Friday, April 17, 2009
Singapore Government need to do more on Data Privacy
For some time, I am concerned about data privacy in Singapore. Unlike in UK where I lived for 7 years, there seems to be a disregard by corporations with regards to data privacy of the consumers or users of any form of service. Recently, I was so fed up with some banks calling me to take on additional credit (which I have no interest nor intention to take on) that I requested to get my name off their calling list. Sometimes, I wonder where they got my information from (and not likely from Facebook since I set tight privacy controls). Here is the more interesting news I heard from a friend recently about how easy security lapses happen in websites.
Here's the problem: Using Google search, you can find the user name and password of a system administrator of an educational institution (say, a secondary school). Consequently, a spammer armed with such information can easily manipulate the server to send spam messages. The problem is that we have no even reached the realm of hacking, spyware or virus to get such information leakage. I am glad that there is a Singapore Security Meetup Group (SSMG) to perform such tests to show how little effort most organizations and corporations spent on dealing with information leakages. If you find any security lapses with organizations leaking data, you can go to this website (Because i Matter - a Singaporean-based site on getting people to report on security using a Ning social network) to report it.
In fact, I just read today that NUS has beef up their security because of their alumni data lost. I think that it's important for the government start looking into protection of users' privacy with better enterprise security solutions.
Here is what I think that the Singapore Government need to do more about:
* Giving Singaporeans a method to be unsubscribe from the telemarketers' list. In the US, you can register your number onto a list where you are free from being spammed by telemarketers.
* Protecting information leakages in our government agencies and educational institutions. At least, do not allow files about particulars of users being accessed from a Google search.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27436.1
Govt retains ban on Zahari's 17 Years
The Government has retained the ban on Zahari's 17 Years.
In a letter hand-delivered to my home yesterday, the Board of Film Censors (BFC) said that the recent Films Act amendments did not cover Section 35 and that the Minister has not changed his position on the film.
The letter also stated that the Films (Amendment) Act is not yet in force and suggested that I resubmit Singapore Rebel after the Act comes into force.
A summary of the ratings made by BFC on my recent submissions of six films. Read my earlier letter here.
1. Singapore Rebel (2009) No decision. To resubmit.
2. Zahari's 17 Years (2009) Banned retained.
3. Speakers Cornered (2009) No change. Passed NC16.
4. One Nation Under Lee No decision. To resubmit
5. Success Stories : Lee Kuan Yew No change. Passed PG.
6. Riding The Tiger No change. Exempted under section 40.
The Government's letter in full here
No change to status of six movies
Singapore News // Weekend, April 18, 2009
THERE will be no change, for now, to the status of the six films submitted by film-maker Martyn See to the Media Development Authority (MDA).
.
As a “test” of the liberalisation of the Films Act, Mr See had re-submitted three of his films and three from other film-makers to the MDA for re-classification, on March 31.
.
However, MDA’s written reply on Thursday said the “2009 amendments to the Films Acts are not yet in force”, and advised Mr See to “re-submit them after the amendments come into force”.
.
The disappointed film-maker said he had sent in his films “with the intention they would review them based on the new ruling”.
.
He will re-submit Singapore Rebel and One Nation Under Lee after the amendments come into effect, he said, and “hopefully it will be passed and legalised, and Singaporeans can judge and decide for themselves what to watch and what should not be allowed”.
.
However, Mr See will “not pursue” his bid to un-ban the film Zahari’s 17 Years, which is prohibited under Section 35(1) of the Films Act for being contrary to the public interest.
.
The MDA said in its letter, the upcoming amendments to the Act “do not relate to Section 35(1) and the Minister has not changed his opinion”.
ALICIA WONG
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27427.1
DBS Goes Pink?
Development Bank of Singapore’s (DBS) record of public relations disasters is the stuff of legends. It ranges from CEO Phillippe Paillart’s fake MBA, safe deposit boxes dumped in Hongkong, botched hostile takeover of a local bank, to the recent Thursday 9 April press release that CEO Richard Stanley was ready to return to work (and his subsequent demise on a Saturday morning).
And now the bank, fresh from a bruising over selling Lehman tainted products, is diving head first into the internal brawl of a women’s advocacy group.
Specifically, DBS accused Josie Lau, appointed president of AWARE, of “knowingly disregarded” it’s staff code of conduct twice. Ms Lau did inform the bank when she was appointed to the AWARE executive committee (for which she sought and obtained the bank’s support), and when she set her sights for the president position. DBS took exception to the latter and claimed “we could not support her intent to run for president, given the demands associated with the top post of a leading advocacy group in Singapore.” With the agenda of the new AWARE committee yet to be settled, nobody really knows how busy she will be. But DBS Holdings chairman Koh Boon Hwee is executive director of MediaRing and sits on the boards of Sunningdale, NTU Board of Trustees, Temasek Holdings, Agilent Technologies and Hewlett Foundation. He even took over the daily running of Singapore’s largest commercial bank when Stanley was on medical leave. Is multi-tasking restricted only to male executives in the Singapore private sector? (Some politicians already confessed they can’t handle more than two opposition members in parliament)
DBS took a PR hit a again last year when it chose Focus on the Family as the beneficiary of a charity drive, a group associated with a conservative Christian stand against abortion and homosexuality. Ms Lau’s scapegoat division happened to be assigned the role of recommending a charity for DBS to support. The jury is still out on the hidden agenda of the new AWARE, but DBS’s corporate logo may just shift from bright red to a shade of pink. After all, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong did tell Time magazine in 2003, “In the past, if we know you’re gay, we would not employ you. But we just changed this quietly.”
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27424.1
DBS Shares Rally despite the Passing of Richard Stanley
As DBS staff bid their final farewell to chief executive Richard Stanley, who died of leukemia last Saturday, the shares of Singapore’s biggest bank continued to rally. DBS stock price continued its rise, even as Mr. Stanley’s cortege passed through Shenton Way this afternoon. This is despite the fact that in the last four months, it has been Mr. Koh Boon Hwee, Chairman of DBS and a non-banker, who has been steering the DBS ship amidst Stanley’s absence and Singapore’s steepest recession.
DBS’ stock rise comes amidst a broader market rally. It is thus not clear if the stock rise indicates that investors are placing confidence in the bank’s chairman, or if it is a simply a stock movement in tandem with the broader market. The DBS board, nevertheless, feels that Mr Koh is worth his weight in gold.
In comparison to Mr. Stanley who was paid almost $5 million for eight months of work in 2008, Mr. Koh has received $2 million in ’special remuneration’ from DBS for assuming an ‘active management oversight’ role from Jan 1 to April 30 last year. Mr. Koh has since donated this $2 million to charitable causes, but looks set to continue to receive this ‘special remuneration’ while the board searches for a successor.
Meanwhile, there is no pressure coming from political circles to expedite the process of leadership replacement. Tharman Shanmugaratnam has been quoted in the press as saying that DBS should not rush to find a new CEO. That is probably because the DBS board is itself staffed with ‘supermen,’ according to one DBS shareholder. That shareholder was referring to DBS director Christopher Cheng who sits on the boards of 152 companies.
