Employers still discriminating against older workers
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Gilbert Goh
Having met more than a dozen unemployed Singaporeans either through my unemployment support site transitioning.org or my own personal contacts, I observed that there are two main issues that frustrate them.
One is the huge influx of foreigners into our labour force during the past few years and the other is the age bias in seeking employment that seems to have gotten worse recently.
A weekend visit to Han’s restaurant at Harbourfront shocked me as the four staff working there were all Filipinos. From the person that took my order to the cashier and chefs, they were all foreigners happily going about their jobs. The only thing that stood them out from the former Han’s staff that I had seen previously, was the age difference. All of them appeared to be in their twenties. I found myself paying for my order grudgingly.
Are mature Singaporeans not able to fill such positions even if they were much older and were a little slower? Must employers continue to fill in service positions with foreigners while claiming that locals refuse to work longer hours for miserable pay? Are all the employers’ complaints valid? I am sure that for every Singaporean’s refusal to work at such service jobs, there should be another who do not mind such work. This is especially so in this time of economic downturn. Let us not generalise and condemn the working attitude of Singaporeans just because of a few black sheep.
I share the sentiments of the unemployed on both concerns. At the age of 47, I too face mammoth pressure in securing employment in a hiring practice that borders on discriminatory.
Some employment agents have told me in private that employers continue to look at candidates below the age of 35 years old. Some unemployed who responded to advertisements for face to face interviews were often rejected when they revealed that their age is above 40.
If you called in a recruiter and said that you are 40 years old, they would reply that they want someone below 40 years old. If you called in and said that you are 38, they will reply that they prefer someone below 35 instead!
Our labour hiring laws do seem to allow such discriminatory employment practices to prevail. Amazingly, employers seem to get away with such archaic third-world hiring practices in a first world, developed country.
Many I spoke to lamented that they have nowhere to turn to now as they face massive obstacle in being rehired due to their age (40-50 years old). Many who are able are seriously considering the idea of applying for emigration to countries such as Australia or Canada - countries which have strong laws against age-bias hiring practices. I do not blame them for taking such a drastic move because if you cannot find employment in your own country, due to your age, then it makes sense to venture abroad where there is at least some legal protection against discriminatory hiring. The future does look bleak for those who are matured in age in Singapore.
The Aussies have very strong anti-discriminatory hiring practices. When a jobseeker send in his resume, he can choose not to accompany it with his address, race, gender, age, religion and photograph. The employers only decide to interview the candidate based on his working experience and qualification.
As Singapore continues to grabble with the severe downturn and an ageing workforce, let us hope that the government will tighten hiring practices so that our local workforce will be able to face the future with confidence and, most importantly, pride.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25376.1
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Recent Cabinet Changes and Camelot
Recent Cabinet Changes and Camelot
Farquhar again demonstrated that he is one of the only three or four insightful writers in ground breaking The Online Citizen. He made a learned although not really revisionist version of succession and power play with regards to the latest Cabinet change. On April Fools' Day, Teo Chee Hean, Defence Minister, will also become the DPM. Nevertheless, it is not that simple in reading the tea leaves on succession.
Tradition and Succession
Traditionally and generally, the defence, education, foreign and home affair ministries are arguably the seats of those who have the political potential to achieve at least Deputy Prime Minister appointments.
Goh Chok Tong was the Minister of Defence before he became DPM and then PM. Lee Hsien Loong was also (second) Minister for Defence prior to becoming DPM and then PM. Before becoming DPM, Goh Keng Swee was from the Education Ministry. When Tony Tan became DPM, his last appointment was Minister for Education. Both S Jayakumar and S Rajaratnem headed the Foreign Ministry before becoming DPM. When Wong Kan Seng became a DPM, he was already steering the Home Affairs Ministry.
Despite being acting-PM when Lee Hsien Loong is out of Singapore, Teo Chee Hean would not become PM because his age is too close to the current PM. Once rumoured as a contender as the next PM, Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Education, might also be out of the race for PM as he was also born in the 1950s. Political pundits reminded all that the current and 3rd PM of Singapore earlier mused he wanted someone really younger to succeed him, bringing back the idea that a PM could even be someone in his 40s. Albeit under a different world and tribulations in 1965, Lee Kuan Yew was 42 when he became the PM of Singapore. That means the future PM is someone born in the 1960s possibly. With Singaporeans perceived by our own political leaders as racist implicitly and despite already having non-Chinese as the Elected President and head of state, and a DPM and thus second in command to the head of government, the PM for Singapore would still be Chinese supposedly.
Yet going against tradition, there is now the first female minister, Lim Hwee Hua, regardless if she is running her own ministry or not from April Fools' Day.
Reading Beyond Tokenism
Assuming this is more than political tokenism, it means a new age of king-making. Singapore is a parliamentary system and it is the party elected into power that chooses who would be PM, not the citizens per se. By keeping ethnic prejudices because of imagined voter preferences, the cabinet has tied its own hands especially if a next PM is one born in the 1960s. The party might decide to unfetter itself and consider a non-Chinese PM next. Furthermore, transcending sex bias in the choice of a minister could herald the commencement of the general eradication of old prejudices about where the DPM and PM could come from in terms of ministry background. The next PM might not necessarily have headed the defence, education, foreign or home affairs ministries.
