Apr 8, 2009
G-20 makes it worse
By Hossein Askari and Noureddine Krichene
The contrast between the Group of 20 summit communiques of November 2008 and April 2009 is striking. While the first communique recognized that the surest way to restore economic growth was to rely on capitalism, international cooperation and the private sector, the second abandoned these principles and called for unprecedented fiscal-cum-money intervention to restore growth.
US President Barack Obama was not present at the November meeting; his absence, however, created uncertainty among leaders regarding the course of G-20 policy. With Obama leading the April G-20 summit, the group has been pushed to the far left.
While a G-20 subgroup continues to enjoy robust economic growth, large external surpluses and sound financial systems, the largest subgroup, ironically composed of leading industrial countries, continues to suffer from self-inflicted wounds - namely, it has bankrupted its own financial system thanks to expansionary fiscal and monetary policies and unprecedented credit booms in the past decade.
These policies have now led to gigantic bailouts that will imperil fiscal balances for some time to come, guaranteed bank debts, and to calls for public-private bad banks to buy toxic assets. Economic performances in this group have deteriorated between the two summit dates.
US Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke's aggressive monetary policy and anti-depression doctrine has pushed interest rates to zero and resulted in the US unemployment rate jumping from 4.3% in 2007 to 8.5% in March 2009. Similar disasters have plagued the UK, the European Union and Japan. Thanks to unrestrained fiscal-cum-monetary policy, these advanced industrial countries are now experiencing contracting output and rising unemployment.
Frustrated by impotent fiscal and monetary stimuli, this group has desperately pushed cheap and unconditional fictitious loans, created from thin air, on developing countries - the international equivalent of the subprime market - in the hope of creating markets for their industrial products. Hence, after saddling their domestic subprime with debt, these G-20 countries have turned to bankrupting developing countries with purely counterfeited money. Such a strategy, while dangerously inflationary, will export unemployment to these developing countries, blow-up their banking systems, trap them in another debt cycle and impair their development process.
The communique reads:
We are undertaking an unprecedented and concerted fiscal expansion, which will save or create millions of jobs which would otherwise have been destroyed, and that will, by the end of next year, amount to US$5 trillion, raise output by 4%, and accelerate the transition to a green economy. We are committed to deliver the scale of sustained fiscal effort necessary to restore growth ... Our central banks have also taken exceptional action. Interest rates have been cut aggressively in most countries, and our central banks have pledged to maintain expansionary policies for as long as needed and to use the full range of monetary policy instruments, including unconventional instruments, consistent with price stability ... Taken together, these actions will constitute the largest fiscal and monetary stimulus and the most comprehensive support programme for the financial sector in modern times. Acting together strengthens the impact and the exceptional policy actions announced so far must be implemented without delay. Today, we have further agreed over $1 trillion of additional resources for the world economy through our international financial institutions and trade finance ... We will conduct all our economic policies cooperatively and responsibly with regard to the impact on other countries and will refrain from competitive devaluation of our currencies and promote a stable and well-functioning international monetary system.
Undeniably, the communique reads as one of Obama's election stump speeches, with the heavy economic and financial imprints of his economic advisor Larry Summers, now Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Bernanke. At home, with a view to creating 4 million jobs, Obama has launched the largest-ever stimulus program at $787 billion; his budget deficit, at $1.85 trillion or 13% of US GDP, has shattered all records and pushed US public debt to unsustainable levels, while the Fed has been creating money out of thin air in the trillions of dollars.
Bernanke has pushed the US monetary policy on a course with incalculable economic costs that could end the era of dollar as a reserve currency. The outright monetization of Obama's fiscal deficits could send the US dollar to record lows and unleash the worst inflation in recent US history.
With Obama's unsound financial policies replicated by the rest of the world, it is impossible to forecast what the state of the world economy will be before the next G-20 meeting. Although G-20 experts were predicting 4% real economic growth, they forget that the private sector had never been subjected to such economic uncertainty and fear. In such a dire financial setting, it is impossible to predict what will be the state of the world economy in the medium-term. How is it possible to regain control of fiscal and money discipline? The G-20 has failed to restore confidence for a growing economy but has instead paved the way towards growing chaos.
The communique stipulates that "Taken together, these actions will constitute the largest fiscal and monetary stimulus and the most comprehensive support programme for the financial sector in modern times."
The G-20 experts failed to realize that over the past decade leading industrial countries have been experiencing the most expansionary policy in their history, yet the "Harvard multiplier" has so far been working in reverse. They forgot these same expansionary policies led to speculation and bankruptcies, pushed oil prices to $147 per barrel, triggered energy and food protests around the world, disrupted airline industries, trucking and marine shipping, played havoc with real economies, and finally ended up with a global economic recession.
Intensifying fiscal and monetary assault will eventually revive the nightmares of 2008 and could cause more financial disorder. While the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has renounced a previously announced 4.2 million barrels a day cut in oil output with a view to stabilizing oil prices and supporting global economic recovery, the G-20 wants to stoke oil prices. With oil prices reflecting persistent upward pressure, prospects for world economic recovery could become dim.
The G-20 experts seem oblivious to the ravages already caused by monetary and fiscal expansion and seem to deny simple truths characterizing these policies. Namely, large fiscal deficits reduce real savings, crowd out private investment and undermine economic growth. Second, monetary expansion has regularly caused speculation and banking crises. Zero interest rates will erode real capital and strangulate banking and financial intermediation.
A simple economic principle evaded those experts: the real aggregate demand is downward sloping: a depreciation of money in the form of a rising general price level depresses real output. Some call it long-term stagflation. In particular, in recession, monetary policy finances pure consumption loans and depletes savings and investment - both necessary for economic growth. It contributes to deepening recession and strengthening inflationary expectations.
The communique announced a world gold rush: "Today, we have further agreed over $1 trillion of additional resources for the world economy through our international financial institutions and trade finance."
The G-20 applauded Mexico's request for $40 billion under the International Monetary Fund's newly created flexible credit line, irrespective of past Mexican debt crises and the country's inability to service its debt. In this atmosphere, maybe the G-20 would even applaud a multi-billion request from Zimbabwe!
While domestic banks should lend against good collateral, conditionality with international loans was meant to enhance the chance of repayment. When conditionality is removed, a lender has no reason for blaming the borrower. All countries will be washed with billions of dollars in reserves created out of nothing and will spend furiously with fake money that has no real counterpart.
With oil reserves depleting in most countries and oil output stacked at 86 million barrels per day, the impact on oil prices will be obvious. In the same vein, with depleting food stocks as noted recently by the head of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization and pressures on the limited cultivable land, the effect on food prices could be overwhelming. Developing countries will have to run large fiscal deficits and expand domestic money supply to absorb new reserves and mountains of unconditional low interest loans.
When this cheap booze is all gone, they will be left with bankrupt public treasuries, dysfunctional domestic banking systems and a splitting hangover. As in the 1980s and 1990s, their economies will be in a dire state of disintegration, with boatloads of people sinking on their way to finding jobs elsewhere.
The communique became totally far-fetched in stating: "We will conduct all our economic policies cooperatively and responsibly with regard to the impact on other countries and will refrain from competitive devaluation of our currencies and promote a stable and well-functioning international monetary system."
This statement is certainly betrayed by a furious war among leading central banks in competitive devaluation and unorthodox monetary expansion. Each leading central bank has been endeavoring to depreciate its own currency and avoid any appreciation; interest rates have been cut to the lowest seen in the past three centuries. Exchange-rate instability has been at about its highest.
How monetary stability could be promoted in a system of floating rates is a question that may elude economists, with G-20 experts holding the secret! The blunt contradiction is inescapable in this statement: "Our central banks have also taken exceptional action. Interest rates have been cut aggressively in most countries, and our central banks have pledged to maintain expansionary policies for as long as needed and to use the full range of monetary policy instruments, including unconventional instruments." The more central banks engage in exceptional action, the more instability and contraction of trade volumes will be inflicted on the world economy.
Under the nostalgia of the George W Bush credit boom, the G-20 wanted to create an Obama credit boom at even far greater scale than has existed in modern times. The Obama team is beating the drums and making everyone dance the world over. Financial regulation becomes totally irrelevant when central banks are in pursuit of destroying currency. The world is now doomed to medium-term economic instability. So many uncertainties loom ahead. The inflationary consequences of G-20 approach could be devastating and may push vulnerable countries to the brink of starvation as seen in 2008.
Obama was elected to implement change. Unfortunately, his policy gurus have decided only to intensify previous financial policies and spread them far and wide. When insanity spreads you can only hide your sanity. Spreading insanity around the world is itself insanity. The G-20 could have spared the world economy unnecessary suffering. Unfortunately, it chose the continuation of financial disorder. The world cries out for private investment and growth, while the G-20 creates fake money and impairs growth.
Hossein Askari is professor of international business and international affairs at George Washington University. Noureddine Krichene is an economist at the International Monetary Fund and a former advisor, Islamic Development Bank, Jeddah.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26431.1
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
JBJ's was the good fight
JBJ's was the good fight
OCT 8 — One of my most vivid memories of the late former Singaporean opposition leader Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam dates back to 1986. I was waiting in a car, with my mother, outside the dull grey walls of the Queenstown prison, while my grandfather – Joshua Samuel Mahadevan, Jeyaretnam's elder brother – was inside on an unannounced visit.
I remember being in a hopeless muddle about the whole situation; in my five year-old mind prison equated to "bad guy", yet I couldn't imagine my granduncle being anything close to a bad guy.
He was certainly strange: a larger-than-life character, with his dry Gray's Inn inflections and formidable muttonchops, who addressed children with a benevolent formality that always left me weirded-out and thrilled.
But a bad guy? My grandfather often couldn't see the point of Jeyaretnam's struggle; I don't know much about what transpired between the brothers that day in Queenstown, but I do know that my grandfather asked a question – why? Why go to these lengths?
Mercifully Jeyaretnam only ever went to prison once, and for a month; some of his countrymen have been far less fortunate.
However, the relative absence of prison time in Jeyaretnam's life seems to me to indicate not his enemies' sense of right and wrong, but the results of their analyses into the costs and benefits of martyring him.
He was never a particularly good politician, although I mean that more as a compliment than anything else – his stubbornness and his principles almost always superseded his pragmatism. His belief was that any compromise with a tainted system was tainted by association.
The battle that Jeyaretnam waged in Singapore predates Singapore itself, and is one of the perennial problems of government – where do you draw the line that limits state interference in individual lives?
On the one hand stands the liberal ideal of individual freedoms, and on the other stands the need for security.
For Jeyaretnam, no amount of security was worth the sacrifice of individual liberties to which Singaporeans have grown accustomed, while for his nemeses within the ruling People's Action Party, security and prosperity (particularly their own) are paramount over individual rights.
The English school of value pluralism philosophers, which includes such luminaries as Isaiah Berlin, Joseph Raz and John Gray, accurately describe these wrestling values as incommensurable – that is, they cannot be measured on a common scale.
It's impossible to say how much liberty we ought to forego for how much security, and vice-versa – it would be like determining how much time you should spend reading Shakespeare as opposed to listening to Stravinsky.
Even worse, one value seems to necessarily benefit at the expense of the other – so, for example, life in a multiracial society is genuinely more secure when freedom of speech is curtailed to bar racist statements.
Seen in this light, the PAP argument starts to make sense. I used to vehemently deny Singaporeans the right to have an opinion on issues of right and wrong, demanding that they first stare long and hard at the injustices tattooed all over their national visage.
If any of them put forward the old PAP line that a tiny country needed an iron fist to make up for its vulnerable position, I would declare that if they thought life was all about money in the bank and entertainment on the TV screen, then they deserved to be sheep.
Still, just because I want a larger sphere of liberties, and a less powerful government, and am willing to accept as trade-offs potential inefficiency and loss of economic impetus, doesn't mean that Singaporeans should feel the same way.