Analysts have said that DBS may take a while to find a new CEO who can lead the bank through what has become the sharpest global economic downturn in decades. Indeed, the global downturn has hit export-oriented economies like Singapore particularly hard. Those who thought that the dismal 2008 fourth quarter GDP results were a flash in the pan were clearly in for a shock. On a seasonally annualized basis, real 2009 Q1 GDP contracted by 19.7% compared to the previous quarter, even worse than the 16.4% contraction in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Compared to the Q1 2008, MTI expects Q1 2009 real GDP to contract by 11.5%, more than twice the 4.2% contraction registered in the last quarter. MTI’s earlier forecasts had factored in the possibility of a weak quarter, now it is clear that those forecasts were woefully over optimistic. Hardest hit is the manufacturing industry, estimated to have contracted a whopping -29% in the first quarter. The manufacturing decline was led by the electronics and precision engineering segments, but chemicals and biomedical manufacturing also saw large declines.
Trade growth projections in 2009 have been revised downwards from between -19% and -17% to a staggering drop of between -25% and -22%. This comes in tandem with the weak global economic outlook, as forecast by organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD. Hence, it is thus not a surprise that the MTI has reduced its economic growth forecast for 2009 to -6.0% to -9.0%.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27178.1
More than meets the eye behind NEA’s reluctance to take action against Geylang Serai market’s management committee
Based on the media reports so far, one can easily conclude that the Geylang Serai market’s management committee have neglected its duties on at least two counts:
1. Failure to call for spring-cleaning of the premises only until last week in the aftermath of the mass food poisoning.
2. Failure to maintain basic standards of environmental hygiene at the premises which were infested with rats.
NEA has long insisted that it is in charge for the hygiene of permanent markets only.
In the case of temporary markets, ensuring cleanliness and tackling vermin infestations are the responsibility of the centre’s management committee.
Since the management committee of Geylang Serai temporary market has obviously flouted the rules, why are they not taken to task yet now that both MOH and NEA claimed they have “completed their investigations”?
Up to now, we are still kept in the dark over the identities of the members from the management committee.
The state media could have gotten hold of the information easily. Why are their identities being protected?
However, we do know that the Geylang Serai temporary market was a “project” by the Kampong Ubi Citizens Consultative Committee.
According to unverified sources, the CCC was in charge of setting up the market together with the stallholders.
The funds for building and maintaining the market are split between the hawkers themselves and the CCC.
Whether there are any CCC members on board the management committee remains a mystery though it is not inconceivable that the CCC is directly responsible for the maintenance of the market which brings us to the next question: why has NEA been reluctant to take action against the committee?
If the committee is composed entirely of the stallholders themselves, we can be pretty sure their names will be published and its Chairman will probably be charged in court for negligence together with the Indian rojak man.
We can’t expect the management committee to function on its own autonomously without having to answer to any higher authority.
Which organization retains the ultimate control of the temporary market? Is it the CCC itself or some external agencies?
Judging from the response of NEA so far, it is quite obvious that they are afraid of implicating members of the management committee who may have intimate links with PAP MPs in Marine Parade GRC.
Will prosecuting the management committee open up a can of worms with widespread political ramifications for the ruling party?
Does NEA have any power to take action against management committees of temporary markets for failure to maintain an acceptable level of food and environment hygiene at their premises?
We hope to hear from NEA soon on the fate of the Geylang Serai market management committee. Its members have clearly neglected their duties and they must not be let off the hook so easily.
NEA needs to send a strong message to all committees in charge of these temporary markets that dereliction of duty will not be tolerated regardless of their political affliations or positions.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27176.1
More questions raised over PAP MP Dr Ong Seh Hong’s explanation of the $60,000 Ren Ci loan and GIC housing loan
In a letter sent to the media today, Dr Ong Seh Hong wrote:
“I was an employee of GIC in 1999. I was offered by Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre to be Director, Medical & Paramedical Services in January 2000.
“However to leave GIC, I had to pay S$560,000 to settle my outstanding staff housing loan. I agreed to join Ren Ci on condition that I received a loan of S$60,000, to pay off in part the amount of S$560,000 and I paid the remaining S$500,000 from bank loan.
We find Dr Ong’s explanation most unusual and disingenuous which appear to give the impression that Ren Ci was sort of “blackmailed” by his demands into giving him the loan. (read article here)
It does not make any difference if Dr Ong was a PAP MP then. As a medical doctor, he should be aware that Ren Ci is a charitable organization supported solely by funds from well-wishers.
The $60,000 loan made to him for his own personal purpose would deprive needy patients of the necessary funds thereby mandating Ren Ci to raise more from the public.
Dr Ong could have borrowed the remaining $60,000 from another bank or delayed joining Ren Ci till he had the means to pay off his outstanding staff housing loan.
While ex Ren Ci CEO Ming Yi should shoulder the bulk of the blame for giving out unapproved loans liberally to his staff, that does not excuse Dr Ong from not doing a meticulous review of the offer first before taking up the job.
Is it technically and morally correct for him to accept the $60,000 loan from Ren Ci? How can he not be alerted to the possible conflicts of interest in this case?
Is the loan interest-free? And how long did Dr Ong take to repay the loan? Why is he reluctant to answer these relevant and pressing questions?
Lastly, but most importantly, Dr Ong’s testimony raised serious questions about the role of GIC, a government-owned sovereign wealth fund as a moneylender.
Is it a common practice for GIC or any other statutory boards to give out housing loans to their staff? What are the interest rates if there are any? Who else has benefitted from GIC’s generosity?
GIC is funded entirely by taxpayers’ monies. Is it fair for us to subsidize the personal expenses of its staff? What other hidden perks are GIC’s staff entitled too?
It is time for GIC to come clean with us. In view of its dismal performance lately, the public has every right to know about the salaries, bonuses and benefits of all its staff, especially the top honchos.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27175.1
Are we paying too much for too little accountability?
The recent Geylang Serai food poisoning has shown once again the word “accountability” does not exist in the dictionary of the PAP.
In spite of glaring oversights and lapses on the part of NEA and the management committee of the market, none of them have been taken to task as of yet.
Predictably, the brunt of public fury is forced upon the poor Indian Rojak hawker who is conveniently made the fall-guy to cover up the mistakes of others.
Though the exact cause of the food poisoning has not been established, he has been prosecuted by NEA for “lapses in food and environmental hygiene”.
As usual, the mainstream media is always too quick and eager to find a scapegoat in order to whitewash the role of the authorities completely.
This follows the usual pattern of the PAP’s response to major blunders which are too big and obvious to be shielded away from public view by their SPH spin doctors.
In 2003, the SARS outbreak was blamed squarely the few Singaporeans who brought the virus back from China and the poor hygiene standards of the population.
Nothing was mentioned of the fact that our crowded public hospitals with lack of isolation cubicles helped facilitated the transmission and spread of the virus.
It is only after the epic healthcare disaster was over that steps were taken to rectify the problem by building isolation cubicles in each ward.
Last year, the escape of famed terrorist Mas Selamat Kasteri was blamed on the negligence of the lower-ranking officers. MM Lee even had the gall to castigate Singaporeans for being “complacent” as if we let the terrorist escaped.
The Home Affairs Minister did not even sound apologetic over the mistake when speaking about it in Parliament. An “independent” panel filled with ex-establishment figures including one of his subordinates was set up to placate Singaporeans.
The end result: the junior officers were sacked while the top honchos remain secured comfortably in their respective positions to this day.