The appointment of Teo Chee Hean shows that the current leadership is sticking to its traditional doctrine of electing DPMs and PMs with certain ministries as a career map for now. However, the appointment of Lim Hwee Hua on the other hand shows that the cabinet is at a crossroad. If a female minister can be appointed, it also perhaps portends that the cabinet is rethinking its whole cabinet line-up formula. Thus how a DPM first and consequently how a PM can be appointed and other old mindsets are being repacked.
Returning to king-making, it doesn't matter if he is a noble or not, as long as the One can pull the Sword out of the Stone. If that is the case, for example, Vivian Balakrishnan, is still in the game.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25365.2
All about BONUS!
All about BONUS!
10 years ago, I received a call from a ex-classmate who told me that he was going to backpack around the world for 6 months. The reason being he received 12 months bonus for the previous year from his company which was in the semi-con business but the cyclical business had turned down and he decided to quit before the company retrenched him. The company had record profits and everyone was rewarded with huge bonuses. He did work hard but the bonus was on top of the OT pay he received for that year. I was happy for my friend but wondered what he did right other than to join the right company at the right time - not that he had extraordinary foresight that the sector/company would have such a blockbuster year -it was all a total surprise to him.
Recently there has been a lot of talk about the bonus received by certain people. AIG which blew up and took more than US$100B of taxpayers' money to stay alive caused an outrage when it was revealed that it was paying executives including those in its derivatives dept US$100+M in bonuses. Ordinary Americans found it hard to accept. Its CEO Libby who was employed after the govt rescue to fix the company explained that the bonuses had to be given out because they were based on employment contracts signed more than a year ago before the financial mess started and these employees can sue the company for double the payment if AIG did not meet its legal obligations. That explanation wasn't enough...contract or no contract, Americans just simply couldn't accept what was seen as unfair compensation. AIG had to increase the security for its staff and advised them not to wear their employee pass in public. The outrage subsided a little when AIG executives volunteered to about half of bonus. In Britain, the home of former RBS CEO Goodwin was vandalised[Link]. Goodwin has become a hated figure seen as a symbol of greed that caused the current crisis. He refused to give up his hefty pension and that enraged many Britons.
"We are angry that rich people are paying themselves huge amounts of money while ordinary people r unemployed, destitute & homeless."
- Group calling themselves BankBossesAreCriminals (BBAC)
In Singapore we have had 2 cases that raise some eyebrows - CDC staff who were paid 8 months (anyone knows what happened to JohnLaw2012?) bonus and the CapLand CEO who received $20M in bonus. It was explained that the CDC staff performed very well at the job and CapLand CEO deserved his bonus because the company had profits of $2B in 2007.....
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25370.1
10 years ago, I received a call from a ex-classmate who told me that he was going to backpack around the world for 6 months. The reason being he received 12 months bonus for the previous year from his company which was in the semi-con business but the cyclical business had turned down and he decided to quit before the company retrenched him. The company had record profits and everyone was rewarded with huge bonuses. He did work hard but the bonus was on top of the OT pay he received for that year. I was happy for my friend but wondered what he did right other than to join the right company at the right time - not that he had extraordinary foresight that the sector/company would have such a blockbuster year -it was all a total surprise to him.
Recently there has been a lot of talk about the bonus received by certain people. AIG which blew up and took more than US$100B of taxpayers' money to stay alive caused an outrage when it was revealed that it was paying executives including those in its derivatives dept US$100+M in bonuses. Ordinary Americans found it hard to accept. Its CEO Libby who was employed after the govt rescue to fix the company explained that the bonuses had to be given out because they were based on employment contracts signed more than a year ago before the financial mess started and these employees can sue the company for double the payment if AIG did not meet its legal obligations. That explanation wasn't enough...contract or no contract, Americans just simply couldn't accept what was seen as unfair compensation. AIG had to increase the security for its staff and advised them not to wear their employee pass in public. The outrage subsided a little when AIG executives volunteered to about half of bonus. In Britain, the home of former RBS CEO Goodwin was vandalised[Link]. Goodwin has become a hated figure seen as a symbol of greed that caused the current crisis. He refused to give up his hefty pension and that enraged many Britons.
"We are angry that rich people are paying themselves huge amounts of money while ordinary people r unemployed, destitute & homeless."
- Group calling themselves BankBossesAreCriminals (BBAC)
In Singapore we have had 2 cases that raise some eyebrows - CDC staff who were paid 8 months (anyone knows what happened to JohnLaw2012?) bonus and the CapLand CEO who received $20M in bonus. It was explained that the CDC staff performed very well at the job and CapLand CEO deserved his bonus because the company had profits of $2B in 2007.....
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25370.1
The man who would be king
The man who would be king
Saturday, 28 March 2009
A not uninteresting Cabinet reshuffle
There was little to fuss over Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s latest Cabinet reshuffle, which was announced on 26th March 2009 with minimal fanfare. That’s the norm in Singapore, where the ruling cabal prides itself on an orderly succession without the hoopla that usually accompanies similar transitions in other countries. Most of the changes have long been speculated on, but this masks what might be rather momentous implications for the political landscape.
Even so, for all its supposed banality there was still some surprise and not a little rancour over the “promotion” of Deputy Prime Minister S Jayakumar to the post of Senior Minister, a position that has traditionally carried little responsibility save that of a big-wig roaming ambassador. Some observers have panned the appointment as superfluous – in fact Mr Lee was breaking new ground by having two Senior Ministers, the other one being ex-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong – considering that the position is largely seen as a means of gracefully retiring elder ministers. The conspicuous exception of course is Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who held the position from 1990 to 2004 and continues to exert a visibly heavy influence on policy.