Ultimately, if these are incommensurable values, then Jeyaretnam's fight was merely a good fight, rather than the good fight.
Harry Lee Kuan Yew, founding father, ex-Prime Minister, ex-Senior Minister and current Minister Mentor of Singapore, has always maintained that because of the country's precarious position, individuals have to give up their own liberties in the interest of keeping the state together.
That wasn't the final word, though – in giving up their liberties, Singaporeans submit to a directing will.
And since the PAP is essentially a construction of Lee Kuan Yew's will, the message drilled into Singapore has basically been: Harry Lee knows best, he will guide you in the best possible direction, so just listen and obey.
Of course, Lee has a habit of fraudulently presenting this as an aspect of "Asian values", which are supposedly incompatible with "western-style" liberties, yet the underlying argument is logically sound.
If I know what's best for my people, then even if they don't know it themselves, they're best off doing things my way.
In some ways they're actually freer if I decide things for them. This is an ugly aspect of a particular conception of liberty, which Berlin referred to as "positive liberty" – the idea that a person should be free not only from outside control, but from the control of their own "lesser" faculties, such as their lustfulness, weakness of intellect or short-sightedness.
Many of the harshest dictatorships in history have had their ideology backboned by a concept of positive liberty, wherein people are coerced into accepting the command of leaders who "know best". Singapore, as the world's only economically successful fascist state, is no exception. The history of the island republic is in many ways the history of Lee's will bludgeoned into others, as outlined in books such as Chris Lydgate's Lee's Law and Francis Seow's The Media Enthralled (Singapore Revisited).
Lee himself, quite tellingly, loved employing the terminology of mental illness to describe Jeyaretnam – calling him "disturbed", and in need of "psychoanalysis" – to my mind, Lee genuinely believed that Jeyaretnam's obsession with individual liberties was some kind of perversion that impeded the One True Reason.
The troublesome fact remains, though, that if Singaporeans accept this state of affairs, then however silly it may seem to me, I cannot really call it wrong.
Coercion, or the threat of coercion, is integral to most societies, after all.
Furthermore, at least on the face of things, Singapore is a democracy, and there has never been any indication of vote-rigging in the electoral processes – the government seems to prefer rigging everything but the vote – so if enough citizens are willing to accept their lack of liberties, then that's up to them.
Jeyaretnam always evinced a remarkable amount of faith in Singaporeans, saying that "the strength is in the ordinary people".
He adhered to the tenet of John Stuart Mill's liberalism, that people should be allowed to do and say whatever they wish, provided that they bring no harm to others.
Of course, the PAP argued that the nation could come to much harm if people were to do and say as they wished, but Jeyaretnam always maintained that what Lee and Co were most scared of was not that harm may come to the nation, but to their own stranglehold on power. He believed not only that Singaporeans were fit to govern themselves, but also that they wanted self-government, badly enough that if the PAP were only shown to be vulnerable and crooked, the public would take back the power without hesitation.
The instrument the PAP has employed to bully Jeyaretnam and others like him is the law; their usual strategy is to target it at the point of interpretation – the judiciary – to ensure that the reading of the law is favourable to their case. Lydgate writes of one Singaporean judge who ruled that PAP leaders had not broken a law prohibiting politicians from being within a 200-metre radius of polling stations on election days, because they had been inside a polling station, and not within a 200-metre radius of it.
The PAP's litigious contrivances were always cruelly ironic, because Jeyaretnam loved the law far more than he ever loved politics.
He believed strongly in the judiciary's duty to protect citizens from the state, through independent and honourable legal interpretations. No matter how much the courts were used against him, he always submitted to due procedure, and respected the legal system – perhaps, some would say, a little too much. Funnily enough, it was Jeyaretnam's unremitting respect for the law that finally made clear the PAP's disrespect for it.
The more he fought, the more ridiculous their rulings and lawsuits became, and the more the truth – that they value their own interests above any law – became naked for all to see.
Jeyaretnam believed that to lead Singaporeans down the path to self-government, he needed to battle from within the legal system, to show them that they can stand up for their rights as individuals.
So he devoted his life to applying his personal principles of individual sanctity, democracy and judicial integrity against the PAP, principles that Lee Kuan Yew himself vowed to break. "I will make him beg for mercy", he once said of Jeyaretnam… but it was a battle that Hatchet Man Harry could never win; Jeyaretnam carried his principles intact to his dying day.
I have always had my doubts about Jeyaretnam's faith in Singaporeans.
Three years ago I finally worked up the guts to ask him the question that my grandfather had asked in Queenstown prison: why? Why fight for people who don't fight with you, who aren't grateful, who don't even seem to understand what it is you're fighting for? They seem to have happily swallowed the PAP's prescription of sugar-coated pills, so why fight for them? With a faintly bitter smile, he said, "But surely those are the people for whom you should be fighting the most."
In the aftermath of his death I have seen an overwhelmingly reverent, and even remorseful, tone in the condolence messages and posts on many Singaporean blogs and forums.
There have even been pledges to never forget the values that Jeyaretnam fought for, and attempts to have his life officially commemorated. His faith in and his fight for the common Singaporean may yet bear the fruits he never lived to see.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26332.1
OCT 8 — One of my most vivid memories of the late former Singaporean opposition leader Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam dates back to 1986. I was waiting in a car, with my mother, outside the dull grey walls of the Queenstown prison, while my grandfather – Joshua Samuel Mahadevan, Jeyaretnam's elder brother – was inside on an unannounced visit.
I remember being in a hopeless muddle about the whole situation; in my five year-old mind prison equated to "bad guy", yet I couldn't imagine my granduncle being anything close to a bad guy.
He was certainly strange: a larger-than-life character, with his dry Gray's Inn inflections and formidable muttonchops, who addressed children with a benevolent formality that always left me weirded-out and thrilled.
But a bad guy? My grandfather often couldn't see the point of Jeyaretnam's struggle; I don't know much about what transpired between the brothers that day in Queenstown, but I do know that my grandfather asked a question – why? Why go to these lengths?
Mercifully Jeyaretnam only ever went to prison once, and for a month; some of his countrymen have been far less fortunate.
However, the relative absence of prison time in Jeyaretnam's life seems to me to indicate not his enemies' sense of right and wrong, but the results of their analyses into the costs and benefits of martyring him.
He was never a particularly good politician, although I mean that more as a compliment than anything else – his stubbornness and his principles almost always superseded his pragmatism. His belief was that any compromise with a tainted system was tainted by association.
The battle that Jeyaretnam waged in Singapore predates Singapore itself, and is one of the perennial problems of government – where do you draw the line that limits state interference in individual lives?
On the one hand stands the liberal ideal of individual freedoms, and on the other stands the need for security.
For Jeyaretnam, no amount of security was worth the sacrifice of individual liberties to which Singaporeans have grown accustomed, while for his nemeses within the ruling People's Action Party, security and prosperity (particularly their own) are paramount over individual rights.
The English school of value pluralism philosophers, which includes such luminaries as Isaiah Berlin, Joseph Raz and John Gray, accurately describe these wrestling values as incommensurable – that is, they cannot be measured on a common scale.
It's impossible to say how much liberty we ought to forego for how much security, and vice-versa – it would be like determining how much time you should spend reading Shakespeare as opposed to listening to Stravinsky.
Even worse, one value seems to necessarily benefit at the expense of the other – so, for example, life in a multiracial society is genuinely more secure when freedom of speech is curtailed to bar racist statements.
Seen in this light, the PAP argument starts to make sense. I used to vehemently deny Singaporeans the right to have an opinion on issues of right and wrong, demanding that they first stare long and hard at the injustices tattooed all over their national visage.
If any of them put forward the old PAP line that a tiny country needed an iron fist to make up for its vulnerable position, I would declare that if they thought life was all about money in the bank and entertainment on the TV screen, then they deserved to be sheep.
Still, just because I want a larger sphere of liberties, and a less powerful government, and am willing to accept as trade-offs potential inefficiency and loss of economic impetus, doesn't mean that Singaporeans should feel the same way.
Ultimately, if these are incommensurable values, then Jeyaretnam's fight was merely a good fight, rather than the good fight.
Harry Lee Kuan Yew, founding father, ex-Prime Minister, ex-Senior Minister and current Minister Mentor of Singapore, has always maintained that because of the country's precarious position, individuals have to give up their own liberties in the interest of keeping the state together.
That wasn't the final word, though – in giving up their liberties, Singaporeans submit to a directing will.
And since the PAP is essentially a construction of Lee Kuan Yew's will, the message drilled into Singapore has basically been: Harry Lee knows best, he will guide you in the best possible direction, so just listen and obey.
Of course, Lee has a habit of fraudulently presenting this as an aspect of "Asian values", which are supposedly incompatible with "western-style" liberties, yet the underlying argument is logically sound.
If I know what's best for my people, then even if they don't know it themselves, they're best off doing things my way.
In some ways they're actually freer if I decide things for them. This is an ugly aspect of a particular conception of liberty, which Berlin referred to as "positive liberty" – the idea that a person should be free not only from outside control, but from the control of their own "lesser" faculties, such as their lustfulness, weakness of intellect or short-sightedness.
Many of the harshest dictatorships in history have had their ideology backboned by a concept of positive liberty, wherein people are coerced into accepting the command of leaders who "know best". Singapore, as the world's only economically successful fascist state, is no exception. The history of the island republic is in many ways the history of Lee's will bludgeoned into others, as outlined in books such as Chris Lydgate's Lee's Law and Francis Seow's The Media Enthralled (Singapore Revisited).
Lee himself, quite tellingly, loved employing the terminology of mental illness to describe Jeyaretnam – calling him "disturbed", and in need of "psychoanalysis" – to my mind, Lee genuinely believed that Jeyaretnam's obsession with individual liberties was some kind of perversion that impeded the One True Reason.
The troublesome fact remains, though, that if Singaporeans accept this state of affairs, then however silly it may seem to me, I cannot really call it wrong.
Coercion, or the threat of coercion, is integral to most societies, after all.
Furthermore, at least on the face of things, Singapore is a democracy, and there has never been any indication of vote-rigging in the electoral processes – the government seems to prefer rigging everything but the vote – so if enough citizens are willing to accept their lack of liberties, then that's up to them.
Jeyaretnam always evinced a remarkable amount of faith in Singaporeans, saying that "the strength is in the ordinary people".
He adhered to the tenet of John Stuart Mill's liberalism, that people should be allowed to do and say whatever they wish, provided that they bring no harm to others.
Of course, the PAP argued that the nation could come to much harm if people were to do and say as they wished, but Jeyaretnam always maintained that what Lee and Co were most scared of was not that harm may come to the nation, but to their own stranglehold on power. He believed not only that Singaporeans were fit to govern themselves, but also that they wanted self-government, badly enough that if the PAP were only shown to be vulnerable and crooked, the public would take back the power without hesitation.
The instrument the PAP has employed to bully Jeyaretnam and others like him is the law; their usual strategy is to target it at the point of interpretation – the judiciary – to ensure that the reading of the law is favourable to their case. Lydgate writes of one Singaporean judge who ruled that PAP leaders had not broken a law prohibiting politicians from being within a 200-metre radius of polling stations on election days, because they had been inside a polling station, and not within a 200-metre radius of it.
The PAP's litigious contrivances were always cruelly ironic, because Jeyaretnam loved the law far more than he ever loved politics.
He believed strongly in the judiciary's duty to protect citizens from the state, through independent and honourable legal interpretations. No matter how much the courts were used against him, he always submitted to due procedure, and respected the legal system – perhaps, some would say, a little too much. Funnily enough, it was Jeyaretnam's unremitting respect for the law that finally made clear the PAP's disrespect for it.
The more he fought, the more ridiculous their rulings and lawsuits became, and the more the truth – that they value their own interests above any law – became naked for all to see.
Jeyaretnam believed that to lead Singaporeans down the path to self-government, he needed to battle from within the legal system, to show them that they can stand up for their rights as individuals.