When GIC lost million of dollars of our hard-earned reserves, the culprit is not its Chairman who invested in ailing U.S banks at the wrong time, but the global financial turmoil not withstanding the fact that some SWFs like China’s have made a profit from the crisis.
There were no questions asked and nobody stepped forward to account for the mistakes made. Singaporeans were given an empty promise that the losses will be recouped in 10, 20 and 30 years time.
If we examine these past incidents in detail, we will realize the PAP will almost always find somebody to take the full blame of their mistakes be it a person or an external event.
The state media will then be called in to clear up the mess up by showing how hard the government is working to resolve the problem while no questions will ever be asked about its culpability.
A few weeks later, the issue will be dead and buried. Singaporeans will move on and continue to pay the PAP top salaries to run the country.
Is this the kind of accountability we should expect and accept from the PAP which regularly touts itself as a “good, clean and transparent” governent? Are we paying too much for too little accountability?
Accountability in public service simply means to explain one’s actions to the people and to assume responsibility for them.
How often are we consulted on important policies affecting our livelihoods? Did the PAP government ever bother to explain them in detail? I don’t mean paying lip service to insult our intelligence like the lame defence of the new Public Order Act by Law Minister K Shan.
There are many ways to show that one is accountable for mistakes made. In most cases, a mere acknowledgement or a simple “sorry” will suffice.
When Barack Obama made an uncharacteristic error over the appointment of his Treasury Secretary, he went to the people and apologize to them on TV - “I am sorry, but I screwed up”. Did the apology make him any less of a leader?
On the contrary, my respect for Obama was multiplied tenfold. He is a humble leader who is accountable to the people he serves and he deserves every single cent of his annual salary which is only one-fifth of our Prime Minister’s.
Closer to home across the Causeway, former Malaysian Health Minister Dr Chua Soi Lek resigned from his ministerial position last year when video clips showing him having sex with a lady half his age in the hotel were leaked to public and it was not even related to his work.
Real leaders are not afraid of admitting their mistakes because they know they owe their positions in office to those who voted for them and will not hesitate to resign if this is indeed the will of the people.
A good, accountable and transparent government does not need to indulge in self-praise all the time. It prefers to leave the judgement of its work to the people.
Is the PAP government accountable to Singaporeans? Is it transparent and honest with the people? I seriously doubt so.
PAP apologists have always defended the PAP’s “track record” to cover up for their shortcomings, but past achievements do not guarantee future success.
Furthermore, the PAP can only take half the credit at the most. Without a hardworking, docile and intelligent citizenry, it is unlikely they will be able to build Singapore to what it is today.
In fact, Singapore may be a better place to live in now if we have more alternative parties in Parliament to provide input and fine-tune the policies before they are implemented.
Years of one-party rule with literally no challenge to its political hegemony has made the PAP complacent. It doesn’t see the need to account to anybody because they can never be removed from power with the system they put in place and so public opinion counts little for them.
To put it bluntly, Singaporeans can “go and fly kite” if they are not happy with the PAP. That’s the sad reality of life in Singapore: we are totally helpless against a power-hungry regime which is bent on remaining in power at all costs.
An athlete will only achieve his/her peak in the presence of intense rivalry. Consumers will only benefit from lower prices when there is fierce competition between different companies.
The lack of any meaningful political competition will lead eventually to the stagnation and demise of the PAP and Singaporeans are going to pay a dear price for its implosion one day.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27174.1
AWARE Old Guard should adopt the PAP system to entrench themselves in positions of power
The recent power grab in AWARE by an unknown group of young turks who managed to oust most of the Old Guard through a simple majority vote at its AGM has become a contentious issue in the leading woman advocacy group in Singapore.
150 or so members of AWARE have called for an EGM to take the new committee to task for its failure to disclose their agendas for launching an audacious bid to take over the organization.
The Old Guards only have themselves to blame for being forced rather unceremoniously out of power. Under AWARE’s Constitution, any member can run for the CEC after which the various positions such as the President and Hononary Secretary are decided within the CEC members themselves.
If the Old Guards want to keep familiar faces in the CEC for the sake of continuity and clarity of mission, they should have taken a leaf out of the PAP system and adopt a different Constitution to pre-empt this unsavory episode from occurring in the first place.
Have you ever wondered why the PAP has seen no major leadership changes at its helm after 50 years in power?
Under the Constitution of the PAP, ordinary cadres have limited say in choosing their own leaders.
The PAP’s CEC is essentially an exclusive old boys club on its own. There are no direct elections for the important positions of Secretary-General, Chairman and Treasurer.
The PAP’s Secretary-General is usually the Prime Minister of Singapore as defined by tradition. Lee Kuan Yew was its Secretary-General for nearly four decades before he passed the baton to Goh Chok Tong who in turn relinquished it to Lee Hsien Loong after he stepped down in 2003 as Prime Minister.
While elections are held for the CECs of both the main party and Young PAP, it is the Secretary-General’s prerogative to appoint “losers” who fail to make the mark back into the CEC.
In the last PAP CEC elections, Dr Ng Eng Hen was unable to obtain the necessary number of votes and was ushered into the CEC through the “backdoor”.
Though such a system runs against the grain of democratic principles, it has worked well for the PAP over the years by entrenching a few leaders firmly in positions of power thereby minimizing the potential of any political upheavals from the files and ranks below.
Had AWARE adopted the PAP system earlier, the fiasco would never have materialized. The President of AWARE will be able to appoint members who lost in the elections into the CEC directly and ostracize the new members by sidelining them within the CEC.
The downside of such a system is that it impedes leadership renewal by entrenching a certain clique or faction within the party while effectively prevent its removal via democratic means.
A corrupted, power-hungry and manipulative leader can easily make use of the powers of incumbency to control and the rule the organization forever with little accountability and transparency.
The Old Guard of AWARE should be glad that there are younger generations of leaders who are passionate enough to run for the elections and continue the work they have left behind.
In the spirit of democracy, the new AWARE committee should be given the time and space to prove its worth. After all, they won the election square and fair on their own merits instead of riding on the coat-tails of more established leaders.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27333.1
In China, white man loses mojo
In China, white man loses mojo
By Kent Ewing
HONG KONG - As if formerly high-flying Western bankers and financiers haven't suffered enough, now there is an additional indignity: Chinese women have lost interest in them.
According to two recent nationwide surveys by the matchmaking website hongniang.com, mainland women keen on finding a foreign partner plunged from 42% to 16% over the past year.
For that dramatic decline, you can blame the financial crisis, which has made Western society - especially its male avatars - look unstable to Chinese women considering their romantic (which tends to be intimately linked to their financial) future.
The decline of the white man's mojo had been evident in Hong Kong since the handover from British rule in 1997, with dating services reporting that it is rare these days for Chinese women in the city to seek a Western partner. While the British ruled and ensconced themselves in posh homes on Victoria Peak and other exclusive areas in Hong Kong, there was often a cachet attached to dating a Westerner, especially an Englishman.
But that era has passed, as has any sense of Chinese inferiority. Economically, Hong Kong, a city of seven million people, caught up with its Western counterparts well before the handover. Using the Atlas method of calculation, Hong Kong's per capita income as of 2007 was US$31,610, according to the World Bank.