Mr Jayakumar was long thought to be due to retire, but since the last election in 2006 he appears to have made himself too indispensable to be eased out of the Cabinet just yet. He is also thought to have earned some credit for Singapore’s win in the Pedra Branca dispute with Malaysia at the International Court of Justice, which was also a reminder of the need for his legal expertise in complex international issues such as climate change.
What his appointment also points to is the outsized centralisation of policy-making prerogative in the Prime Minister’s Office, a trend underscored by the appointment of yet another minister there, in the form of Mrs Lim Hwee Hua as Singapore’s first female minister. This partly reflects the government’s oft-stated mantra of the need for better coordination amongst disparate agencies, but it does raise questions about whether the office can be streamlined and the portfolios of its various inhabitants better defined. Already, the wage bill for the politicians in the Prime Minister’s Office is just slightly less than that of all the other ministries put together.
Mrs Lim’s appointment as full minister, while long expected, came with the twist that she is still not helming any ministry of her own. One reason is that there is simply no ministry up for grabs. But it is also possible that Mrs Lim’s promotion is meant to beef up the Aljunied constituency, which was the weakest ward for the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) in the last election. This is particularly since the party’s helmsman in Aljunied, Foreign Minister George Yeo, has floated the possibility of retiring from politics. Furthermore, Mrs Lim would be a convenient foil for Ms Sylvia Lim of the Worker’s Party, who is the opposition’s only female heavyweight of note and had led her party’s team in Aljunied in 2006.
Heir today, gone tomorrow
But the real story of the reshuffle is essentially the tale of two admirals: one who would be Deputy Prime Minister, and another who, for all intents and purposes, would be heir-apparent to the Prime Minister.
The ascension of Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean (a former navy admiral) to the position vacated by Mr Jayakumar has been hypothesised since his entry into politics in 1992. He was immediately inducted into the Cabinet, where he has since turned in steady and competent performances, the most prominent of which was the military’s much-lauded mobilisation to aid Indonesia in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami. Mr Teo is also thought to be a better grassroots man than the other obvious candidate for the deputy premiership, Mr George Yeo, who had some difficulty defending his ward the last time round in 2006.
The Prime Minister seems to recognise Mr Teo’s utility in this aspect. Asked about his new responsibilities, Mr Teo told reporters that one of his tasks was to ensure that the government remained connected to the ground. Surprisingly, he also said that he was to help strengthen Singapore’s ties with other countries. It’s hard to see how he would play a bigger role in this regard when Singapore already has two Senior Ministers, one Minister Mentor and another deputy premier and not to mention a foreign minister; in any case, Mr Teo already does a lot of travelling in his capacity as Defence Minister.
Yet Mr Teo’s appointment is still rather bold in a way: his real contribution might be to provide a slightly contrarian tack to a ruling cabal whose members seem overly like-minded at times. Mr Teo is known to be independent-minded with the gumption to back it up; moreover, unlike younger ministers like Vivian Balakrishnan or Raymond Lim, as deputy premier he will now have the heft to push his views.
Nevertheless there is little chance of Mr Teo becoming prime minister, short of something untoward happening to PM Lee. The two men are simply too close in age – given the ruling cabal’s proclivity for long-term planning, the ideal candidate is someone about a decade or so younger than PM Lee. And the only one in Cabinet who fits the bill is Rear Admiral (NS) Lui Tuck Yew, who was given the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts portfolio with the retirement of the incumbent.
In this regard PM Lee seems to have anointed an heir-apparent by promoting RAdm Lui to head his own ministry. Unlike other much talked-about candidates, such as Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, RAdm Lui has the right pedigree. He is the quintessential product of the establishment, having followed the same route of advancement through the military as PM Lee. He can therefore be counted on to protect the interests of the establishment – his Bill to regulate political films, for instance, is classic PAP doublespeak and tighter regulation in the guise of liberalisation. RAdm Lui’s new ministry is an important player in the government’s bid for control over burgeoning political discourse in cyberspace.
Dr Balakrishnan, on the other hand, was a private sector figure and an activist who was co-opted into the ranks. And unlike Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, RAdm Lui is of the right age and the right ethnic group – just a few months ago Mr Lee had said that Singapore was not ready to be led by someone from a minority group. The other advantage that RAdm Lui has is simply a dearth of competitors: unlike Mr Teo, who could count Mr Yeo as a peer, RAdm Lui doesn’t have any contemporaries who advanced as quickly as he has, with the other MPs from the batch of 2006 still lagging considerably.
But as the tragic tale ending in Kipling’s parable of the same title goes to show, nothing is set in stone, and Singapore’s political history is littered with promising figures who have fallen by the wayside. However, the ruling cabal seems to have taken a step closer to solve the vexing question of who should succeed PM Lee. If RAdm Lui turns in a decent performance, the odds are that he will be rotated quickly to head more heavyweight ministries, and there have been rumours that the trade and industry minister is also slated to retire. At this point, the prize seems very much his to lose.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25365.1
Saturday, 28 March 2009
A not uninteresting Cabinet reshuffle
There was little to fuss over Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s latest Cabinet reshuffle, which was announced on 26th March 2009 with minimal fanfare. That’s the norm in Singapore, where the ruling cabal prides itself on an orderly succession without the hoopla that usually accompanies similar transitions in other countries. Most of the changes have long been speculated on, but this masks what might be rather momentous implications for the political landscape.