So he devoted his life to applying his personal principles of individual sanctity, democracy and judicial integrity against the PAP, principles that Lee Kuan Yew himself vowed to break. "I will make him beg for mercy", he once said of Jeyaretnam… but it was a battle that Hatchet Man Harry could never win; Jeyaretnam carried his principles intact to his dying day.
I have always had my doubts about Jeyaretnam's faith in Singaporeans.
Three years ago I finally worked up the guts to ask him the question that my grandfather had asked in Queenstown prison: why? Why fight for people who don't fight with you, who aren't grateful, who don't even seem to understand what it is you're fighting for? They seem to have happily swallowed the PAP's prescription of sugar-coated pills, so why fight for them? With a faintly bitter smile, he said, "But surely those are the people for whom you should be fighting the most."
In the aftermath of his death I have seen an overwhelmingly reverent, and even remorseful, tone in the condolence messages and posts on many Singaporean blogs and forums.
There have even been pledges to never forget the values that Jeyaretnam fought for, and attempts to have his life officially commemorated. His faith in and his fight for the common Singaporean may yet bear the fruits he never lived to see.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26332.1
Malaysia's opposition hails election wins
Malaysia's opposition hails election wins
Posted: 08 April 2009 1929 hrs
 | ||||||
| ||||||
KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysia's opposition celebrated Wednesday after big wins in by-elections that it said showed voters rejected Prime Minister Najib Razak who was sworn in last week.
The votes were the first test for Najib and his ambitious agenda to reform the ruling party UMNO -- which represents majority Muslim Malays -- and repair ties with the nation's ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities.
Analysts said they provided a snapshot of the public mood one year after the UMNO-led Barisan Nasional coalition was humbled in general elections that saw the opposition gain unprecedented ground.
"It is a referendum on the Barisan Nasional government, on its inability to carry out promises and reforms since the March 8 elections," opposition leader
Anwar Ibrahim told a press conference.
"Normally the trend is the moment a new prime minister comes... the sentiment lifts, but it didn't happen this time," he said. "It is a major setback not only to Najib but a major change in the thinking of Malaysians."
Anwar said the results of the polls showed that support for the opposition alliance had increased since the 2008 elections, when the opposition won five of Malaysia's 13 states and a third of seats in parliament.
The Barisan Nasional lost two of three by-elections held Tuesday, including a high-profile ballot in northern Perak state for a seat in the national parliament, which the opposition won in a landslide.
The opposition also won a hotly contested vote for a seat in the state parliament of northern Kedah.
In a consolation prize, the coalition won a seat in the state parliament in Sarawak on Borneo island, with a convincing majority that showed it remains the dominant political force in the under-developed region.
Najib's reform promises have been greeted with caution, as his predecessor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi failed to implement his own pledges to tackle corruption and repair race relations during his six years in power.
Analysts said the new leader must now quickly implement policy changes, which will illustrate that he is serious about reform, and win back voters before the next general elections due by 2013.
"What it means is that there is no honeymoon. Malaysians want their changes to happen now, and he cannot expect that rhetoric alone will carry the day," said Ibrahim Suffian from the Merdeka Centre polling firm.
Muhyiddin Yassin, who is expected to be appointed deputy premier when Najib names his Cabinet on Thursday, played down the results of the votes and said it was too early to judge the new administration.
"This is not a referendum on the leadership. Maybe the feel-good factor of the leadership of Najib has yet to sink in with the voters," he said, according to state media.
But Koh Tsu Koon, president of the Chinese-based Gerakan party, which is a member of the ruling coalition, said the results should serve as a call to action for the Barisan Nasional, which has dominated politics for half a century.
"Admittedly, the results showed BN has yet to turn the tide in regaining support from the people, especially the non-Malay voters," he said in a statement.
"We should look at the results as a reminder to BN to effect reform more concretely. If so, it might well be a blessing in disguise for BN in the long run."
- AFP/ir
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26318.1
What is wrong with our Charities?
What is wrong with our Charities?
In Singapore, there are three ways for leaders to make a lot of money. One way is the government (or government linked corporation like CapitaLand). Another way is to use religion like the New Creation Church. The third way is through charities like the old NKF.
This recent scandal is a combination of the last two where you have Buddhist monk Shi Ming Yi being arrested for financial irregularities. (Why would a monk need $20,000 a month?!) Well this is not the only thing the monk lied about. It seems that he also lied about his academic qualifications too! For a man who claims to follow a religion that denies the material world, he seems to follow it really well (money and ego). Skeptic finds this contradiction unfathomable, just like he doesn't understand pedophillic Catholic priests who renounced sexual pleasures.
So don't be fooled by external appearance. Just because some people wear robes (while others wear all white during elections) doesn't mean they can be trusted.
But this post is not about deception, this single incident is just a symptom of a bigger problem that plagues our society. There is little transparency and an entitlement mentality from our Government and it is this attitude that seems to filter down to the masses.
"However, when the core leadership is clean, corruption can be gradually diminished. Both must be prepared to take on the big ones in the highest echelons of the government. This is most painful to do, as I know from experience.Corruption has to be eradicated at all levels of government. But if there is corruption at the highest levels of a government, the problem can become intractable." Lee Kuan Yew (see link for full full speech)
Lee Kuan Yew hit the nail on the head when he said that bad habits become intractable when the people at the top practice them. If we see little transparency at the top, we'll see people hiding their accounting books at the bottom. If we see an entitlement mentality by our ministers at the top, we'll see a similar mentality by the directors of our charitable organisations. It is strange that Lee cannot see that this situation is also applicable to the current generation of PAP leaders.
Ren Ci Hospital wasn't the first charity scandal in Singapore and Skeptic predicts it won't be the last. The CAD is only a reactive tool that can be used to treat the symptoms when they flare up from time to time. The only way to remove the root cause of this problem is to tackle it at the top.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26406.1
In Singapore, there are three ways for leaders to make a lot of money. One way is the government (or government linked corporation like CapitaLand). Another way is to use religion like the New Creation Church. The third way is through charities like the old NKF.
This recent scandal is a combination of the last two where you have Buddhist monk Shi Ming Yi being arrested for financial irregularities. (Why would a monk need $20,000 a month?!) Well this is not the only thing the monk lied about. It seems that he also lied about his academic qualifications too! For a man who claims to follow a religion that denies the material world, he seems to follow it really well (money and ego). Skeptic finds this contradiction unfathomable, just like he doesn't understand pedophillic Catholic priests who renounced sexual pleasures.
So don't be fooled by external appearance. Just because some people wear robes (while others wear all white during elections) doesn't mean they can be trusted.
But this post is not about deception, this single incident is just a symptom of a bigger problem that plagues our society. There is little transparency and an entitlement mentality from our Government and it is this attitude that seems to filter down to the masses.
"However, when the core leadership is clean, corruption can be gradually diminished. Both must be prepared to take on the big ones in the highest echelons of the government. This is most painful to do, as I know from experience.Corruption has to be eradicated at all levels of government. But if there is corruption at the highest levels of a government, the problem can become intractable." Lee Kuan Yew (see link for full full speech)
Lee Kuan Yew hit the nail on the head when he said that bad habits become intractable when the people at the top practice them. If we see little transparency at the top, we'll see people hiding their accounting books at the bottom. If we see an entitlement mentality by our ministers at the top, we'll see a similar mentality by the directors of our charitable organisations. It is strange that Lee cannot see that this situation is also applicable to the current generation of PAP leaders.
Ren Ci Hospital wasn't the first charity scandal in Singapore and Skeptic predicts it won't be the last. The CAD is only a reactive tool that can be used to treat the symptoms when they flare up from time to time. The only way to remove the root cause of this problem is to tackle it at the top.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26406.1
‘Was I making any difference?’
‘Was I making any difference?’
He realises his viewscould influence juniorpolicymakers
Wednesday • April 8, 2009
Loh Chee Kong
HE WAS the first Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) to proclaim his intention to re-apply for a second term.
But as Mr Siew Kum Hong (picture) revealed, he “struggled” for months before coming to a decision because he kept asking himself the same question: Was he making any difference?
Mr Siew, 34, told Today: “I ask myself why am I doing all this?”
After an eventful two-year term that included a failed petition and futile objections to the recent changes to the Film’s Act, the staunch advocate of civil liberties believes he has found the answer, somewhat.
Optimistically, from his perspective, his views would influence “junior policymakers” who would shape government policies in time to come. At worst, his dissenting views would go down in the history books — or at least in the Hansard — in place of a “near-uniform chorus of voices in Parliament endorsing everything”.
Having had no inkling at all what to expect in Parliament, Mr Siew confessed that it did not take too long for the former lawyer, who is now a senior legal counsel for Yahoo! South-east Asia, to find himself in the thick of the action.
Memorable exchanges are aplenty, said Mr Siew, as he recalled how his calls for greater public spending to help the needy saw him labelled as “reckless” — and even “dangerous” — by some of the ministers.
“I had to be on my toes in a way that I haven’t been since I stopped going to court,” said Mr Siew.
Ruling out the possibility of joining any political party — because of various reasons, including his inability to “toe the party line” — Mr Siew revels in his role of challenging underlying assumptions and principles of Government policies.
“I actually made a very conscious decision to question the fundamentals ... if you want to talk about policy refinements, the PAP MPs would almost always do a better job than me,” said Mr Siew.
Which brings him back to his first conversation with the Prime Minister whenMr Lee Hsien Loong met the fresh batch of NMPs over lunch in May 2007.
Mr Siew said: “That was just after theParliamentary debate on the ministerial salaries. So I asked PM: ‘After all the debate ... nothing’s changed ... so what is the purpose?’”
According to Mr Siew, Mr Lee pointed out the primary function of Singapore MPs is to make a “political contribution” — which Mr Siew understands to mean “putting on record” what citizens feel — unlike their counterparts in the Western democracies who, with the help of their own policy staff, dissect the nuts and bolts of policies.
Taking PM’s stance “to heart”, it is something he “consciously bears in mind” these days.
In fact, it was partly what drove Mr Siew to start a petition to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code — which criminalises homosexual acts — even though he already knew what would be the outcome.
“I didn’t expect anything to change,” he said. Still, “if my role is to make a political contribution, then I will do my best to provide one,” Mr Siew added.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26280.1
Leong Sze Hian on pay rise survey
5 Minutes With… Leong Sze Hian on pay rise survey
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
On Tuesday, Channelnewsasia reported a survey conducted by London-based research ECA. The survey found that Singapore is placed 43rd out of 53 countries in terms of pay rise ranking for 2009. TOC spends five minutes with financial and statistical expert, Mr Leong Sze Hian, and asks him about the survey’s results and what it means for Singapore.
Question: CNA says: “Employees in Singapore will see some of the lowest pay rises this year compared to their counterparts in other places.” Out of 53 countries surveyed, Singapore is in the bottom 10 - at number 43. Why is this so?
Our open labour and “GDP growth focus” economic policies may have contributed to this. Also, we may have overdone the call to cut wages, have shorter work weeks, compulsory leave, retrain at lower wages, etc, to save jobs - leading to perhaps even companies that may not have contemplated doing so, under similar circumstances in past downturns, to in a sense follow the herd and trend.
Question: CNA says the pay rise for Singapore will only be 2%. How many workers in Singapore will actually see this rise? Or will most Singaporeans not see any rise at all?
As I understand that the 2% pay rise may be on average wages, as has been the case typically in the past, the median wage and more so the wages of the lower-income may not rise as much as average wage rise (2%), or even decline. In real terms, after adjusting for inflation, the number without or negative pay rise may be more.
Question: Does this result from the survey mean that the various schemes recently dished out by the government isn’t working?
The schemes are focused on saving jobs, rather than pay increase. So, the eagerly awaited unemployment data for the first quarter, may be a better indication of the effectiveness of the various schemes. If indeed unemployment increases a lot as well as a substantial drop in wages, then we may need to re-evaluate our strategies in the current recession.