By contrast, despite 30 years of scintillating economic growth, most of the 1.3 billion people living on the mainland, where per capita income stands at US$2,360, are still waiting for their pot of gold. Still, per capita income figures can be misleading in a country as big and rapidly developing as China. Poverty abounds in the countryside, but China's club of millionaires is growing faster than in any other country in the world. Its cities, especially in the east, are booming and creating a huge urban-rural income gap.
Urban women, the same ones who used to hanker after Western men, are sharing in this boom. As their economic boats rise with the general tide, they are also becoming much pickier about the mates they choose.
Mixed marriages, which reached 400,000 last year, had been on a steady rise in China until the US subprime mortgage crisis started a global financial meltdown that has turned a Western partner into a poor prospect in the eyes of many Chinese women. Not only do the hongniang.com surveys show the number of women seeking a foreign mate has dropped significantly, but approval of such unions has also fallen by 20%.
While all this should be good news for Chinese men, their prospects also don't look terribly bright. China's one-child policy, coupled with a traditional preference for male children, has created a gender imbalance that will leave already choosy Chinese women even choosier. And, no matter what choices those women make, 32 million Chinese men face a future without any hope of marriage, according to a study published online last week by the British Medical Journal.
An army of scholars is busy contemplating the possible social consequences of this prodigious lonely hearts club of mostly only-child males - and so far their collective conclusion is that none of them are good.
Meanwhile, the sudden jilting of foreigners tends to confirm a long-held Western stereotype of Chinese women as gold-diggers who would not recognize love if it hit them in the face. If you take a broader perspective, however, there are clear reasons for this cold-hearted materialism that go straight to the heart of the big social challenges that China faces in the 21st century.
With no viable health care or social security system in place, there is little room for love when women are planning a future. Indeed, while they may well recognize the emotion, they would be foolish to act on it.
Life, marriage included, is all about earning and saving in country where a serious illness or accident could leave you and your family penniless. Moreover, while Chinese women have made great advances in education, they still face commonplace discrimination in employment. A rich husband often remains their best option for financial security.
Of course, a woman would have to be an urbanite to even start thinking like this, or to care about surveys launched by the likes of hongniang.com. More than 50% of Chinese continue to live in the impoverished countryside - but they dream of the good life in the city and, as China's relentless urban migration continues, many of their children and most of their grandchildren will be city dwellers.
Will future generations be as materialistic as their forbears in matters of the heart? Of course, they will - until, that is, people no longer have to worry about squirreling away most of their income to pay for education, health care and retirement. This propensity to save rather than spend has become a headache for economic planners now that increased domestic consumption is needed to compensate for shrinking Chinese exports in the global economic downturn.
Despite government prodding to act more like their profligate consumer counterparts in the West, the Chinese are unlikely to relinquish their status as the world's biggest savers until they feel more secure about the future. And Chinese women show no signs of dropping their view of well-heeled men as the best possible insurance policy for that future. Love is a luxury they can ill afford.
Certainly, there are also many in the West (both men and women) who size up their prospective partner's wallet before they consult their hearts. In the 19th century most Western women were even more pecuniary in their marital outlook than Chinese women are today. Read just about any European novel of the time to confirm this view, with the work of English writers Jane Austen and George Eliot (the pen name for Mary Ann Evans), among others, standing out.
Ultimately, what everyone in China needs is a system that offers some assurance of financial security. Then they can feel free to wax romantic.
Beijing's long-awaited release last week of a 13,000-word government blueprint on health care reform should help to ease this collective sense of insecurity, but it is also a reminder of how dicey medical care is in China today. Even public hospitals are routinely guilty of price-gouging in the runaway capitalism that has infected the country's medical sector, leaving basic health care services unaffordable for the poor and a reach for the middle class.
The new scheme aims to make basic health care and medical insurance available to every Chinese citizen by 2020. How such an expensive and ambitious plan will be implemented, however, remains a huge question mark.
Until that and many other questions are answered, the Chinese will continue their cautionary habit of saving for an uncertain future, and personal relationships will be grounded more in economic reality than emotional attachment.
In the end, the Chinese economic experiment may also be an experiment in love - yet another reason to hope that it succeeds.
Kent Ewing is a Hong Kong-based teacher and writer. He can be reached at kewing@hkis.edu.hk.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27155.1
Cash-rich China courts the Caspian
Cash-rich China courts the Caspian
By M K Bhadrakumar
The global downturn is spreading to Central Asia. It may lead to a marked shift of fortune in the Great Game for control of Caspian energy reserves. On the surface, the intensity of the rivalries may appear to have subsided, as the principal protagonists - Russia and the West - brood over the precarious state of their own finances and prioritize fixing their domestic economies.
But the slowing down of the Great Game bears a deceptive appearance. China gains out of any changing equations. Of all the major economies of the world, it is in China that the government's 4 trillion yuan (US$585 billion) stimulus package may have begun showing results, which puts the economy in a "better-than-expected" shape, as Premier Wen Jiabao said on Thursday.
China's prospects as the first major economy to recover gives it a crucial role to lead the world economy as a whole and the Central Asian region in particular. Following up on a $25 billion loan to Russia that China dished out in February, it has agreed to lend $10 billion to Kazakhstan. China expects both the recipients to reciprocate by bolstering their energy supplies to China.
We may be witnessing the signs of a seismic shift in the geopolitics of Central Asia. The region faces a grim economic outlook and it instinctively looks up to China to help it figure a way out. That provides a big opportunity for China to take the region under its wings. The implications are deep for the Caspian energy sweepstakes.
In its latest regional report, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has projected a stark economic forecast for Central Asia. The IMF predicts that the economic growth which stood at 12% in 2007 and 6% in 2008 will slow down to less than 2% in 2009 as a "great recession" takes hold. A senior IMF official said, "Until recently, the region had been awash with commodity-export receipts, capital inflows and remittances. This had led to significant economic gains in recent years with real per capita GDP [gross domestic product] growing impressively."
However, the conditions are deteriorating. The point is, oil and gas exporters are heavily affected by the decline in global demand and the sharp fall in their prices. At the same time, Central Asian countries are hit hard by the financing constraints of the international financial markets, which translate as difficulty in obtaining foreign capital.
At a summit meeting of the Eurasian Economic Community in Moscow in February, Russia initiated the creation of a bailout fund of $10 billion financed by Russia and Kazakhstan to help the economies of the member countries - Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. But the capacity of Russia and Kazakhstan to play such lead role is in serious doubt. February seems a long time ago already as the crisis deepens in Russia and Kazakhstan.
Russia's statistical agency, Rosstat, reported in late March figures that all but suggest the economy is in trouble. The output of essential goods and services declined in February by 11.6% while export earnings - of which oil and gas exports account for the bulk - registered a 40% drop. The World Bank has forecast a 4.5% contraction of the economy in 2009 and that it may take time to recover. Russia has already committed $85 billion into stabilization efforts.
Russia's crisis is directly related to the sharp decline in revenue from oil and gas exports. Energy giant Gazprom recently revised its price forecast for the export of its gas to Europe to $257.9 per thousand cubic meters (tcm) of gas. The price stood at $409 tcm in 2008. The Russian newspaper Vedomosti estimates that at an average price of $260 tcm, Russia's revenues from gas exports in the current year will work out to $44 billion, as against $73 billion last year.