Even so, for all its supposed banality there was still some surprise and not a little rancour over the “promotion” of Deputy Prime Minister S Jayakumar to the post of Senior Minister, a position that has traditionally carried little responsibility save that of a big-wig roaming ambassador. Some observers have panned the appointment as superfluous – in fact Mr Lee was breaking new ground by having two Senior Ministers, the other one being ex-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong – considering that the position is largely seen as a means of gracefully retiring elder ministers. The conspicuous exception of course is Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who held the position from 1990 to 2004 and continues to exert a visibly heavy influence on policy.
Mr Jayakumar was long thought to be due to retire, but since the last election in 2006 he appears to have made himself too indispensable to be eased out of the Cabinet just yet. He is also thought to have earned some credit for Singapore’s win in the Pedra Branca dispute with Malaysia at the International Court of Justice, which was also a reminder of the need for his legal expertise in complex international issues such as climate change.
What his appointment also points to is the outsized centralisation of policy-making prerogative in the Prime Minister’s Office, a trend underscored by the appointment of yet another minister there, in the form of Mrs Lim Hwee Hua as Singapore’s first female minister. This partly reflects the government’s oft-stated mantra of the need for better coordination amongst disparate agencies, but it does raise questions about whether the office can be streamlined and the portfolios of its various inhabitants better defined. Already, the wage bill for the politicians in the Prime Minister’s Office is just slightly less than that of all the other ministries put together.
Mrs Lim’s appointment as full minister, while long expected, came with the twist that she is still not helming any ministry of her own. One reason is that there is simply no ministry up for grabs. But it is also possible that Mrs Lim’s promotion is meant to beef up the Aljunied constituency, which was the weakest ward for the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) in the last election. This is particularly since the party’s helmsman in Aljunied, Foreign Minister George Yeo, has floated the possibility of retiring from politics. Furthermore, Mrs Lim would be a convenient foil for Ms Sylvia Lim of the Worker’s Party, who is the opposition’s only female heavyweight of note and had led her party’s team in Aljunied in 2006.
Heir today, gone tomorrow
But the real story of the reshuffle is essentially the tale of two admirals: one who would be Deputy Prime Minister, and another who, for all intents and purposes, would be heir-apparent to the Prime Minister.
The ascension of Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean (a former navy admiral) to the position vacated by Mr Jayakumar has been hypothesised since his entry into politics in 1992. He was immediately inducted into the Cabinet, where he has since turned in steady and competent performances, the most prominent of which was the military’s much-lauded mobilisation to aid Indonesia in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami. Mr Teo is also thought to be a better grassroots man than the other obvious candidate for the deputy premiership, Mr George Yeo, who had some difficulty defending his ward the last time round in 2006.
The Prime Minister seems to recognise Mr Teo’s utility in this aspect. Asked about his new responsibilities, Mr Teo told reporters that one of his tasks was to ensure that the government remained connected to the ground. Surprisingly, he also said that he was to help strengthen Singapore’s ties with other countries. It’s hard to see how he would play a bigger role in this regard when Singapore already has two Senior Ministers, one Minister Mentor and another deputy premier and not to mention a foreign minister; in any case, Mr Teo already does a lot of travelling in his capacity as Defence Minister.
Yet Mr Teo’s appointment is still rather bold in a way: his real contribution might be to provide a slightly contrarian tack to a ruling cabal whose members seem overly like-minded at times. Mr Teo is known to be independent-minded with the gumption to back it up; moreover, unlike younger ministers like Vivian Balakrishnan or Raymond Lim, as deputy premier he will now have the heft to push his views.
Nevertheless there is little chance of Mr Teo becoming prime minister, short of something untoward happening to PM Lee. The two men are simply too close in age – given the ruling cabal’s proclivity for long-term planning, the ideal candidate is someone about a decade or so younger than PM Lee. And the only one in Cabinet who fits the bill is Rear Admiral (NS) Lui Tuck Yew, who was given the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts portfolio with the retirement of the incumbent.
In this regard PM Lee seems to have anointed an heir-apparent by promoting RAdm Lui to head his own ministry. Unlike other much talked-about candidates, such as Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, RAdm Lui has the right pedigree. He is the quintessential product of the establishment, having followed the same route of advancement through the military as PM Lee. He can therefore be counted on to protect the interests of the establishment – his Bill to regulate political films, for instance, is classic PAP doublespeak and tighter regulation in the guise of liberalisation. RAdm Lui’s new ministry is an important player in the government’s bid for control over burgeoning political discourse in cyberspace.
Dr Balakrishnan, on the other hand, was a private sector figure and an activist who was co-opted into the ranks. And unlike Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, RAdm Lui is of the right age and the right ethnic group – just a few months ago Mr Lee had said that Singapore was not ready to be led by someone from a minority group. The other advantage that RAdm Lui has is simply a dearth of competitors: unlike Mr Teo, who could count Mr Yeo as a peer, RAdm Lui doesn’t have any contemporaries who advanced as quickly as he has, with the other MPs from the batch of 2006 still lagging considerably.