Question: Singapore seems to be among the hardest hit in all the recent data on the economy. Why, exactly, is this so?
Perhaps an over reliance on exports, not doing enough to fight inflation by lowering costs, allowing high growth in lower-skilled, lower-wage foreign labour, over-focus on the GLC sector relative to SMEs, etc.
Question: While the survey only refers to pay rises, what about actual pay? How many workers have had their pay cut or will see a pay cut in 2009?
Perhaps the MOM could try to provide these statistics. Anecdotally, many may have lost their jobs, had wage cuts, shorter work weeks and compulsory leave which means a wage cut, retraining at lower wages, business declines for the self-employed, etc. As the recession continues, the numbers and extent of the cuts may increase. Are unemployed workers undergoing training counted as unemployed in the employment statistics?
Question: What would you recommend the government do?
Provide loans directly to SMEs instead of through the banks, stimulate spending by assuring Singaporeans that a minimum per capita financial assistance would be given to those severely affected, and provide a stipend for those undergoing retraining who need income to feed their families.
Provide more clarity and details in the employment statistics, which may help to minimise the anxiety and uncertainty that some Singaporeans may be grappling with, in the current deteriorating jobs environment.
Follow the fine example set by the Ministry of Health (MOH) for being the first agency to provide an update of the jobs (1,100 jobs) that have been taken up since the beginning of the year, and the number of vacancies (2,600 jobs) still available now.
It is also good that the WDA has given an update of the number of job seekers (35,000) who found employment through career centres at community development councils and WDA-supported programmes last year, and that more than 43,000 have already signed up for training under SPUR since its December launch.
It would be better if the WDA can give us an update on the number of jobs placed through WDA since the beginning of the year, and how many vacancies are still available, like the MOH.
Question: Is it true that employers are still hiring, as reported in the media?
Tens of thousands of jobs available have been reported in the media almost every other week since the year began.
For example, the Employment and Employability Institute (E2i) had 12,668 jobs available, more than 10,000 at the annual Careers Fair, 2,000 at the JobsDB Fair, a few thousand at various Community development Council (CDC) job fairs, etc.
Is there any double counting of jobs available?
Question: What other information do you think the government should provide to the public, in terms of employment?
In the light of the continuing economic downturn and job losses, I would like to suggest that a periodic monthly update of the jobs availability statistics be given.
I think it would be a boost to the morale of unemployed Singaporeans by letting them know the total number of jobs available, rather than just media reporting in drips and drabs.
For instance, how many of the jobs available that have been announced, have already been taken up? How many are left and still available? How many are new jobs available that have been added since the last announcement?
How many of the jobs are available now, versus those available in the future?
For example, how many of the 5,300 jobs in the two integrated resorts (IRs) may be paying salaries only when they open at the end of the year and next year?
What percentage of unemployed Professionals, Managers, Engineers and Technicians (PMETs) who undergo training are getting an allowance? What percentage are retraining without any income? What percentage have jobs waiting for them under the jobs matching scheme? How many are on the on-the-job training scheme?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26279.1
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
On Tuesday, Channelnewsasia reported a survey conducted by London-based research ECA. The survey found that Singapore is placed 43rd out of 53 countries in terms of pay rise ranking for 2009. TOC spends five minutes with financial and statistical expert, Mr Leong Sze Hian, and asks him about the survey’s results and what it means for Singapore.
Question: CNA says: “Employees in Singapore will see some of the lowest pay rises this year compared to their counterparts in other places.” Out of 53 countries surveyed, Singapore is in the bottom 10 - at number 43. Why is this so?
Our open labour and “GDP growth focus” economic policies may have contributed to this. Also, we may have overdone the call to cut wages, have shorter work weeks, compulsory leave, retrain at lower wages, etc, to save jobs - leading to perhaps even companies that may not have contemplated doing so, under similar circumstances in past downturns, to in a sense follow the herd and trend.
Question: CNA says the pay rise for Singapore will only be 2%. How many workers in Singapore will actually see this rise? Or will most Singaporeans not see any rise at all?
As I understand that the 2% pay rise may be on average wages, as has been the case typically in the past, the median wage and more so the wages of the lower-income may not rise as much as average wage rise (2%), or even decline. In real terms, after adjusting for inflation, the number without or negative pay rise may be more.
Question: Does this result from the survey mean that the various schemes recently dished out by the government isn’t working?
The schemes are focused on saving jobs, rather than pay increase. So, the eagerly awaited unemployment data for the first quarter, may be a better indication of the effectiveness of the various schemes. If indeed unemployment increases a lot as well as a substantial drop in wages, then we may need to re-evaluate our strategies in the current recession.
Question: Singapore seems to be among the hardest hit in all the recent data on the economy. Why, exactly, is this so?
Perhaps an over reliance on exports, not doing enough to fight inflation by lowering costs, allowing high growth in lower-skilled, lower-wage foreign labour, over-focus on the GLC sector relative to SMEs, etc.
Question: While the survey only refers to pay rises, what about actual pay? How many workers have had their pay cut or will see a pay cut in 2009?
Perhaps the MOM could try to provide these statistics. Anecdotally, many may have lost their jobs, had wage cuts, shorter work weeks and compulsory leave which means a wage cut, retraining at lower wages, business declines for the self-employed, etc. As the recession continues, the numbers and extent of the cuts may increase. Are unemployed workers undergoing training counted as unemployed in the employment statistics?
Question: What would you recommend the government do?
Provide loans directly to SMEs instead of through the banks, stimulate spending by assuring Singaporeans that a minimum per capita financial assistance would be given to those severely affected, and provide a stipend for those undergoing retraining who need income to feed their families.
Provide more clarity and details in the employment statistics, which may help to minimise the anxiety and uncertainty that some Singaporeans may be grappling with, in the current deteriorating jobs environment.
Follow the fine example set by the Ministry of Health (MOH) for being the first agency to provide an update of the jobs (1,100 jobs) that have been taken up since the beginning of the year, and the number of vacancies (2,600 jobs) still available now.
It is also good that the WDA has given an update of the number of job seekers (35,000) who found employment through career centres at community development councils and WDA-supported programmes last year, and that more than 43,000 have already signed up for training under SPUR since its December launch.
It would be better if the WDA can give us an update on the number of jobs placed through WDA since the beginning of the year, and how many vacancies are still available, like the MOH.
Question: Is it true that employers are still hiring, as reported in the media?
Tens of thousands of jobs available have been reported in the media almost every other week since the year began.
For example, the Employment and Employability Institute (E2i) had 12,668 jobs available, more than 10,000 at the annual Careers Fair, 2,000 at the JobsDB Fair, a few thousand at various Community development Council (CDC) job fairs, etc.
Is there any double counting of jobs available?
Question: What other information do you think the government should provide to the public, in terms of employment?
In the light of the continuing economic downturn and job losses, I would like to suggest that a periodic monthly update of the jobs availability statistics be given.
I think it would be a boost to the morale of unemployed Singaporeans by letting them know the total number of jobs available, rather than just media reporting in drips and drabs.
For instance, how many of the jobs available that have been announced, have already been taken up? How many are left and still available? How many are new jobs available that have been added since the last announcement?
How many of the jobs are available now, versus those available in the future?
For example, how many of the 5,300 jobs in the two integrated resorts (IRs) may be paying salaries only when they open at the end of the year and next year?
What percentage of unemployed Professionals, Managers, Engineers and Technicians (PMETs) who undergo training are getting an allowance? What percentage are retraining without any income? What percentage have jobs waiting for them under the jobs matching scheme? How many are on the on-the-job training scheme?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26279.1
Malaysian stimulus bigger than Singapore
Malaysian stimulus bigger than Singapore
Malaysia has a bigger stimulus package than Singapore, as this Wall Street Journal map shows. While Malaysia is spending $18.5 billion or 9.3 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), Singapore is spending $13.6 billion or 8 percent of its GDP. In GDP terms, Singapore has the third biggest stimulus package in the region, smaller only than China's and Malaysia's.
South Korea has the second biggest stimulus package in absolute terms, worth $53.1 billion, but in GDP terms it is the fourth biggest, at 6.8 percent.
China is spending $586 billion or 12 percent of its GDP.
The East Asia Summit beginning in Thailand this week will try to boost the region through regional cooperation.
But there is already trouble with Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's car attacked by demonstrators in Pattaya yesterday as he was leaving a cabinet meeting there. The demonstrators smashed the rear window but didn't cause any serious injuries, says the Wall Street Journal.
Is Singapore's Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam attending the regional finance ministers' meeting due to be held today? The Bangkok Post and the Nation are reporting mass anti-government protests by Thaksin's Red Shirts.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
Diplomats and economic analysts predict China, in particular, will attempt to shore up its growing clout on the global stage at the three-day regional leaders' meeting, which begins Friday at the Pattaya beach resort. Topics up for discussion include plans to lessen dependence on exports to the West by broadening regional free-trade agreements. The leaders also will discuss how to release funds from a proposed emergency cash stockpile valued at $120 billion.
China and Japan have indicated they will contribute the bulk of the funds to the planned $120 billion emergency fund, known as the Chiang Mai initiative.
The summit kicks off with regional finance ministers meeting on Wednesday before leaders of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations meet their counterparts from Japan, China, South Korea and India, beginning on Friday. They will be joined by leaders from Australia and New Zealand on Sunday for the broader East Asia Summit.
The heads of the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization and Asian Development Bank will also be in Thailand for a separate global dialogue with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
The regional summit was supposed to take place last year but was postponed because of long-running political conflicts in Thailand, which saw Bangkok's international airports taken over by antigovernment protesters. The newly formed government of Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva last month decided to host the East Asia summit in Pattaya, rather than Bangkok, to decrease chances it would be disrupted by protests. Pattaya, known for its racy nightlife, is about 150 kilometers southeast of the Thai capital.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26278.1
Malaysia has a bigger stimulus package than Singapore, as this Wall Street Journal map shows. While Malaysia is spending $18.5 billion or 9.3 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), Singapore is spending $13.6 billion or 8 percent of its GDP. In GDP terms, Singapore has the third biggest stimulus package in the region, smaller only than China's and Malaysia's.
South Korea has the second biggest stimulus package in absolute terms, worth $53.1 billion, but in GDP terms it is the fourth biggest, at 6.8 percent.
China is spending $586 billion or 12 percent of its GDP.
The East Asia Summit beginning in Thailand this week will try to boost the region through regional cooperation.
But there is already trouble with Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's car attacked by demonstrators in Pattaya yesterday as he was leaving a cabinet meeting there. The demonstrators smashed the rear window but didn't cause any serious injuries, says the Wall Street Journal.
Is Singapore's Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam attending the regional finance ministers' meeting due to be held today? The Bangkok Post and the Nation are reporting mass anti-government protests by Thaksin's Red Shirts.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
Diplomats and economic analysts predict China, in particular, will attempt to shore up its growing clout on the global stage at the three-day regional leaders' meeting, which begins Friday at the Pattaya beach resort. Topics up for discussion include plans to lessen dependence on exports to the West by broadening regional free-trade agreements. The leaders also will discuss how to release funds from a proposed emergency cash stockpile valued at $120 billion.
China and Japan have indicated they will contribute the bulk of the funds to the planned $120 billion emergency fund, known as the Chiang Mai initiative.
The summit kicks off with regional finance ministers meeting on Wednesday before leaders of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations meet their counterparts from Japan, China, South Korea and India, beginning on Friday. They will be joined by leaders from Australia and New Zealand on Sunday for the broader East Asia Summit.