The business newspaper Kommersant reported that with demand for Russian gas declining, Gazprom faces a liquidity problem, which in turn could seriously affect Russia's urgently needed investment program to explore new gas fields.
Russia's biggest Soviet-era gas fields are past their prime. Moscow expects that through development of giant new fields, the decline in production can be made up. The fields at Bovanenkovskoye on Yamal were expected to produce their first gas by 2011, and Shtokman by 2015. But the financial crisis in the West affects fresh investments.
Meanwhile, Gazprom's gas production is expected to decline to 510 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2009 from a level of 550 bcm in 2008. Thus, Gazprom may be constrained to limit its exports to 170 bcm in 2009, as compared to 179 bcm last year. Russia's gas shortfall seems to have set in earlier than expected.
Therefore, Central Asia's importance as a source of cheap energy has increased for Russia. Gazprom is currently buying roughly 50 bcm of gas from Turkmenistan, 15 bcm from Kazakhstan and 7 bcm from Uzbekistan. Central Asian producers accounted for about 14% of Gazprom's total production last year. However, Central Asian producers would now assess that Russia lacks the financial resources to follow through on its commitments in the field of energy cooperation.
In late March, when Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov visited Moscow, it was widely expected that the talks would result in a decision to kick-start the so-called Prikaspiiski pipeline network expansion which was agreed to over two years ago. The project is of immense importance for Russia to make increased gas purchases from Turkmenistan. It involves the expansion of the Soviet-era gas pipeline along the east coast of the Caspian Sea via Kazakhstan to Russia. But Berdymukhamedov balked.
Beijing would have taken into account these emergent circumstances when it signed an unprecedented "oil-for-loans" agreement with Russia on February 17. In terms of the agreement, China Development Bank will lend $25 billion at 6% annual interest to Russia's state-owned oil company Rosneft and oil pipeline monopoly Transneft. In return, China will receive roughly 20 million tons of oil annually from Russia starting from 2011 for a 20-year period. The total volume of the Russian oil supplies within this framework is the equivalent of about 4% of China's current consumption of oil and about 8% of China's present imports. Rosneft receives $15 billion out of the Chinese loan.
On its part, Transneft receives the remaining $10 billion out of the Chinese loan towards the cost of building a spur from the East Siberia-Pacific Ocean (ESPO) pipeline originating from Skovorodino in eastern Siberia to China's Daqing petrochemical hub. China had earlier funded the project's $37-million feasibility study.
The ESPO's first stage is expected to have a capacity of 30 million tons annually and the second stage will have a capacity for transporting 80 million tons. Transneft is expected to complete the first stage (Taishet to Skovorodino) by the end of this year and to commence the construction of the second stage (Skovorodino to Kazimo) in December. The entire project will be completed by end-2010.
Clearly, the Chinese loan comes as a great relief to the two cash-strapped Russian energy companies to realize their refinancing loans in 2009 as well as to continue with their capital expenditures. The loan also goes to some extent to make up for the flight of Western capital from Russia. Without doubt, China has made a smart move.
One, it is always a wise thing to tie up long-term energy supplies. Two, the price of the Russian oil will definitely be cheaper than the prices on the spot market, where China buys the bulk of its imports at present. Three, China has got Russia to deliver oil by a single-destination pipeline to China. Four, China is reducing its reliance on Middle Eastern oil. Five, China is reducing its dependence on the stretched-out transportation route via the Malacca Straits.
Above all, China has persuaded Moscow to commit significant quantities of its oil away from its traditional European market. Moscow often held out the prospect of a diversification to the Asian market, but remained fixated on the Western market. That mindset is changing. Again, China may have at long last galvanized an all-round energy cooperation program with Russia. Sino-Russian energy cooperation had lately shown signs of fatigue after the promising start during the landmark visit by then-Russian president Vladimir Putin to China in March 2006.
Putin, now prime minister, had proposed to export up to 40 bcm of Russian gas to China via the new 6,700-kilometer, $10-billion Altai pipeline. But virtually nothing has happened on this front since then, ostensible amid squabbles over a mutually agreeable gas price formula, while Moscow remained focused on the European gas market. This attitude is changing.
In February, the Kremlin decided to revive the Altai project when President Dmitry Medvedev wrote to Chinese President Hu Jintao offering comprehensive cooperation in bilateral energy projects. Gazprom has since shown interest in forming a gas-trade joint venture with the China National Petroleum Corporation, which would allow the Russian firm to participate in retail gas sales in the Chinese market as a quid pro quo for favorable pricing.
Kazakhstan, Central Asia's number one energy producer, also faces a financial crisis similar to Russia's. Kazakh Prime Minister Karim Masimov underscored this recently by comparing the crisis to wartime conditions, which needed a response on a war footing. He wasn't exaggerating.
With the oil price falling to $50 per barrel as compared to $150 in July last year, there is a severe resource crunch. Besides, Kazakhstan has reason to worry that the crisis may turn out to be drawn out. True, Kazakhstan is spending almost $15 billion or 14% of its GDP on stimulus packages. But the government has nonetheless begun cutting jobs in state enterprises. A ban has been imposed on new hirings. The initial hopes on new infrastructure projects keeping wages stable have faded. Unemployment is rising, which is a matter of major political concern.
In this scenario, China has responded to the Kazakh request for help. Two agreements were signed in Beijing on Thursday during a five-day visit (April 15-19) by Nazarbayev providing for a Chinese loan amounting to $10 billion to Kazakhstan in return for the right, among other things, to take a big stake in the Central Asian country's energy sector. China's Eximbank will lend the state-owned Development Bank of Kazakhstan US$5 billion. China's state-run Chinese National Petroleum Company (CNPC) will in turn extend a $5 billion loan to KazMunaiGas, the Kazakh national oil company.
The two oil companies also signed a separate agreement giving CNPC a 49% stake in MangistauMunaiGas (MMG), a local oil producer. (Kazakhstan and China also signed an initial accord to build a "road transport channel" linking western China and Europe. Other agreements include accords to cooperate in agriculture, education, finance and telecommunications.)
Beijing's intentions are quite transparent: China will tap its $1.95 trillion currency reserves to buy overseas exploration rights wherever available in Central Asia. Nazarbayev told Xinhua news agency on the eve of his departure for China that China's role was of global significance. Its huge market, abundant foreign exchange reserves and "effective crisis response" constitute an "enormous support for the world economic revival", he said.
Kazakhstan is a safe investment destination, too. It holds over 3% of the world's proven oil reserves. It received $21 billion in exploration and production investment in 2007 before the financial crisis erupted. Curiously, China is stepping into the purchase of MMG, outbidding Russia's Gazprom and India's ONGC (Oil and Natural Gas Commission), both state-owned enterprises. CNPC won the race by offering the $10 billion investment package which neither Russia nor India could match. China evidently took a long-term view. The MMG has estimated crude oil reserves of 1.32 billion barrels and also holds a 58% stake in the Pavlodar oil refinery, apart from operating a chain of retail stations.
China is not a new investor in Kazakhstan's energy sector. It already owns Aktobemunaigas, which produces 120,000 barrels of oil per day (b/d) and China holds 67% of PetroKazakhstan, which produces 150000 b/d. It is also an equal partner, along with the Kazakh state oil company KazMunaiGas, in the 200,000 b/d oil pipeline from the Caspian to China's Xinjiang border.