But as the tragic tale ending in Kipling’s parable of the same title goes to show, nothing is set in stone, and Singapore’s political history is littered with promising figures who have fallen by the wayside. However, the ruling cabal seems to have taken a step closer to solve the vexing question of who should succeed PM Lee. If RAdm Lui turns in a decent performance, the odds are that he will be rotated quickly to head more heavyweight ministries, and there have been rumours that the trade and industry minister is also slated to retire. At this point, the prize seems very much his to lose.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25365.1
Is “rejuvenation” possible for a cabinet filled with oldies?
Is “rejuvenation” possible for a cabinet filled with oldies?
In an interview with the Straits Times, Dr Lee Boon Yang on Friday said his retirement from Government, where he has served for 24 years, is ‘necessary and timely as the process of rejuvenation must be sustained’.
‘The new Cabinet appointments will forge a stronger team to lead Singapore,’ said the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica), a day after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced changes to the Cabinet and new appointments as part of a leadership renewal.
I do not see how this cabinet shake-up can be construed as any form of “rejuvenation.”
According to the Longman Dictionary, rejuvenation means a return to a completely new state or to make young or strong again.
Besides Dr Lee Boon Yang, no other ministers has relinquished their portfolios. It is the essentially the same team of ministers which Prime Minister Lee inherited from his predecessor.
As the Chinese saying goes - “change the soup but not the medicine”. The four oldies who should have made way for younger leaders a long time ago are still lingering around:
1. MM Lee Kuan Yew (86 years old): became MP in 1959, Prime Minister from 1965 - 1991.
2. SM Goh Chok Tong (68 years old): became MP in 1976, Prime Minister from 1991 to 2003.
3. SM Jayakumar (70 years old): became MP in 1980, Deputy Prime Minister from 2004 - 2009.
4. Wong Kan Seng (63 years old): became MP in 1984, Deputy Prime Minister from 2005 - now.
Nowhere in the world other than in dictatorships and military junta do we see two former Prime Ministers and one former Deputy Prime Minister remaining in the cabinet.
Won’t they be more of a hindrance than help to the younger generation of leaders who may not enjoy a free rein in the direction they want to lead the country?
George W Bush was the President of the United States for 8 years. Tony Blair was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for 10 years. When both stepped down from their positions recently, they did so completely without having any more business in government.
Can you imagine Obama making George Bush a senior advisor in his team or Tony Blair being appointed as a senior minister in the British cabinet? (He was made a Middle East envoy for the United Nations).
Former prime ministers and deputies who wish to continue serving Singapore can do so in another capacity which will minimize their influence in the present government.
The first Chief Minister of Singapore, David Marshall was made an Ambassador to France after he retired, a role which he clearly relished.
MM Lee, SM Goh and SM Jayakumar can be appointed as ambassadors or special envoys to promote bilateral ties between Singapore and our major trading partners.
This will allow their successors to implement their ideas, plans and vision for the nation freely without any interference.
The country is in urgent need of a fresh direction. For far too long, there is excessive emphasis on GDP growth at the expense of growing and developing our human capital.
A real leader knows when to retire gracefully to make way for young leaders they have groomed to take their place. Changing the first alphabet of the title from a “P” to a “S” is not rejuventation but degradation of our democracy.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25361.1
In an interview with the Straits Times, Dr Lee Boon Yang on Friday said his retirement from Government, where he has served for 24 years, is ‘necessary and timely as the process of rejuvenation must be sustained’.
‘The new Cabinet appointments will forge a stronger team to lead Singapore,’ said the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica), a day after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced changes to the Cabinet and new appointments as part of a leadership renewal.
I do not see how this cabinet shake-up can be construed as any form of “rejuvenation.”
According to the Longman Dictionary, rejuvenation means a return to a completely new state or to make young or strong again.
Besides Dr Lee Boon Yang, no other ministers has relinquished their portfolios. It is the essentially the same team of ministers which Prime Minister Lee inherited from his predecessor.
As the Chinese saying goes - “change the soup but not the medicine”. The four oldies who should have made way for younger leaders a long time ago are still lingering around:
1. MM Lee Kuan Yew (86 years old): became MP in 1959, Prime Minister from 1965 - 1991.
2. SM Goh Chok Tong (68 years old): became MP in 1976, Prime Minister from 1991 to 2003.
3. SM Jayakumar (70 years old): became MP in 1980, Deputy Prime Minister from 2004 - 2009.
4. Wong Kan Seng (63 years old): became MP in 1984, Deputy Prime Minister from 2005 - now.
Nowhere in the world other than in dictatorships and military junta do we see two former Prime Ministers and one former Deputy Prime Minister remaining in the cabinet.
Won’t they be more of a hindrance than help to the younger generation of leaders who may not enjoy a free rein in the direction they want to lead the country?
George W Bush was the President of the United States for 8 years. Tony Blair was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for 10 years. When both stepped down from their positions recently, they did so completely without having any more business in government.
Can you imagine Obama making George Bush a senior advisor in his team or Tony Blair being appointed as a senior minister in the British cabinet? (He was made a Middle East envoy for the United Nations).
Former prime ministers and deputies who wish to continue serving Singapore can do so in another capacity which will minimize their influence in the present government.
The first Chief Minister of Singapore, David Marshall was made an Ambassador to France after he retired, a role which he clearly relished.
MM Lee, SM Goh and SM Jayakumar can be appointed as ambassadors or special envoys to promote bilateral ties between Singapore and our major trading partners.
This will allow their successors to implement their ideas, plans and vision for the nation freely without any interference.
The country is in urgent need of a fresh direction. For far too long, there is excessive emphasis on GDP growth at the expense of growing and developing our human capital.