The heads of the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization and Asian Development Bank will also be in Thailand for a separate global dialogue with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
The regional summit was supposed to take place last year but was postponed because of long-running political conflicts in Thailand, which saw Bangkok's international airports taken over by antigovernment protesters. The newly formed government of Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva last month decided to host the East Asia summit in Pattaya, rather than Bangkok, to decrease chances it would be disrupted by protests. Pattaya, known for its racy nightlife, is about 150 kilometers southeast of the Thai capital.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26278.1
Sell Singapore dollars, advises UBS
Sell Singapore dollars, advises UBS
Investors are being advised to sell Singapore dollars by the Swiss bank UBS, in which the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) has a big stake.
Investors should sell both the Singapore dollar and Malaysia’s ringgit against the dollar and the euro to profit from a forecast weakening of Singapore’s currency at a policy meeting next week, according to UBS AG, Bloomberg reported yesterday.
“The ringgit would be dragged along with the Singapore dollar if, as we expect, the Monetary Authority of Singapore eases the Singapore dollar monetary policy at the April 14 meeting,” Ashley Davies, a Singapore-based strategist at the world’s second-biggest currency trader, wrote in a research note. Given the Malaysian central bank’s “apparent guidance to keep the ringgit within a tight range against the Singapore dollar, this is also likely to weaken the ringgit.”
The Bloomberg currency calculator shows Singapore dollar has now fallen to about 1.51 Singapore dollars against the US dollar, down from about 1.50 Singapore dollars yesterday.
GIC invested a massive 11 billion euros in UBS in December 2007, according to the Straits Times.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26277.1
Investors are being advised to sell Singapore dollars by the Swiss bank UBS, in which the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) has a big stake.
Investors should sell both the Singapore dollar and Malaysia’s ringgit against the dollar and the euro to profit from a forecast weakening of Singapore’s currency at a policy meeting next week, according to UBS AG, Bloomberg reported yesterday.
“The ringgit would be dragged along with the Singapore dollar if, as we expect, the Monetary Authority of Singapore eases the Singapore dollar monetary policy at the April 14 meeting,” Ashley Davies, a Singapore-based strategist at the world’s second-biggest currency trader, wrote in a research note. Given the Malaysian central bank’s “apparent guidance to keep the ringgit within a tight range against the Singapore dollar, this is also likely to weaken the ringgit.”
The Bloomberg currency calculator shows Singapore dollar has now fallen to about 1.51 Singapore dollars against the US dollar, down from about 1.50 Singapore dollars yesterday.
GIC invested a massive 11 billion euros in UBS in December 2007, according to the Straits Times.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26277.1
Exploitation by the Elite
Thought for the day: Exploitation by the Elite
"The history of mankind is a history of the subjugation and exploitation of a great majority of people by an elite few by what has been appropriately termed the 'ruling class'. The ruling class has many manifestations. It can take the form of a religious orthodoxy, a monarchy, a dictatorship of the proletariat, outright fascism, or, in the case of the United States, corporate statism. In each instance the ruling class relies on academics, scholars and 'experts' to legitimize and provide moral authority for its hegemony over the masses." : Ed Crane
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power: Benito Mussolini
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26276.1
"The history of mankind is a history of the subjugation and exploitation of a great majority of people by an elite few by what has been appropriately termed the 'ruling class'. The ruling class has many manifestations. It can take the form of a religious orthodoxy, a monarchy, a dictatorship of the proletariat, outright fascism, or, in the case of the United States, corporate statism. In each instance the ruling class relies on academics, scholars and 'experts' to legitimize and provide moral authority for its hegemony over the masses." : Ed Crane
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power: Benito Mussolini
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26276.1
All from Singapore: The 10 highest paid politicians in the world
All from Singapore: The 10 highest paid politicians in the world
The 10 highest paid politicians in the world (US$)
1. Lee Hsien Loong - Singapore $2.47 million
Elected President SR Nathan - Singapore $2.57 million.
2. Donald Tsang Yum-Kuen - Hong Kong $516,000
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - Singapore $2.5 million.
3. Barack Obama - United States $400,000
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew - Singapore $2.3 million.
4. Brian Cowen - Ireland $341,000
Senior Minister Goh Chok Thong - Singapore $2.3 million.
5. Nicolas Sarkozy - France $318,000
Senior Minister S Jayakumar - Singapore $2.11 million.
6. Angela Merkel - Germany $303,000
Deputy Prime Minister & Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng - Singapore $1.91 million.
7. Gordon Brown - UK $279,000
Deputy Prime Minister & Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean - Singapore $1.91 million
8. Stephen Harper - Canada $246,000
Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo - Singapore $1.85 million.
9. Taro Aso - Japan $243,000
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan - Singapore $1.78 million.
Minister-without-portfolio Lim Boon Heng - Singapore $1.78 million.
Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang - Singapore $1.78 million.
10. Kevin Rudd - Australia $229,000
12. Minister-without-portfolio Lim Swee Say - Singapore $1.72 million.
Please note that the above figures - all in US$ - are basic salary and do not include pension (two-third of last drawn salary), which are paid concurrently to politicians above 55 yearse old i.e. SR Nathan, Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong etc. Also, bonus can go up to more than 12 months!
Finally, please note that the title of this post is not entirely accurate; Not only the top 10, but in fact, the top 30 are all from Singapore!
1. Lee Hsien Loong - Singapore $2.47 million
Elected President SR Nathan - Singapore $2.57 million.
2. Donald Tsang Yum-Kuen - Hong Kong $516,000
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - Singapore $2.5 million.
3. Barack Obama - United States $400,000
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew - Singapore $2.3 million.
4. Brian Cowen - Ireland $341,000
Senior Minister Goh Chok Thong - Singapore $2.3 million.
5. Nicolas Sarkozy - France $318,000
Senior Minister S Jayakumar - Singapore $2.11 million.
6. Angela Merkel - Germany $303,000
Deputy Prime Minister & Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng - Singapore $1.91 million.
7. Gordon Brown - UK $279,000
Deputy Prime Minister & Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean - Singapore $1.91 million
8. Stephen Harper - Canada $246,000
Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo - Singapore $1.85 million.
9. Taro Aso - Japan $243,000
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan - Singapore $1.78 million.
Minister-without-portfolio Lim Boon Heng - Singapore $1.78 million.
Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang - Singapore $1.78 million.
10. Kevin Rudd - Australia $229,000
12. Minister-without-portfolio Lim Swee Say - Singapore $1.72 million.
Please note that the above figures - all in US$ - are basic salary and do not include pension (two-third of last drawn salary), which are paid concurrently to politicians above 55 yearse old i.e. SR Nathan, Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong etc. Also, bonus can go up to more than 12 months!
Finally, please note that the title of this post is not entirely accurate; Not only the top 10, but in fact, the top 30 are all from Singapore!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26271.1
Defending the right to bonuses
Defending the right to bonuses
There’s a wise and ancient saying that goes like this “Even the lion will protect the wildebeest from the jackal”. It means that a man will defend something if it benefits him. Okay, there is no such saying. I totally made it up. But if it did exist it would be great saying. Another totally-great-but-made-up saying would be, “When the enemies are at the gates, the King and the Cardinal will become bosom buddies”. It means two natural adversaries will join forces when they face a common foe. Confucius has nothing on me.
The global financial crisis has hit home in more ways than one. Apart from the scores of retrenchment, dwindling consumer demands and diving stock markets, the financial crisis is also undermining some homespun rationale. A couple of days ago, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Lim Boon Heng stressed that ‘bonus’ should not be a ‘dirty word’ (The Straits Times, 5 April 2009). He went on to observe that
There has been great misunderstanding over what the word ‘bonus’ entails. You have to understand that in today’s context, companies’ bonuses are part and parcel of the overall wage package. We now operate differently from the past. So, let us not get overexcited whenever we see the word ‘bonus’ being used.
It’s very odd that a PAP Minister needs to urge Singaporeans not to begrudge corporate players their bonuses. Firstly, unlike Wall Street, Singapore has no experience of major financial mismanagement in the form of AIG, Bear Stearns, or Lehman Brothers. As Americans grow increasingly cynical with corporate culture, Singaporeans generally have faith in local financial institutions. Secondly, unlike Main Street, Singaporean taxpayers have not had to bail anyone out (on the scale of AIG). As such, the bitterness felt by Americans over the million dollar bonuses of bankers and executives is absent in Singapore. Thirdly, as a deeply meritocratic society, Singaporeans are the last to deny a fat pay check to a talented individual.
So why did Lim feel the need to rehabilitate the word ‘bonus’? Surely he must know that Singaporeans are not Main Street and Shenton Way is not Wall Street?
Or could his remarks be aimed at something else? The Wayang Party recently dug up news that a couple of officers from the People’s Association (a statutory board) received a whopping 8 month bonus. More pointedly, the Times (1 April 2009) ranked the highest paid politicians in the world and no prizes for guessing who came out tops. Following behind Singapore were the leaders of Hong Kong, US, Ireland, France, Germany, UK, Canada, Japan and Australia filling up 2nd to 10th place, respectively. Some local wit pointed out that the ranking was all wrong. The 30 best paid politicians in the world all came from Singapore!
At any other time, this would be dismissed as petty carping. During good economic times, few would bat an eye over ministerial salaries. After all, the evidence of economic growth was the ultimate KPI for ministers – so the rationale goes. But as folks lose their jobs, as Perm Secs get chastised for cooking classes, any hint of a big unwarranted pay check takes on greater political sensitivity. Furthermore, The Straits Times’s feature on the top CEO salaries in Singapore (2 April 2009) has added fuel to resentment if public reaction to the piece is anything to go by.
The echoing lesson from Wall Street is this. After years of rewarding the smartest guys with the best credentials to drive the economy, we now realize that the smartest guys may not necessarily be the best guys to do the job. Wall Street is learning that a credential-based meritocracy is not always the best way to go. This lesson is seeping into the consciousness of Singaporeans as they read about the paradigm shifts in corporate culture over in the US. With the rationale for our high ministerial salaries so informed by market logic and US corporate culture, it is no wonder that someone has come out to defend the right to bonuses.
Singapore is caught up in a tangle of contradictory forces. Our embrace of capitalism and globalisation has widened the wage gap. However, we refuse to implement minimum wage. And yet, we exhort Singaporeans not to engage in the politics of envy. There are many underlying tensions running through our society and if not managed well, its going to result in something unpleasant. In good times such tensions are hidden but in tough economic times it doesn’t take much for people to get upset. The government realises this and is out in force defending the status quo.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26270.1
There’s a wise and ancient saying that goes like this “Even the lion will protect the wildebeest from the jackal”. It means that a man will defend something if it benefits him. Okay, there is no such saying. I totally made it up. But if it did exist it would be great saying. Another totally-great-but-made-up saying would be, “When the enemies are at the gates, the King and the Cardinal will become bosom buddies”. It means two natural adversaries will join forces when they face a common foe. Confucius has nothing on me.
The global financial crisis has hit home in more ways than one. Apart from the scores of retrenchment, dwindling consumer demands and diving stock markets, the financial crisis is also undermining some homespun rationale. A couple of days ago, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Lim Boon Heng stressed that ‘bonus’ should not be a ‘dirty word’ (The Straits Times, 5 April 2009). He went on to observe that
There has been great misunderstanding over what the word ‘bonus’ entails. You have to understand that in today’s context, companies’ bonuses are part and parcel of the overall wage package. We now operate differently from the past. So, let us not get overexcited whenever we see the word ‘bonus’ being used.
It’s very odd that a PAP Minister needs to urge Singaporeans not to begrudge corporate players their bonuses. Firstly, unlike Wall Street, Singapore has no experience of major financial mismanagement in the form of AIG, Bear Stearns, or Lehman Brothers. As Americans grow increasingly cynical with corporate culture, Singaporeans generally have faith in local financial institutions. Secondly, unlike Main Street, Singaporean taxpayers have not had to bail anyone out (on the scale of AIG). As such, the bitterness felt by Americans over the million dollar bonuses of bankers and executives is absent in Singapore. Thirdly, as a deeply meritocratic society, Singaporeans are the last to deny a fat pay check to a talented individual.