Meanwhile, work on the gas pipeline project from Turkmenistan via Uzbekistan to China is on target. China is financing this. The Turkmen portion of the pipeline runs 188 kilometers and will be completed by end-2009. More than 1,200 km of the pipeline has already been laid in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
It shouldn't come as surprise if Beijing now begins flexing its financial muscles to ensure that the pipeline optimally delivers gas on China's western border. Indeed, gas deliveries to China via the new pipeline will signify a major diversification of the Central Asian region's gas exports away from Russia and Europe.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27154.1
China wary of US-Myanmar 'detente'
China wary of US-Myanmar 'detente'
By Jian Junbo
SHANGHAI - In early April, the United States sent an envoy - director of the Office for Mainland Southeast Asia Stephen Blake - to Myanmar, the first such visit in seven years. In the same month, US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg said Washington hoped to develop a common strategy with other Asian countries to help bring Myanmar out of isolation.
Such steps would have been unheard of during the George W Bush administration, which during its two terms took a hostile policy towards Myanmar and pressurized it to start a process of democratization.
It seems the administration of President Barack Obama is quietly changing his predecessor's policy, both towards Myanmar and other nations in what Bush called the "axis of evil" - Iran, Iraq and North Korea. For example, the White House recently expressed intent to start dialogue with Tehran and strengthen links with Pyongyang through the six-party framework. It has also dispatched congressmen to visit Cuba.
At first glance, it seems strange Obama would change his predecessor's foreign polices so radically and so quickly, but this is all part of the new administration's strategy. Under Obama, foreign policy will aim at proactively strengthening international legitimacy and soft power - or "smart power" as characterized by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - that was depleted under the Bush administration.
Obama is pushing the pendulum of US foreign relations in another direction, to consolidate a global leadership role severely weakened under Bush, particularly by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. All signs are that Washington wants to resume its status of benign hegemony in the post-Bush era. Against such a background, it's easy to understand Obama's new policy toward Myanmar, which is also an attempt to regain US influence in Myanmar lost since the end of the Vietnam War in the mid-1970s.
In a geopolitical sense, the Obama administration's plans will pose a challenge to the existing balance of power in Southeast Asia, and its policy will attract attention from some countries, especially Myanmar's neighboring powers like China and India. In other words, the US's new Myanmar policy will not only boost the US's image in the world but also alter the current geopolitical pattern in the region, provided Washington can carry out this new policy consistently and successfully.
In recent years, the US has been engaged in a war against terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere. It took a hostile policy towards Myanmar, pressing it on human-rights issues, democratization and the release of dissidents. But the US achieved virtually nothing with these policies of containment, which are generally ineffective at bringing isolated countries to their knees. Washington sneered at economic cooperation with Myanmar and refused economic aid to the country, as the Bush administration viewed Myanmar as a dictatorial regime.
China took advantage of the situation to cultivate closer economic ties with Myanmar, which inevitably underpinned improved political relations. Interdependent relations now are the reality both for China and for Myanmar. With the development of these relations, China's influence in Myanmar has increased remarkably.
At first glance, the US's attempt to resume its influence in this country could pose a challenge to China, that could reduce or even end the Middle Kingdom's influence there. Geopolitical competition by big powers seems a very possible future for Southeast Asia, which is not good news for the countries in the region. Whatever happens, China is unlikely to withdraw from Myanmar because it has already developed very deep economic relations with it. China needs Myanmar's raw materials, and more importantly needs its ports to transport goods to other countries in Africa and Middle East.
On the surface, Washington's new policy to engage Myanmar could create a geopolitical rivalry that could easily lead to regional conflict. But this is not the whole or true picture of international politics in this region. Before analyzing the consequence of new US policy for Myanmar, a question should be asked: How will the US engage Myanmar?
Firstly, the US could seek direct dialogue with Myanmar's leaders and ask it to start democratization in exchange for economic or even political support among the international community. But this approach will not be easy to put into practice, as it is similar to policies of containment. Myanmar will not reform its political system according to a timetable set by Washington or discuss its domestic political affairs with the US.
Secondly, the US could engage Myanmar's major opposition party, the National League for Democracy, and dissidents who want to see the current military regime overthrown. Frankly, such "engagement" is nothing new, as all previous US administrations including the Bush administration tried that - sometimes even through the Central Intelligence Agency. This approach is no better than the first and has proved ineffective.
The third alternative for the US is to engage with Myanmar through economic cooperation or financial aid. However, the US imposes preconditions on aid or economic ties when dealing with developing nations. Myanmar has other sources of economic support, for example from China, so it will never accept conditional US aid. Economic cooperation without political conditions are not possible for the US and do not fit with the primitive aims of the US's new Myanmar policy. Steinberg has clearly stated that the core target of US policy toward Myanmar will not change. The US hopes Myanmar becomes "more open", can respect human rights and incorporate itself into global economy.
The US will quickly find it is difficult to engage Myanmar. So at this moment China is not worried about the US's seemingly rapid penetration of the Southeast Asian region. Although possible, geopolitical competition is not imminent. Out of its own strategic concerns, China would not welcome US engagement in Myanmar as a hegemonic power trying to dictate to Myanmar on political affairs, as this could result in domestic unrest in Myanmar that could threaten regional stability.
However, China would welcome economic or trade engagements by the US in Myanmar. A prosperous Myanmar with social stability fits Chinese interests and those of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Economic achievements in Myanmar helped by US support could benefit ASEAN unity. A united and efficient ASEAN can keep regional stability, which China would welcome.
In consideration of this, China can hardly oppose any positive US engagement in Myanmar, what China is against is any US tactics that would interfere in Myanmar's internal affairs and lead to regional instability. Additionally, the US should recognize the fact that China is an important actor in Southeast Asia when it plans its engagement policy in Myanmar, and the US would face great difficulty if it tried to exclude China from its new Myanmar policy.
The US should not attempt to try a six-party mechanism in its engagement with Myanmar. China, Myanmar and perhaps ASEAN will refuse this suggestion, although Steinberg voiced this idea several days ago. Myanmar is not North Korea, and is not threatening any country. Myanmar is not an issue for the international community, so it's not necessary to discuss Myanmar in a multilateral framework.
It will not be easy for the US to successfully engage in Myanmar if it tries the obsolete approaches used by Bush. China will never welcome that. But Beijing will be happy if the US can engage in Myanmar as a pure business partner. Essentially, the success or failure of US engagement in Myanmar does not depend on other countries' attitudes but on its own approach.
Dr Jian Junbo is assistant professor of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27401.1
Double standards of DBS: why staff is allowed to join PAP as MP but not AWARE as Council member?
Bank executive Josie Lau, 48, was appointed the new president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) at a recent meeting of the new team in charge. She is vice-president of consumer banking group cards and unsecured loans for DBS Bank.
But shortly after she announced that she was president, DBS expressed unhappiness that she had taken the top post at Singapore’s AWARE.
In a statement issued by a DBS spokesman:
‘The bank requires all employees to obtain approval before running for or taking on an external appointment, and many DBS employees are involved in community work and/or support various charity organisations in their own personal capacity.