A real leader knows when to retire gracefully to make way for young leaders they have groomed to take their place. Changing the first alphabet of the title from a “P” to a “S” is not rejuventation but degradation of our democracy.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25361.1
Soros sees risk of Britain needing IMF bailout
Soros sees risk of Britain needing IMF bailout
Posted: 28 March 2009 2033 hrs
 | ||||||
| ||||||
LONDON : Hungarian-born US billionaire George Soros said in a report on Saturday it was "conceivable" that Britain would have to resort to a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
"It's conceivable," Soros said in an interview with the Times. "You have a problem that the banking system is bigger than the economy... so for Britain to absorb it alone would really pile up the debt."
Soros said that "if the banking system continued to collapse, it's (an IMF bailout) a possibility but it's not a likelihood."
The man who made one billion dollars on selling the pound on Black Wednesday in 1992 described the current recession as a "once-in-a-lifetime event", particularly in Britain.
"This is a crisis unlike any other. It's a total collapse of the financial system with tremendous implications for everyday life.
"On previous occasions when you had a crisis that was threatening the system the authorities intervened and did whatever was necessary to protect the system. This time they failed."
He said he feared the problem in Britain, with its huge financial and banking interests, could be greater than in the United States.
"American memory is seared by the Depression, the German memory is seared by hyperinflation but Britain has a pretty serious problem in many ways worse than America because the financial sector looms bigger and the overvaluation of real estate is bigger than in America."
Soros said the G20 summit in London next week was the world's last chance to avert economic disaster, but he was not optimistic of a breakthrough in efforts to spur the global economy into recovery.
"The odds would favour that it fails because there are such differences of opinion. It's difficult enough to get it right in your own country let alone with 20 governments coming together, but if it's a failure I think then the global financial and trading system falls apart," he said.
"It's really a make-or-break occasion. That's why it's so important."
Increasing IMF funding to allow it to intervene to help troubled economies is one of the main issues on the G20 agenda. - AFP/mshttp://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25354.1
Another NTU death
March 29, 2009
Another NTU death
Another death of a person linked to Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has occurred, making it the third in 25 days.
Last Friday, Mr Hu Kunlun, 29, a research fellow in the Division of Control and Instrumentation from the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE), was killed when he was hit by a car.
According to a report in the Chinese newspaper Lianhe Wanbao, the China national was on his way to work that morning. He was believed to have started work less than a year ago.
A car hit him when he was crossing Pioneer Road North to catch a bus.
He was rushed to the National University Hospital in an ambulance and pronounced dead at 11.20am.
His family has been contacted and will arrive in Singapore tomorrow.
NTU declined to comment on the incident, telling The Sunday Times that the death is not the same as the two that occurred previously.
On March 2, an Indonesian EEE student stabbed his professor before falling to his death.
A few days later, a 24-year-old project officer, a China national who was also from EEE, was found hanged in the balcony of his campus apartment.
Huang Huifen
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25344.1
Another NTU death
Another death of a person linked to Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has occurred, making it the third in 25 days.
Last Friday, Mr Hu Kunlun, 29, a research fellow in the Division of Control and Instrumentation from the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE), was killed when he was hit by a car.
According to a report in the Chinese newspaper Lianhe Wanbao, the China national was on his way to work that morning. He was believed to have started work less than a year ago.
A car hit him when he was crossing Pioneer Road North to catch a bus.
He was rushed to the National University Hospital in an ambulance and pronounced dead at 11.20am.
His family has been contacted and will arrive in Singapore tomorrow.
NTU declined to comment on the incident, telling The Sunday Times that the death is not the same as the two that occurred previously.
On March 2, an Indonesian EEE student stabbed his professor before falling to his death.
A few days later, a 24-year-old project officer, a China national who was also from EEE, was found hanged in the balcony of his campus apartment.
Huang Huifen
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25344.1
Remembering Raffles
Remembering Raffles
I have stopped reading the ST Forum for a long time, because I have considered some of the articles published to be so pathetically stupid. At times, I felt so ashamed at some of the things written, that I felt foreigners who read them must have considered all Singaporeans as either imbeciles or idiots. That’s not mentioning at times I felt the editors may have deliberately published them for nothing more than the purpose of ‘creating some debate’ or to let the writer himself be ridiculed. If not for dk99 talking about this article the other day, I wouldn’t have gone looking up the following:
Don’t go overboard
In his letter on Wednesday, Mr Philip Siow proposed constructing a replica of the Indiana, the ship that brought Sir Stamford Raffles to Singapore in 1819. He suggested displaying it along the Esplanade waterfront ‘to add historical richness and colour’.
Mr Siow described Raffles as one of the ‘two architects who created what is modern Singapore’. The other is Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. I do not agree with this proposal for three reasons.
# First, our colonial past is nothing to be proud of. Those who lived under colonial rule, like me, will tell you that it was not a beautiful experience. Raffles’ statue in front of the Victoria Concert Hall and the buildings, roads and other facilities bearing his name are reminders enough of the inglorious chapter in our history.
# Second, Raffles established Singapore as a trading post not for our benefit but for the benefit of the British Empire. He stayed here for only nine months. Thus, although he drew up plans for ‘a great commercial emporium’ and a ‘free port’, his achievements for Singapore could not have been very significant.