So why did Lim feel the need to rehabilitate the word ‘bonus’? Surely he must know that Singaporeans are not Main Street and Shenton Way is not Wall Street?
Or could his remarks be aimed at something else? The Wayang Party recently dug up news that a couple of officers from the People’s Association (a statutory board) received a whopping 8 month bonus. More pointedly, the Times (1 April 2009) ranked the highest paid politicians in the world and no prizes for guessing who came out tops. Following behind Singapore were the leaders of Hong Kong, US, Ireland, France, Germany, UK, Canada, Japan and Australia filling up 2nd to 10th place, respectively. Some local wit pointed out that the ranking was all wrong. The 30 best paid politicians in the world all came from Singapore!
At any other time, this would be dismissed as petty carping. During good economic times, few would bat an eye over ministerial salaries. After all, the evidence of economic growth was the ultimate KPI for ministers – so the rationale goes. But as folks lose their jobs, as Perm Secs get chastised for cooking classes, any hint of a big unwarranted pay check takes on greater political sensitivity. Furthermore, The Straits Times’s feature on the top CEO salaries in Singapore (2 April 2009) has added fuel to resentment if public reaction to the piece is anything to go by.
The echoing lesson from Wall Street is this. After years of rewarding the smartest guys with the best credentials to drive the economy, we now realize that the smartest guys may not necessarily be the best guys to do the job. Wall Street is learning that a credential-based meritocracy is not always the best way to go. This lesson is seeping into the consciousness of Singaporeans as they read about the paradigm shifts in corporate culture over in the US. With the rationale for our high ministerial salaries so informed by market logic and US corporate culture, it is no wonder that someone has come out to defend the right to bonuses.
Singapore is caught up in a tangle of contradictory forces. Our embrace of capitalism and globalisation has widened the wage gap. However, we refuse to implement minimum wage. And yet, we exhort Singaporeans not to engage in the politics of envy. There are many underlying tensions running through our society and if not managed well, its going to result in something unpleasant. In good times such tensions are hidden but in tough economic times it doesn’t take much for people to get upset. The government realises this and is out in force defending the status quo.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26270.1
Politically motivated defamation suits hurt free speech and do serious damage to the national discourse
Politically motivated defamation suits hurt free speech and do serious damage to the national discourse
In his article entitled “Impact of defamation suits on the nature of electoral politics”, Mr Kelvin Teo attempts to make the spurious argument that defamation suits might improve the quality of political discourse by forcing concerned parties to focus on what he terms “pertinent issues”, as opposed to “character labelling of their rivals”.
Citing Mr Low Thia Khiang’s and Ms Sylvia Lim’s almost exclusive attention on bread-and-butter issues during the 2006 General Elections, such as the price increases for government-regulated services or the issue of means testing at hospitals, Mr Kelvin Teo asserts that if opposition groups focus these issues as a “safe bet” (in order to avoid being sued), “the PAP will also be forced back to the policy drawing board in addressing the opposition’s points”, and the electorate will be spared “all the taunting and colourful labelling”.
When I read Mr Teo’s article, I almost thought it was pulled directly from the Straits Times, or The New Paper, or one of their ilk, but alas, it was written by an NUS alumni, “one of my own kind”, so to speak. I was saddened.
I am not familiar enough with politics in neighbouring countries to comment on how politicians there employ defamation suits, but it is my honest stand that in Singapore, the ruling elite uses defamation suits not as a way of promoting civilized discourse or constructive commentary, but as a way of silencing political dissent that they deem a threat to their own power.
Far from promoting intelligent dialogue of national issues, the liberal use of politically motivated defamation suits injures free speech, does serious damage to the national discourse, and undermines our public institutions. The result is that constructive criticism itself becomes curtailed as individuals practise self-censorship out of fear rather than out of a sense of responsibility and a desire for credibility.
Defamation law certainly has a valid place in our legal system. Individuals and organizations sometimes need recourse to defamation law to protect their reputations and livelihood from unwarranted slander and unjust attacks. But when defamation law is used by the ruling elite not to defend a legitimate legal claim but to advance their own selfish political interests at the expense of the rights of others, that abuse must be highlighted and strongly denounced.
Responsible commentary should be promoted first and foremost by the use of community moderation and positive reinforcement rather than the blunt stick of the defamation suit. The latter should only be employed as a last resort when the perpetrator of the defamatory remarks clearly has no intention of acknowledging his error and insists on continuing his unjustified attacks regardless of the truth. To suggest that defamation suits are a valid means of promoting good dialogue is to regard citizens as politically and socially immature brats who are unable to exercise good judgment.
The use of politically motivated defamation suits do not lead people to think that the defendant is in the right and the alleged perpetrator must be in the wrong. Rather, they only serve to force resentment underground, increasing the internal stresses between citizens and Government that hurt the fabric of the political landscape and society as a whole.
As for Mr Teo’s claim that the PAP will be forced back to the drawing board in answering the points that opposition parties raise, I personally have yet to see the PAP back down or revise their policies in response to criticism or suggestions from the opposition.
More often than not, it is PAP MPs themselves who argue even more vociferously than the Opposition members in Parliament, only to be predictably given the cold shoulder by the key decision makers in cabinet. (SEE: Dr Lily Neo speaks out vociferously over aid for poorest households.)
The ruling party also sometimes co-opts ideas from Opposition parties without giving due credit to them. (SEE: PM and PAP MPs adopt SDP’s economic ideas.)
Finally, Mr Kelvin Teo’s article seems to imply that the likes of Dr Chee Soon Juan, J.B. Jeyaretnam and Tang Liang Hong were “thrown into the abyss of bankruptcy” because they are ”missionary school boys” who engaged in character assassination, taunting or colourful labelling.
I will simply let the truth speak for itself as I am now at a complete loss for words.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26264.1
In his article entitled “Impact of defamation suits on the nature of electoral politics”, Mr Kelvin Teo attempts to make the spurious argument that defamation suits might improve the quality of political discourse by forcing concerned parties to focus on what he terms “pertinent issues”, as opposed to “character labelling of their rivals”.
Citing Mr Low Thia Khiang’s and Ms Sylvia Lim’s almost exclusive attention on bread-and-butter issues during the 2006 General Elections, such as the price increases for government-regulated services or the issue of means testing at hospitals, Mr Kelvin Teo asserts that if opposition groups focus these issues as a “safe bet” (in order to avoid being sued), “the PAP will also be forced back to the policy drawing board in addressing the opposition’s points”, and the electorate will be spared “all the taunting and colourful labelling”.
When I read Mr Teo’s article, I almost thought it was pulled directly from the Straits Times, or The New Paper, or one of their ilk, but alas, it was written by an NUS alumni, “one of my own kind”, so to speak. I was saddened.
I am not familiar enough with politics in neighbouring countries to comment on how politicians there employ defamation suits, but it is my honest stand that in Singapore, the ruling elite uses defamation suits not as a way of promoting civilized discourse or constructive commentary, but as a way of silencing political dissent that they deem a threat to their own power.
Far from promoting intelligent dialogue of national issues, the liberal use of politically motivated defamation suits injures free speech, does serious damage to the national discourse, and undermines our public institutions. The result is that constructive criticism itself becomes curtailed as individuals practise self-censorship out of fear rather than out of a sense of responsibility and a desire for credibility.
Defamation law certainly has a valid place in our legal system. Individuals and organizations sometimes need recourse to defamation law to protect their reputations and livelihood from unwarranted slander and unjust attacks. But when defamation law is used by the ruling elite not to defend a legitimate legal claim but to advance their own selfish political interests at the expense of the rights of others, that abuse must be highlighted and strongly denounced.
Responsible commentary should be promoted first and foremost by the use of community moderation and positive reinforcement rather than the blunt stick of the defamation suit. The latter should only be employed as a last resort when the perpetrator of the defamatory remarks clearly has no intention of acknowledging his error and insists on continuing his unjustified attacks regardless of the truth. To suggest that defamation suits are a valid means of promoting good dialogue is to regard citizens as politically and socially immature brats who are unable to exercise good judgment.
The use of politically motivated defamation suits do not lead people to think that the defendant is in the right and the alleged perpetrator must be in the wrong. Rather, they only serve to force resentment underground, increasing the internal stresses between citizens and Government that hurt the fabric of the political landscape and society as a whole.
As for Mr Teo’s claim that the PAP will be forced back to the drawing board in answering the points that opposition parties raise, I personally have yet to see the PAP back down or revise their policies in response to criticism or suggestions from the opposition.
More often than not, it is PAP MPs themselves who argue even more vociferously than the Opposition members in Parliament, only to be predictably given the cold shoulder by the key decision makers in cabinet. (SEE: Dr Lily Neo speaks out vociferously over aid for poorest households.)
The ruling party also sometimes co-opts ideas from Opposition parties without giving due credit to them. (SEE: PM and PAP MPs adopt SDP’s economic ideas.)
Finally, Mr Kelvin Teo’s article seems to imply that the likes of Dr Chee Soon Juan, J.B. Jeyaretnam and Tang Liang Hong were “thrown into the abyss of bankruptcy” because they are ”missionary school boys” who engaged in character assassination, taunting or colourful labelling.
I will simply let the truth speak for itself as I am now at a complete loss for words.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26264.1
Rethinking the meritocratic education system - the case for welfare
Rethinking the meritocratic education system - the case for welfare
The Singapore government has long bragged that Singapore practises meritocratic values. After all, they award generous scholarships to those who excel academically and it’s often true these people have a bright future in the country. Indeed, a meritocratic model of governance seems like an ideal working model despite the criticism of some that it breeds elitism and turns academic life into a stressful rat’s race.
For some time, critics have warned that the criteria for meritocratic judgement cannot simply be academic performance (since straight-A scholars have been known to flunk real life tests), as well as the fact that smart students tend to come from families whose parents are already well-to-do and educated to begin with. Now a new line of reasoning may bolster the critics’ case.
The Washington Post published an article today reporting the results of a study showing that poverty impacts the cognitive facilities of the student and hence hinders academic performance:
“Children raised in poverty suffer many ill effects: They often have health problems and tend to struggle in school, which can create a cycle of poverty across generations.
Now, research is providing what could be crucial clues to explain how childhood poverty translates into dimmer chances of success: Chronic stress from growing up poor appears to have a direct impact on the brain, leaving children with impairment in at least one key area — working memory.”
Critics have long warned that Singapore’s over-emphasis on early indicators of academic performance of young students is premature, or that the economic situation of most of the lower-income families find themselves in often put these students under considerable duress which impedes their academic performance and hence lowers the likelihood that they could depend on good grades to pull their families out of poverty.
Now evidence exists to support such a view. Don’t be mistaken, though. I’m not claiming that neither the education ministry nor schools provide sufficient financial assistance to students in terms of subsidising school fees, giving away used textbooks etc. But what has been assumed implicitly was that the current meritocratic system offers everyone an equal to succeed so long as they performed well. Sadly, as the article shows, this isn’t necessarily the case. What apologists of the existing education system were mistaken on was the impression that so long as you give the child sufficient financial assistance for their education, they would be judged solely on their academic merits. If they can’t do well, it must be because they are lazy. Or if they aren’t lazy it may be due to the fact that intelligence may reside in hereditary factors. Unfortunately, a crucial factor was left unconsidered: stress.
“For the new study, Evans and a colleague rated the level of stress each child experienced using a scale known as “allostatic load.” The score was based on the results of tests the children were given when they were ages 9 and 13 to measure their levels of the stress hormones cortisol, epinephrine and norepinephrine, as well as their blood pressure and body mass index.
“These are all physiological indicators of stress,” said Evans, whose findings were published online last week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “The basic idea is this allows you to look at dysregulation resulting from stress across multiple physiological systems.”
“The subjects also underwent tests at age 17 to measure their working memory, which is the ability to remember information in the short term. Working memory is crucial for everyday activities as well as for forming long-term memories.”
