the upcoming elections is because I do not think the result is in any doubt. The PAP will be returned to power again. The only thing in question is how big of a majority will they command. Will it be merely overwhelming, or ludicrously so?

And we all know why the PAP is so successful during elections. It has stacked the deck in its favor, shifted goalposts where necessary, subverted supposedly non-partisan organizations, co-opted potential opponents, passed legislation favorable to itself, leashed the media in its service and cultivated an environment where dissent is stifled for fear of reprisal.

You would think that a political party that is so proud of its policy successes (and that never fails to remind us about it!) would be more confident that it would be returned to power at each election on its own merits. Yet, it wheedles for every advantage it can get.

Is this not a sign of weakness? Or is it because the PAP genuinely believes that Singaporeans are too stupid to make the "obvious choice"?

This is not a rhetorical question. How one answers it is an indication of one's view of Singapore and Singaporeans.

With all of its political safeguards in place, it would be a miracle if the PAP is NOT returned to power.

Which brings me back to the title of this post, "When the PAP loses an election, it will be time to leave."

Living conditions in Singapore would have to deteriorate to an extremely serious state for the PAP to lose elections even with all of their incumbent's advantages.

Singapore will never reach such a parlous state, people scoff. We're not Egypt, Libya or Yemen.

Actually, one thing I do agree with our esteemed Minister Mentor is that Singapore, being small and vulnerable, does stand at the edge of disaster all the time. I disagree, however with the remedy.

Our political elite decided long ago that the best solution to the problem of "The little island that could" was to have a powerful government, ruled by the PAP that is for all intents and purposes, THE government. And this government, presumably staffed with the most talented people, would run the country in the best way possible. And politically, this government would be unfettered by irksome little opposition parties that in more democratic inefficient countries, would have to be dealt with, or heaven forbid, accommodated.

That model might have worked in earlier days. Perhaps it might even have been necessary during those uncertain times. But that model is showing its age, just as the ideas, attitudes and perspectives of the ruling party are looking stagnant, unresponsive, disconnected, and worst of all, dogmatic. Any criticism of current PAP government policy is treated as heresy.

A monolithic government such as ours can coast along for a long while without major problems. But a true crisis, a black swan, one that the PAP cannot handle, will lead to catastrophic failure. And without a robust framework in place for orderly transition and change of political leadership, Singapore would fail and fail irrecoverably.

Our politics are as impoverished as our most disadvantaged citizens.

The PAP government has conflated its existence and success with the existence and success of Singapore itself. No less than Ngiam Tong Dow stated, "I think our leaders have to accept that Singapore is larger than the PAP."

By so systematically dismantling and disempowering political opposition, the PAP is planting the seeds of its own destruction. If and when the PAP slips from power, there will be no second chances for it. No renewal for the PAP can come from a desert wasteland if Singapore fails irrecoverably.

In the past few years since the last election, many Singaporeans have wondered if our country has lost its way. It doesn't feel like home anymore. The government appears disconnected from the aspirations and needs of citizens.

If this is what the PAP calls success, I am not sure I would want to stick around to see what failure is like.

If a change in direction is needed in our policies, then it is best that the change be made as soon as possible.

But just as police states everywhere have a nasty habit of tightening controls just as the population gets restive, I have no doubt that the PAP will stack the deck even more heavily in its favor if ever in the future it is at even the slightest risk of losing power.

The PAP is so sure that its policies are the correct course of action that it would persist even in the face of severe opprobrium. The only concession made would be the occasional window-dressing that we are seeing now.

And if anyone believes that current immigration and economic policy is going to be reversed after the election, they will be severely disabused of this notion in a matter of months.

This is a government that has a hard time taking responsibility and criticism even for a minor flash flood, what more a true crisis that might be a result of its own doing, such as the demographic time bomb that continues to tick.

Tick-tock.

When you are in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. The imperial nature of our government is not a sustainable state of affairs for any country, if only because men are proud and fallible. It is even less sustainable in a country like ours.

I can feel the hole becoming deeper.

I am less sanguine than our ministers who flippantly state that if the PAP were to lose its relevance, it will lose the mandate of the people and presumably gracefully step aside for a new party. Everything about the PAP shows that it would sooner change the rules of the game before that happens.

The question is, what will the PAP leave behind for a new government when it eventually does lose power, against all odds? A smoking ruin, or a shattered country?

When the PAP loses an election, it will be too late to leave. The time to leave would have been before.

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.