# Third, life in Singapore did not begin with Raffles’ arrival in 1819. Singapore was a vibrant ancient city, teeming with life and trade, as early as the 14th century. We would be going overboard if we accept Mr Siow’s proposal.
On the other hand, Mr Lee Kuan Yew certainly deserves credit for Singapore’s tremendous achievements. He led the charge to topple British colonial rule and orchestrated the transformation of the nation from Third World to First World. Indeed, he and the Old Guard accomplished more for Singapore in one generation than the British did in 140 years.
Anthony Oei
I do not know why it upset Oei so much to have a replica of the Indiana constructed ‘to add historical richness and colour’. I would have expected it to be a museum of sort and yet another tourist attraction for our little island, not to mention it would serve the purpose of educating our children of our nation’s history. After all, even Malacca has its own Maritime Museum. Is it too much to ask for one of our own?
Really, I find it amusing that Oei talks about Singapore’s history preceding the arrival of Raffles and the British, but selectively failed to mention to readers that when Cheng Ho sailed past during his voyages, Temasek (as Singapore was known then) didn’t even warrant a stop. Did it not surprise you that the Ming Dynasty fleet stopped by Malacca but not Singapore? That’s not mentioning that in 1613 the Portuguese set the settlement ablaze and until 1819 it was nothing more than a small fishing village. (You can find a record of the Portuguese attack on Fort Canning Hill.)
Oei may want to diminish Raffles founding of Singapore as merely taking it as a port for the British East India Company, but it was this very pivotal event that changed Singapore’s fate. The British Empire then took full control of the island of Singapore in 1824 and by 1869 it was a colony of 100,000 people.
Still, some may find nothing great or pleasant about British colonial rule. And indeed, even my parents do not remember their childhood days under British rule fondly. However, they also consider their hardships as the aftermath of the Japanese Occupation and the Second World War as much as British mismanagement. Now consider that period between 1945 - 1959, where nationalist sentiments run high and the Communist threat is real, as a part of the British Empire’s entire 137 years of rule. In all those years, did all the investments the British Empire put into building up the colony never in anyway benefited the inhabitants in it, no matter how insignificant?
If that is so, then how is it that British Singapore became a cradle for this nation’s founding fathers like Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, Rajaratnam, the Ministor Mentor? And what about the others like David Marshall and Lim Chin Siong etc, who also contributed to Singapore’s Independence and the PAP’s domination in politics respectively?
In fact, it annoys me that when Oei expressed his gratitude to the Minister Mentor, he forgot the rest of the people who also made their mark in Singapore’s history. Even while what Oei has written nothing idiotic or wrong on their own, it still irks me because he selectively presents only the parts of history acceptable to him to make a point.
Is Oei telling us that because he views our colonial history as something disgusting and painful, it should all be expunged from our memories? While he is entitled to view Singapore’s history anyway he wants, clearly we can do better with a more balanced view of our nation’s history.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25555.1
I have stopped reading the ST Forum for a long time, because I have considered some of the articles published to be so pathetically stupid. At times, I felt so ashamed at some of the things written, that I felt foreigners who read them must have considered all Singaporeans as either imbeciles or idiots. That’s not mentioning at times I felt the editors may have deliberately published them for nothing more than the purpose of ‘creating some debate’ or to let the writer himself be ridiculed. If not for dk99 talking about this article the other day, I wouldn’t have gone looking up the following:
Don’t go overboard
In his letter on Wednesday, Mr Philip Siow proposed constructing a replica of the Indiana, the ship that brought Sir Stamford Raffles to Singapore in 1819. He suggested displaying it along the Esplanade waterfront ‘to add historical richness and colour’.
Mr Siow described Raffles as one of the ‘two architects who created what is modern Singapore’. The other is Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. I do not agree with this proposal for three reasons.
# First, our colonial past is nothing to be proud of. Those who lived under colonial rule, like me, will tell you that it was not a beautiful experience. Raffles’ statue in front of the Victoria Concert Hall and the buildings, roads and other facilities bearing his name are reminders enough of the inglorious chapter in our history.
# Second, Raffles established Singapore as a trading post not for our benefit but for the benefit of the British Empire. He stayed here for only nine months. Thus, although he drew up plans for ‘a great commercial emporium’ and a ‘free port’, his achievements for Singapore could not have been very significant.
# Third, life in Singapore did not begin with Raffles’ arrival in 1819. Singapore was a vibrant ancient city, teeming with life and trade, as early as the 14th century. We would be going overboard if we accept Mr Siow’s proposal.
On the other hand, Mr Lee Kuan Yew certainly deserves credit for Singapore’s tremendous achievements. He led the charge to topple British colonial rule and orchestrated the transformation of the nation from Third World to First World. Indeed, he and the Old Guard accomplished more for Singapore in one generation than the British did in 140 years.
Anthony Oei
I do not know why it upset Oei so much to have a replica of the Indiana constructed ‘to add historical richness and colour’. I would have expected it to be a museum of sort and yet another tourist attraction for our little island, not to mention it would serve the purpose of educating our children of our nation’s history. After all, even Malacca has its own Maritime Museum. Is it too much to ask for one of our own?
Really, I find it amusing that Oei talks about Singapore’s history preceding the arrival of Raffles and the British, but selectively failed to mention to readers that when Cheng Ho sailed past during his voyages, Temasek (as Singapore was known then) didn’t even warrant a stop. Did it not surprise you that the Ming Dynasty fleet stopped by Malacca but not Singapore? That’s not mentioning that in 1613 the Portuguese set the settlement ablaze and until 1819 it was nothing more than a small fishing village. (You can find a record of the Portuguese attack on Fort Canning Hill.)