“It’s critical for learning,” Evans said. “If you don’t have good working memory, you can’t do things like hold a phone number in your head or develop a vocabulary.”
When the researchers analyzed the relationships among how long the children lived in poverty, their allostatic load and their later working memory, they found a clear relationship: The longer they lived in poverty, the higher their allostatic load and the lower they tended to score on working-memory tests. Those who spent their entire childhood in poverty scored about 20 percent lower on working memory than those who were never poor, Evans said.
“The greater proportion of your childhood that your family spent in poverty, the poorer your working memory, and that link is largely explained by this chronic physiologic stress,” Evans said. “We put these things together and can say the reason we get this link between poverty and deficits in working memory is this chronic elevated stress.”
Indeed one may even argue that the meritocratic model of education may itself be exacerbating the problem, since children are placed under more stress to perform and succeed in Singapore’s highly competitive education system. At the same time, what has been done to alleviate the living conditions of children whose parents work in lowly blue collar jobs, earning the bare minimum without the benefit of a minimum wage? The government has long derided welfare as nothing more than a dirty word, but as the article shows, a lower standard of living and constant worry for the future well-being of the family may create the conditions which induces chronic stress which in turns impedes the ability of these students to do well. They are hence stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty.
Think of the children of elderly or middle-aged folks who collect cans and scavenge cardboard boxes for a living. Has their poor and low standard of living (along with uncertainty for their future) prevented them from succeeding academically? Or the children of blue-collar workers, whose parents are not guaranteed the social safety net of a minimum wage, and whose jobs are easily outsourced to the thousands of migrant workers who enter our country’s borders every year?
Indeed the article concludes:
The findings indicate that education standards and other government policies that aim to improve poor children’s performance in school should consider the stress they are experiencing at home, Evans said.
“It’s not just ‘Read to our kids and take them to the library,’ ” he said. “We need to take into account that chronic stress takes a toll not only on their health, but it may take a toll on their cognitive functioning.”
Much has been said about how the ruling party has long treated its citizens to be nothing more than worker ants, constantly reminded that academic success at a young age is crucial to climbing up to a higher level of the socio-economic ladder. Sadly, this may be nothing more than a pipe dream.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26263.1
The Singapore government has long bragged that Singapore practises meritocratic values. After all, they award generous scholarships to those who excel academically and it’s often true these people have a bright future in the country. Indeed, a meritocratic model of governance seems like an ideal working model despite the criticism of some that it breeds elitism and turns academic life into a stressful rat’s race.
For some time, critics have warned that the criteria for meritocratic judgement cannot simply be academic performance (since straight-A scholars have been known to flunk real life tests), as well as the fact that smart students tend to come from families whose parents are already well-to-do and educated to begin with. Now a new line of reasoning may bolster the critics’ case.
The Washington Post published an article today reporting the results of a study showing that poverty impacts the cognitive facilities of the student and hence hinders academic performance:
“Children raised in poverty suffer many ill effects: They often have health problems and tend to struggle in school, which can create a cycle of poverty across generations.
Now, research is providing what could be crucial clues to explain how childhood poverty translates into dimmer chances of success: Chronic stress from growing up poor appears to have a direct impact on the brain, leaving children with impairment in at least one key area — working memory.”
Critics have long warned that Singapore’s over-emphasis on early indicators of academic performance of young students is premature, or that the economic situation of most of the lower-income families find themselves in often put these students under considerable duress which impedes their academic performance and hence lowers the likelihood that they could depend on good grades to pull their families out of poverty.
Now evidence exists to support such a view. Don’t be mistaken, though. I’m not claiming that neither the education ministry nor schools provide sufficient financial assistance to students in terms of subsidising school fees, giving away used textbooks etc. But what has been assumed implicitly was that the current meritocratic system offers everyone an equal to succeed so long as they performed well. Sadly, as the article shows, this isn’t necessarily the case. What apologists of the existing education system were mistaken on was the impression that so long as you give the child sufficient financial assistance for their education, they would be judged solely on their academic merits. If they can’t do well, it must be because they are lazy. Or if they aren’t lazy it may be due to the fact that intelligence may reside in hereditary factors. Unfortunately, a crucial factor was left unconsidered: stress.
“For the new study, Evans and a colleague rated the level of stress each child experienced using a scale known as “allostatic load.” The score was based on the results of tests the children were given when they were ages 9 and 13 to measure their levels of the stress hormones cortisol, epinephrine and norepinephrine, as well as their blood pressure and body mass index.
“These are all physiological indicators of stress,” said Evans, whose findings were published online last week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “The basic idea is this allows you to look at dysregulation resulting from stress across multiple physiological systems.”
“The subjects also underwent tests at age 17 to measure their working memory, which is the ability to remember information in the short term. Working memory is crucial for everyday activities as well as for forming long-term memories.”
“It’s critical for learning,” Evans said. “If you don’t have good working memory, you can’t do things like hold a phone number in your head or develop a vocabulary.”
When the researchers analyzed the relationships among how long the children lived in poverty, their allostatic load and their later working memory, they found a clear relationship: The longer they lived in poverty, the higher their allostatic load and the lower they tended to score on working-memory tests. Those who spent their entire childhood in poverty scored about 20 percent lower on working memory than those who were never poor, Evans said.
“The greater proportion of your childhood that your family spent in poverty, the poorer your working memory, and that link is largely explained by this chronic physiologic stress,” Evans said. “We put these things together and can say the reason we get this link between poverty and deficits in working memory is this chronic elevated stress.”
Indeed one may even argue that the meritocratic model of education may itself be exacerbating the problem, since children are placed under more stress to perform and succeed in Singapore’s highly competitive education system. At the same time, what has been done to alleviate the living conditions of children whose parents work in lowly blue collar jobs, earning the bare minimum without the benefit of a minimum wage? The government has long derided welfare as nothing more than a dirty word, but as the article shows, a lower standard of living and constant worry for the future well-being of the family may create the conditions which induces chronic stress which in turns impedes the ability of these students to do well. They are hence stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty.
Think of the children of elderly or middle-aged folks who collect cans and scavenge cardboard boxes for a living. Has their poor and low standard of living (along with uncertainty for their future) prevented them from succeeding academically? Or the children of blue-collar workers, whose parents are not guaranteed the social safety net of a minimum wage, and whose jobs are easily outsourced to the thousands of migrant workers who enter our country’s borders every year?
Indeed the article concludes:
The findings indicate that education standards and other government policies that aim to improve poor children’s performance in school should consider the stress they are experiencing at home, Evans said.
“It’s not just ‘Read to our kids and take them to the library,’ ” he said. “We need to take into account that chronic stress takes a toll not only on their health, but it may take a toll on their cognitive functioning.”
Much has been said about how the ruling party has long treated its citizens to be nothing more than worker ants, constantly reminded that academic success at a young age is crucial to climbing up to a higher level of the socio-economic ladder. Sadly, this may be nothing more than a pipe dream.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26263.1
The Ming Yi fiasco: a sombre lesson in a system which relies on “trust”
The Ming Yi fiasco: a sombre lesson in a system which relies on “trust”
I was absolutely dumbfounded when I read in the Straits Times that the management committee of one of Singapore’s largest charities - Ren Ci did not know how much they were paying their chief executive. (read article here)
They could have asked, admitted Ren Ci Hospital’s committee member Chan Ching Oi, but they did not.
Instead, they let its CEO and founder Ming Yi decide on what he deemed to be a ‘fair’ salary, Mrs Chan said on the witness stand yesterday, while testifying on the third day of a criminal trial against the Buddhist monk.
Ren Ci is the second largest charity in Singapore which was set up by the charismatic Ming Yi in 1991.
How can a charity which deals with millions of dollars of donations from the public be so sloppy and careless when it comes to corporate governance?
Mrs Chan’s lame defence that Ren Ci’s focus in the first decade had been to ‘get things done’, with less emphasis on corporate governance issues does not exonerate her or fellow directors on the management committee from blame.
As much as Ming Yi is culpable for the mess Ren Ci is in now, the directors should be held responsible for being negligent in the discharge of their duties and failure to detect deficiencies within the system.
Mrs Chan, who has been Ren Ci’s honorary secretary since it started in 1994, admitted she did not know how much Ming Yi’s salary was and that the management did not pry into it.
She said the committee trusted Ming Yi would give himself a reasonable salary, pegged to that of other hospital CEOs and also based on the scope of work undertaken by him for the hospital.
Ren Ci’s management committee might have refrained from asking Ming Yi to reveal his salary out of respect for him. He was after all a highly venerated buddhist monk in Singapore before the fiasco broke out.
Ren Ci’s donors, patients, staff and directors all trusted Ming Yi. He had worked tirelessly to build Ren Ci to its present state from nothing. His name was synonymous with Ren Ci and he was its largest fund raiser, having risked his life performing dangerous stunts in charity shows. Who would expect him to raise fix his own salary and to raise it arbitrarily without discussing with anybody?
The Ming Yi fiasco has proven to Singaporeans again beyond doubt that a system which relies on trust alone is a faulty one open to abuse. When there are no checks and balances in the system, a powerful, charistmatic or influential leader will be given a blank cheque to run the organization without having to account to anybody. And that lies the real danger. Can we expect human beings to check on themselves?
Had Ren Ci instituted a proper system to ensure its CEO answer to the Board of Directors, Ming Yi would not have been tempted to make such a blunder in the first place. He should know his actions were wrong, but he still went ahead because nobody would find out.
When it comes to managing the nation’s treasury which is a million times more than Ren Ci’s funds, all more should there be stringent measures put in place to ensure that the people in charge of it are held accountable.
No man is above Singapore, even if he is the nation’s founding father who had made tremendous contributions to its growth and development. Can our present system stand up to scrutiny?
Our two sovereign wealth funds - Temasek and GIC are supposed to manage our country’s reserves. They are owned by the Ministry of Finance.
Both funds are run by a Board of Directors like any other corporate companies. However, we have no idea about the following:
1. Who is responsible for deciding the pay and bonuses of these directors and executives?
2. What are their salaries, bonuses and perks?
3. Do these executives hold directorships in other companies?
These are legitimate questions which every Singaporean ought to ask the government. Unfortunately, it is unlikely we will obtain an answer from the Minister of Finance Tharman who appears to favor a system based on “trust”.
Let us recap this exchange between Inderjit Singh and Tharman on 5 February 2009 in Parliament on the hasty approval of the use of our reserves by the President:
Inderjit Singh:
What’s missing is the process that the President took after he got briefed by the government. If we could get a sense of what they discussed and what process they went through to decide, then this may clear many of these questions.”
Tharman:
“I’m not sure why it is relevant. At the end of the day, this is a system that is different from Norway and Australia, where as much detail as possible is provided. This is a system that relies on trust in the individuals who are in charge including those appointed to the CPA and the Elected President. Do you trust them? Have they made decisions wisely? Has the government been acting responsibly?”
Does Mr Tharman have trust in the individuals who are in charge of Temasek and GIC now? Having trust in one another is a matter of personal conviction. It should not be confused with accountability and transparency.
As the minister in charge of managing the nation’s treasury, Minister Tharman should know that “trust” is not enough to ensure that our precious reserves are properly managed.
A system which does not hold leaders accountable for their actions is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode upon us. Who can promise that the leaders in the future will be as honest and incorruptible as the present generation?
Human nature is unpredictable. People do change. Rules and regulations can be bent at will easily too. Only a system having multiple layers of checks and balances will prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of one person or group which will keep possible abuses to a minimum.
There is no reason why Temasek and GIC cannot subject themselves to external audits. In fact, the Ministry of Finance should engage a reputable accounting firm to audit their accounts on a yearly basis and publish the report online for the public to see.