‘Josie was informed prior to the Aware election this evening that although the bank supports her involvement in Aware as council member, in her own personal capacity, DBS is, however, not supportive of her intent to run for president of Aware. We believe that as a vice-president in DBS, she already has a challenging job with many responsibilities, and the role of president would demand too much of her time and energy.’
We find DBS’s statement most hypocritical and smacks of gross double standards.
Why is Ms Josie rapped for taking up the top post at AWARE while DBS has maintained a dignified silence so far over another staff Mr Liang Eng Hwa who is also a PAP MP for Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa is the Manageing Director of the Treasury and Markets Division of DBS bank. He joined DBS in 1993 and became a PAP MP in 2006. We did not call DBS making a similar public statement in 2006 when Mr Liang contested in the general elections under the PAP banner. (read Mr Liang’s CV here)
Either of these assumptions must be true to account for the wide disparities in treatment between the two:
1. Mr Liang’s position is less challenging than that of Ms Josie.
2. Ms Josie’s role as AWARE’s President will demand more time and energy than Mr Liang’s work as a MP.
Or is it because DBS cannot stop any of its staff from becoming a PAP MP since it is owned by Temasek which in turn owned by the Ministry of Finance? Will Mr Liang even be allowed to contest in the elections had he joined the opposition instead of the PAP? Or rather, can he keep his job if he declared his allegiance to the opposition?
DBS has absolutely no right to dictate to its staff on how they spend their personal time. Ms Josie Lau is not using working hours to serve in her capacity as AWARE President. What she does outside her work is entirely her own business.
If DBS did not protest against Mr Liang’s decision to join the PAP, then it has no grounds at all to interfere with Ms Josie’s involvement with AWARE.
We hope to hear DBS’s clarifications on this apparent preferential treatment it gives to one staff over the other.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27153.1
Josie Lau Meng Lee
- DBS Bank vice-president of consumer banking group cards and unsecured loans. (Will her designation cause anyone to transfer their unsecured loans to another bank?)
- Did not obtain approval from DBS for AWARE president post. Was advised by DBS not to take up post of president.
- Married to Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang.
- Daughters Natalie and Natassia
From internet resources published by their daughters and friends,
the schools name that their children had attended are:
(Updated 16 Apr 2009: Due to my commenter feedback, the schools which the children had attended are removed.)
the Church which was attended
- is near ACS
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27147.7
Staff-in-confidence matters should be kept that way, DBS
I am appalled that DBS is airing in public what should be a staff-in-confidence matter. Yesterday, they issued a statement to the Straits Times — which I understand was unsolicited — stating that they disapprove of their Vice President of Credit Cards, Josie Lau, taking up the presidency of women’s group AWARE.
Today, when asked by TOC, they stated that they were “disappointed that Josie knowingly disregarded DBS’ staff code of conduct twice”, adding that Lau had not sought approval for either running for the AWARE exco or standing for nomination as AWARE president.
Why does this need to be aired in public? This brings back memories of another organisation in Singapore which hung a former employee out to dry when he was attempting to run for public office.
In any case, since DBS is prepared to be so “transparent” about its internal policies, allow me to comment on these policies.
If their staff code of conduct really states that all staff must seek permission before taking on any “external appointments”, then I think this is overly controlling. What constitutes an “external appointment”? Usually this refers to for-profit employment, not volunteer work.
DBS has over 14,000 staff. Has every staff who volunteers and takes on leadership positions sought permission? If so, their HR either has a lot of paperwork to clear, or the volunteerism rate in DBS is extremely low.
Is it really necessary to regulate what staff do in their own time? Can’t staff be judged by their productivity in the office and the results they achieve? If a staff performs poorly because they are too involved in “ECAs”, then by all means sack him or her. But don’t assume that a staff’s outside activities will encroach on her work. And so what if the staff seeks approval? Is HR going to decide based on how much time they think the staff is going to spend during their free time? I don’t think they are qualified to make that sort of judgement.
Most importantly, I wonder if this so-called rule is applied uniformly. If Josie Lau ran for, say, PAP Women’s Wing chairmanship, would she have to ask for approval too? In fact, I know someone who was a VP in DBS and at the same time in the Young PAP exco. Whether he asked for permission or not, I don’t know.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27147.6
AWARE's President, beware!
AWARE's President, beware!
Yes. Beware. But of what?! Just because DBS openly rebuked the newly elected (or appointed?) president of AWARE, Ms. Josie Lau for "disregarding its advice against taking on the top post at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware)".
Actually it brings up a question: why DBS seemingly is against its employee to be involved in this AWARE organization???
To make it worse is Ms. Josie Lau is not a mere DBS employee. She is the bank’s vice-president of consumer banking group cards and unsecured loans. Can't the bank be more tactful in 'scolding' her???
Even if Ms. Josie Lau is indeed in the future unable to balance the commitments of both demanding positions, the two organizations (DBS and AWARE) should then be able to take their own actions against her.
Till then, she ought to be given a chance to carry out her duties--in DBS and AWARE.
If other senior employees in DBS can strike a balance (between their works in DBS and their other commitments), surely Ms. Josie Lau would be able to do the same. Mr. Conrad Raj, the editor-at-large in TODAY writes a compelling article about it, uhm, today, "What’s good for the goose..."
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27147.5
What’s good for the goose ...
Isn’t for the gander? DBS has other multi-taskers too, besides Aware’s president
Friday • April 17, 2009
Conrad Raj
editor-at-large | conrad@mediacorp.com.sg
ONE might wonder if there is more than meets the eye, in DBS Bank’s disapproval of Ms Josie Lau Meng Lee’s appointment as president of Aware.
The bank said on Wednesday that although it supported her involvement in Aware as a council member in her own personal capacity, it was “not supportive” of her running for presidency of the women’s advocacy group.
“We believe that as a VP (vice-president) in DBS, she already has a challenging job with many responsibilities and the role of president would demand too much of her time and energy,” the bank said in a media statement.
If it is the case that Ms Lau’s new post at Aware would take up too much of her time, then what about the various external groups that the bank’s senior management are involved in?
Mr Koh Boon Hwee already has a full time job as executive director of MediaRing. Yet he chairs DBS Holdings, since the late chief executive Richard Stanley became ill with cancer, where he has been involved in the daily running of Singapore’s largest commercial bank.
Furthermore, Mr Koh is a director of Sunningdale Tech, chairman of the Board of Trustees at Nanyang Technological University, a director at Temasek Holdings, and on the boards of Agilent Technologies and the Hewlett Foundation. Is that not more onerous than being a VP of DBS’ credit card division and president of Aware?
Mr Koh is not the only one multi-tasking at the bank; most of its other directors sit on other boards besides having full-time jobs.
Take Dr Bart Broadman, 47, for example. He is not only managing director of Singapore-based Alphadyne Asset Management which he founded, but is also a board member of the Central Provident Fund Board, serving on its Investment Committee; as well as vice-chairman of the Board of Governors at the Singapore American School.
Board member Kwa Chong Seng, 62, is not only chairman and managing director of oil giant ExxonMobil Asia Pacific and the lead manager of the company’s subsidiaries in Singapore, but also deputy chairman of Temasek Holdings, a director of Sinopec SenMei (Fujian) Petroleum Company and a member of the Public Service and Legal Service commissions.