Oei may want to diminish Raffles founding of Singapore as merely taking it as a port for the British East India Company, but it was this very pivotal event that changed Singapore’s fate. The British Empire then took full control of the island of Singapore in 1824 and by 1869 it was a colony of 100,000 people.
Still, some may find nothing great or pleasant about British colonial rule. And indeed, even my parents do not remember their childhood days under British rule fondly. However, they also consider their hardships as the aftermath of the Japanese Occupation and the Second World War as much as British mismanagement. Now consider that period between 1945 - 1959, where nationalist sentiments run high and the Communist threat is real, as a part of the British Empire’s entire 137 years of rule. In all those years, did all the investments the British Empire put into building up the colony never in anyway benefited the inhabitants in it, no matter how insignificant?
If that is so, then how is it that British Singapore became a cradle for this nation’s founding fathers like Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, Rajaratnam, the Ministor Mentor? And what about the others like David Marshall and Lim Chin Siong etc, who also contributed to Singapore’s Independence and the PAP’s domination in politics respectively?
In fact, it annoys me that when Oei expressed his gratitude to the Minister Mentor, he forgot the rest of the people who also made their mark in Singapore’s history. Even while what Oei has written nothing idiotic or wrong on their own, it still irks me because he selectively presents only the parts of history acceptable to him to make a point.
Is Oei telling us that because he views our colonial history as something disgusting and painful, it should all be expunged from our memories? While he is entitled to view Singapore’s history anyway he wants, clearly we can do better with a more balanced view of our nation’s history.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25555.1
The Quandary of Dr. Lee Wei Ling
The Quandary of Dr. Lee Wei Ling
It is unenviable to be the prestigious and publicity-seeking daughter of an illustrious Minister Mentor father whose "benign" character has to be encountered in order to be appreciated and believed. The daughter is non other than Dr. Lee Wei Ling whose pampered life has seen her ascending to the pinnacle of her career.
She is very fond of writing moral-sounding articles to the press commenting on political and social issues and it is inevitable that, because of her social standing, sometimes she ventures into not insensitive territory like extolling her family characteristics., which may not find consonance with some satirical critics.
So it should have come as no surprise, or should it be a surprise, to Dr. Lee that a sharp-witted critic going by the pseudonym of Patriot should have written a pungent letter castigating her for her self-eulogising article of 4 January 2009. What the critic found particulary disgusting was Dr. Lee's reference ;to her mother's talk of suffering and deprivation which was good for the soul which the critic said was utopia to the ordinary people. The writer did not mince his words and his letter was quite understandably rejected by the Straits Times. So he had to post it on the internet. Some heads would have rolled if the Straits Times had the audacity to publish the incisive letter. We are talking about the Straits Times which claims to be the people's mouthpiece without fear or favour but what we are seeing is a mouse sadly lacking in courage when it is most needed.
A letter to Dr. Lee Wei Ling by the Patriot is therefore only available for viewing on the internet. So far there is no response from Dr. Lee and she is not known to be not internet-savvy. She is either irked by internet critics and refuses to lreply or finds her position untenable because the criticisms are too substantial to refute. Either way is not a good reflection of her character, firstly as her own prestigious self and secondly as a daughter of an illustrious father.
This enlightening episode should be a invaluable lesson to Dr. Lee Wei Ling and should curb her enthusiasm of her tendency to moralise her so-called altruistic messianic pursuit which may not go down well with the public if persisted ad nauseam.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=23904.6
It is unenviable to be the prestigious and publicity-seeking daughter of an illustrious Minister Mentor father whose "benign" character has to be encountered in order to be appreciated and believed. The daughter is non other than Dr. Lee Wei Ling whose pampered life has seen her ascending to the pinnacle of her career.
She is very fond of writing moral-sounding articles to the press commenting on political and social issues and it is inevitable that, because of her social standing, sometimes she ventures into not insensitive territory like extolling her family characteristics., which may not find consonance with some satirical critics.
So it should have come as no surprise, or should it be a surprise, to Dr. Lee that a sharp-witted critic going by the pseudonym of Patriot should have written a pungent letter castigating her for her self-eulogising article of 4 January 2009. What the critic found particulary disgusting was Dr. Lee's reference ;to her mother's talk of suffering and deprivation which was good for the soul which the critic said was utopia to the ordinary people. The writer did not mince his words and his letter was quite understandably rejected by the Straits Times. So he had to post it on the internet. Some heads would have rolled if the Straits Times had the audacity to publish the incisive letter. We are talking about the Straits Times which claims to be the people's mouthpiece without fear or favour but what we are seeing is a mouse sadly lacking in courage when it is most needed.
A letter to Dr. Lee Wei Ling by the Patriot is therefore only available for viewing on the internet. So far there is no response from Dr. Lee and she is not known to be not internet-savvy. She is either irked by internet critics and refuses to lreply or finds her position untenable because the criticisms are too substantial to refute. Either way is not a good reflection of her character, firstly as her own prestigious self and secondly as a daughter of an illustrious father.
This enlightening episode should be a invaluable lesson to Dr. Lee Wei Ling and should curb her enthusiasm of her tendency to moralise her so-called altruistic messianic pursuit which may not go down well with the public if persisted ad nauseam.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=23904.6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)