Ren Ci had taught us another sombre lesson in the fallacy that “trust” in individuals alone will make the government act responsibly. Trust must be based on having adequate checks and balances in the system to hold the executive accountable for its actions without which it is merely a hollow word with no significance.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26262.1
I was absolutely dumbfounded when I read in the Straits Times that the management committee of one of Singapore’s largest charities - Ren Ci did not know how much they were paying their chief executive. (read article here)
They could have asked, admitted Ren Ci Hospital’s committee member Chan Ching Oi, but they did not.
Instead, they let its CEO and founder Ming Yi decide on what he deemed to be a ‘fair’ salary, Mrs Chan said on the witness stand yesterday, while testifying on the third day of a criminal trial against the Buddhist monk.
Ren Ci is the second largest charity in Singapore which was set up by the charismatic Ming Yi in 1991.
How can a charity which deals with millions of dollars of donations from the public be so sloppy and careless when it comes to corporate governance?
Mrs Chan’s lame defence that Ren Ci’s focus in the first decade had been to ‘get things done’, with less emphasis on corporate governance issues does not exonerate her or fellow directors on the management committee from blame.
As much as Ming Yi is culpable for the mess Ren Ci is in now, the directors should be held responsible for being negligent in the discharge of their duties and failure to detect deficiencies within the system.
Mrs Chan, who has been Ren Ci’s honorary secretary since it started in 1994, admitted she did not know how much Ming Yi’s salary was and that the management did not pry into it.
She said the committee trusted Ming Yi would give himself a reasonable salary, pegged to that of other hospital CEOs and also based on the scope of work undertaken by him for the hospital.
Ren Ci’s management committee might have refrained from asking Ming Yi to reveal his salary out of respect for him. He was after all a highly venerated buddhist monk in Singapore before the fiasco broke out.
Ren Ci’s donors, patients, staff and directors all trusted Ming Yi. He had worked tirelessly to build Ren Ci to its present state from nothing. His name was synonymous with Ren Ci and he was its largest fund raiser, having risked his life performing dangerous stunts in charity shows. Who would expect him to raise fix his own salary and to raise it arbitrarily without discussing with anybody?
The Ming Yi fiasco has proven to Singaporeans again beyond doubt that a system which relies on trust alone is a faulty one open to abuse. When there are no checks and balances in the system, a powerful, charistmatic or influential leader will be given a blank cheque to run the organization without having to account to anybody. And that lies the real danger. Can we expect human beings to check on themselves?
Had Ren Ci instituted a proper system to ensure its CEO answer to the Board of Directors, Ming Yi would not have been tempted to make such a blunder in the first place. He should know his actions were wrong, but he still went ahead because nobody would find out.
When it comes to managing the nation’s treasury which is a million times more than Ren Ci’s funds, all more should there be stringent measures put in place to ensure that the people in charge of it are held accountable.
No man is above Singapore, even if he is the nation’s founding father who had made tremendous contributions to its growth and development. Can our present system stand up to scrutiny?
Our two sovereign wealth funds - Temasek and GIC are supposed to manage our country’s reserves. They are owned by the Ministry of Finance.
Both funds are run by a Board of Directors like any other corporate companies. However, we have no idea about the following:
1. Who is responsible for deciding the pay and bonuses of these directors and executives?
2. What are their salaries, bonuses and perks?
3. Do these executives hold directorships in other companies?
These are legitimate questions which every Singaporean ought to ask the government. Unfortunately, it is unlikely we will obtain an answer from the Minister of Finance Tharman who appears to favor a system based on “trust”.
Let us recap this exchange between Inderjit Singh and Tharman on 5 February 2009 in Parliament on the hasty approval of the use of our reserves by the President:
Inderjit Singh:
What’s missing is the process that the President took after he got briefed by the government. If we could get a sense of what they discussed and what process they went through to decide, then this may clear many of these questions.”
Tharman:
“I’m not sure why it is relevant. At the end of the day, this is a system that is different from Norway and Australia, where as much detail as possible is provided. This is a system that relies on trust in the individuals who are in charge including those appointed to the CPA and the Elected President. Do you trust them? Have they made decisions wisely? Has the government been acting responsibly?”
Does Mr Tharman have trust in the individuals who are in charge of Temasek and GIC now? Having trust in one another is a matter of personal conviction. It should not be confused with accountability and transparency.
As the minister in charge of managing the nation’s treasury, Minister Tharman should know that “trust” is not enough to ensure that our precious reserves are properly managed.
A system which does not hold leaders accountable for their actions is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode upon us. Who can promise that the leaders in the future will be as honest and incorruptible as the present generation?
Human nature is unpredictable. People do change. Rules and regulations can be bent at will easily too. Only a system having multiple layers of checks and balances will prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of one person or group which will keep possible abuses to a minimum.
There is no reason why Temasek and GIC cannot subject themselves to external audits. In fact, the Ministry of Finance should engage a reputable accounting firm to audit their accounts on a yearly basis and publish the report online for the public to see.
Ren Ci had taught us another sombre lesson in the fallacy that “trust” in individuals alone will make the government act responsibly. Trust must be based on having adequate checks and balances in the system to hold the executive accountable for its actions without which it is merely a hollow word with no significance.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26262.1
Mindef clarifies Allan Ooi's bond
April 8, 2009
SAF doctor found dead
Mindef clarifies doc's bond
| By Jermyn Chow | ||
 |  | Singapore Armed Forces Captain (Dr) Allan Ooi, 27, was found dead under the Westgate Bridge in the South Australian city of Melbourne on 3 March 2009. --PHOTO: FACEBOOK |
In a letter to the media on Tuesday, the ministry said it would have preferred to keep such exchanges private out of respect for Capt (Dr) Ooi and his family. However, it said an earlier letter by the family had raised 'several issues', and it was necessary to clarify them.
Among them, said Mindef spokesman Darius Lim, was the three-year bond Capt (Dr) Ooi had to serve after he was sent for a six-month stint in aviation medicine in London in January last year.
In a letter to the press last week, the family claimed that this bond was to be served on top of the Republic of Singapore Air Force medical officer's 12-year medicine scholarship bond - in effect, making it a three-year bond for a six-month course.
However, Colonel Lim said yesterday that this was untrue. He said the bonds were to be served concurrently, and this was explained to Capt (Dr) Ooi when he signed the contract in December 2007 before flying off to London. In fact, two of his family members signed the contract as his sureties.
Added Col Lim: 'Mindef also sent Capt (Dr) Ooi an e-mail to confirm this. He acknowledged receiving the mail.'
When the SAF scholarship holder returned from his London training stint last July, he had told his superior at the Aeromedical Centre that he was unhappy at work and wanted out of the SAF.
About a month later - on Aug 12, not in July, as his family had said - Capt (Dr) Ooi wrote to the Head of Manpower at Headquarters Medical Corps, expressing his intention to quit.
On Aug 20, the Head of Manpower replied, and explained how to apply for an early release.
But Capt (Dr) Ooi did not submit an application, said Col Lim. On Oct 3, the doctor's superior offered him the option of a 'posting to an appointment of his choice'.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26237.2
Death of SAF doctor Allan Ooi: Mindef replies to family's letter
Death of SAF doctor: Mindef replies to family's letter
WE REFER to last Thursday's letter from the family of the late Captain (Dr) Allan Ooi, 'Family of dead SAF doctor seeks answers'.
Mindef would have preferred to keep the exchanges private, out of respect for the late Capt (Dr) Ooi and his family.
As the letter has raised several matters, it is necessary for Mindef to provide some factual clarifications.
The six-month Aviation Medicine course that Capt (Dr) Ooi attended in Britain from January last year had a three-year bond, to be served concurrently with his 12-year Local Study Award (Medicine) bond.
This was explained to Capt (Dr) Ooi when he and his two sureties signed the course deed on Dec 19, 2007, before he left for Britain.
Mindef also sent Capt (Dr) Ooi an e-mail to confirm this. He acknowledged receiving the e-mail. It is thus untrue that his 12-year bond would be 'prolonged by another three years for one six-month course'.
After he returned from Britain last year, he told his superior at the Aeromedical Centre on July 23 that he was unhappy at work and wanted to leave the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).
Mindef's records show that Capt (Dr) Ooi had written to the Head of Manpower at Headquarters Medical Corps on Aug 12 last year and not 'July 2008', expressing his wish to resign.
The Head of Manpower replied on Aug 20, explaining to him the application process for early release. But Capt (Dr) Ooi did not apply for early release.
On Oct 3, his superior interviewed him and offered him the option of posting to an appointment of his choice. Capt (Dr) Ooi thanked his superior and promised to respond in two weeks. But he did not do so and went Absent Without Official Leave (Awol) on Oct 15.
Officers sponsored by the SAF know that they have a moral obligation to serve out the full period of their bonds, which goes beyond the legal obligation to pay the liquidated damages if the bond is broken.
Substantial public funds have been invested in their training. They are, in turn, expected to do their duty unless prevented from doing so because of extenuating circumstances, like medical reasons.
The family of the late Capt (Dr) Ooi asked for an inquiry into Mindef's policies and processes on the premise that this would avert a similar tragedy.
Mindef convened a Board of Inquiry on March 11, which concluded that matters related to the late Capt (Dr) Ooi's service with the SAF were managed appropriately.
While the late Capt (Dr) Ooi was unhappy with his job and had wished to resign, he subsequently went Awol even though he had been told of other possible job options.
Mindef will continue to be as open and helpful as possible to the family of the late Capt (Dr) Ooi and also provide the facts of the case to the public while respecting the privacy of the family.
Colonel Darius Lim
Director Public Affairs
Ministry of Defence
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26237.1
WE REFER to last Thursday's letter from the family of the late Captain (Dr) Allan Ooi, 'Family of dead SAF doctor seeks answers'.
Mindef would have preferred to keep the exchanges private, out of respect for the late Capt (Dr) Ooi and his family.
As the letter has raised several matters, it is necessary for Mindef to provide some factual clarifications.
The six-month Aviation Medicine course that Capt (Dr) Ooi attended in Britain from January last year had a three-year bond, to be served concurrently with his 12-year Local Study Award (Medicine) bond.
This was explained to Capt (Dr) Ooi when he and his two sureties signed the course deed on Dec 19, 2007, before he left for Britain.
Mindef also sent Capt (Dr) Ooi an e-mail to confirm this. He acknowledged receiving the e-mail. It is thus untrue that his 12-year bond would be 'prolonged by another three years for one six-month course'.
After he returned from Britain last year, he told his superior at the Aeromedical Centre on July 23 that he was unhappy at work and wanted to leave the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).
Mindef's records show that Capt (Dr) Ooi had written to the Head of Manpower at Headquarters Medical Corps on Aug 12 last year and not 'July 2008', expressing his wish to resign.
The Head of Manpower replied on Aug 20, explaining to him the application process for early release. But Capt (Dr) Ooi did not apply for early release.
On Oct 3, his superior interviewed him and offered him the option of posting to an appointment of his choice. Capt (Dr) Ooi thanked his superior and promised to respond in two weeks. But he did not do so and went Absent Without Official Leave (Awol) on Oct 15.
Officers sponsored by the SAF know that they have a moral obligation to serve out the full period of their bonds, which goes beyond the legal obligation to pay the liquidated damages if the bond is broken.
Substantial public funds have been invested in their training. They are, in turn, expected to do their duty unless prevented from doing so because of extenuating circumstances, like medical reasons.
The family of the late Capt (Dr) Ooi asked for an inquiry into Mindef's policies and processes on the premise that this would avert a similar tragedy.
Mindef convened a Board of Inquiry on March 11, which concluded that matters related to the late Capt (Dr) Ooi's service with the SAF were managed appropriately.
While the late Capt (Dr) Ooi was unhappy with his job and had wished to resign, he subsequently went Awol even though he had been told of other possible job options.
Mindef will continue to be as open and helpful as possible to the family of the late Capt (Dr) Ooi and also provide the facts of the case to the public while respecting the privacy of the family.
Colonel Darius Lim
Director Public Affairs
Ministry of Defence
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26237.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)