Mr Wong Ngit Liong, 67, is not only a member of DBS’ Board and its Audit committee, the Nominating and Compensation committee and the Management Development committee — but also runs one of the biggest contract manufacturing plants in Singapore, the Venture Group of companies. He is also chairman of the NUS Board of Trustees and a member of the Research Innovation and Enterprise Council.
All this aside, several of Singapore’s Ministers and top civil servants hold more than one portfolio. In fact, many permanent secretaries sit on various boards of statutory boards and private companies, besides running their respective ministries.
Yet, Ms Lau is considered not capable of handling the presidency of Aware and her job at DBS. Is the bank that demanding an employer? Also, she was given approval to be a council member but not take on the higher-profile appointment at Aware: One would have thought, it would be a feather in DBS’ cap to have a staff member gaining the presidency of a prominent organisation.
In any case, DBS should be judgingMs Lau on her performance at the bank. If she is not able to perform adequately as a VP, there are various measures the bank can take to improve her performance, including cutting her bonus or stagnating her pay.
Unless there are other factors at play here?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27147.4
DBS rebukes Aware president
By Wong Kim Hoh | |
|
A DAY after becoming president of Singapore's leading women's group, Ms Josie Lau found herself in hot water at work.
OCBC backs DBS stand OCBC Bank backs the position taken by DBS Bank on the need for staff to seek approval before holding office in other organisations. A key concern for financial institutions is possible conflict of interest, especially when someone senior takes on a role in an outside organisation, said OCBC spokesman Koh Ching Ching. 'She breached staff code of conduct' DBS Bank yesterday elaborated on the reasons it was unhappy that Ms Josie Lau (above) disregarded the advice not to take on the role of Aware president. Its spokesman issued this statement: 'THE bank takes pride in the fact that many DBS employees pursue their interests and passion outside work, and are involved with various community/ charity/volunteer organisations in their personal capacity. |
On Wednesday night, shortly after Ms Lau, 48, announced that she was the new president, the bank issued a statement making clear that it had told her not to take that position.
The public rebuke shocked not only Aware members who have been dealing with a string of dramatic events recently, but also others who thought it unfair for the bank to say Ms Lau had too much on her plate at work to take on a voluntary position.
Yesterday, DBS Bank revealed that Ms Lau - its vice-president for consumer banking group cards and unsecured loans - had breached its staff code of conduct twice in recent weeks.
She did not tell the bank before running for a spot on the Aware executive committee, revealing that only two weeks after the March 28 annual general meeting (AGM). Yet, the bank decided to support her carrying on as an Aware exco member.
That AGM saw Aware's leadership change unexpectedly when a group of new members showed up and defeated veterans. Then new president Claire Nazar quit suddenly.
Ms Lau did not tell DBS that she was keen to assume the post. DBS said it was only on Wednesday afternoon - just hours before the exco was due to pick the new president - that she made known her intentions.
'We reviewed her request and subsequently informed her that while the bank continued to support her involvement in Aware, we could not support her intention to run for president, given the demands associated with the top post of a leading advocacy group in Singapore,' a spokesman said.
'We are disappointed that Josie knowingly disregarded DBS' staff code of conduct twice. Such an attitude is not one that DBS, or any other organisation, can condone in a leader,' the spokesman said.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27147.3
DBS "reviewing" employee's appointment as AWARE president
DBS "reviewing" employee's appointment as AWARE president
Posted: 17 April 2009 1048 hrs
Josie Lau (seated, front) helms AWARE's new executive committee, partly seen here | |||||||||||||||||||
|
SINGAPORE: As observers reacted with surprise to DBS Bank’s declaration that it did not support employee Josie Lau’s appointment as president of a local women’s advocacy group, the bank on Thursday further revealed that it was “reviewing the matter internally” - after she had "knowingly disregarded" its staff code of conduct twice.
Said a bank spokesperson: “Such attitude is not one that DBS, or any other organisation, can condone in a leader.”
Ms Lau, who is the bank’s vice-president of consumer banking group cards and unsecured loans, was on Wednesday night named the new Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) chief.
Shortly after, DBS issued a statement implying that Ms Lau had gone against its wishes in taking up the post.
Shedding more light on this on Thursday, DBS revealed that Ms Lau had informed the bank on April 13 that she had been appointed to the AWARE executive committee - more than two weeks after the deed was done on March 28.
“She had not sought prior approval for this appointment and thereby breached the staff code of conduct. Nevertheless, DBS made a concession and agreed to support her involvement as exco member,” said the bank spokesperson.
Then, early this week, she told the bank she was aiming for the top post.
The bank reviewed this request and informed her that while it continued to support her involvement in AWARE, “we could not support her intent to run for president, given the demands associated with the top post of a leading advocacy group in Singapore”.
“Banks worldwide are facing very challenging times and her role as VP in the credit card space today is even more challenging, given the environment we are in,” added the spokesperson. “We are disappointed that Josie knowingly disregarded DBS’ staff code of conduct twice.”
Ms Lau declined to comment, with an AWARE spokesperson saying she would speak to the media once things settled down.
The bank’s public rebuke has puzzled some. It was one thing for firms to express concern in private over employees’ involvement in external activities, and quite another to do so publicly, particularly for a senior staff, they felt.
“At the very senior management level, there should be adequate communication about such involvements... In this case, there may be some other issues of which we may be unaware,” said Singapore Human Resource Institute executive director David Ang.
“For DBS to issue such a statement, (the situation) must be of some gravity.”
TODAY understands that under the Banking Act, all bank employees must declare their involvement with external organisations, such as NGOs, to avoid a potential clash of interest.
Banks contacted confirmed the industry practice. Said OCBC spokesperson Koh Ching Ching: “Financial institutions also need to know of potential conflicts for any possible supplier-buyer situations, even for accounts held by non-profit organisations or charities with us.”
The bank respects staff’s “own assessment of their own abilities to balance work, family and community service activities”; still, they are encouraged to discuss their external commitments “if they need advice”.
Within the NGO sector, Ms Lau – who joined DBS in 2004 after 15 years of developing and marketing events with the Singapore Tourism Board – is not alone in incurring employers’ dissatisfaction.
One NGO veteran who declined to be named told TODAY, his employers have from time to time “pressured” him to give up his commitments.
Dr Geh Min, who stepped down last year as Nature Society president, said it ultimately boils down to the trust between employer and staff.
“It’s right for a company to expect commitment and loyalty... it’s up to the employee to convince the company he can juggle (the demands),” said the ophthalmologist who runs her own clinic.
Mr Ang said that even among companies with a policy against staff holding external appointments, most are flexible on the matter.
Citing his own experience as president of the Singapore Manufacturers’ Federation, Singapore Cable Manufacturer chairman Renny Yeo feels such involvement would further hone a person’s leadership and organisational skills, which would in turn benefit the company.
But the bottomline, said Mr Yeo, is whether the company feels the staff is up to the balancing act.
The mantra at DBS, it seems, is no different.
Stressing that the bank “takes pride in” the many DBS employees who are involved in community, charity or volunteer groups in their personal capacity, the spokesperson reiterated that these staff “had sought and obtained prior approval to do so”.
Approval is granted on a case-by-case basis, “depending on the demands of the proposed external appointment and the job responsibilities the individual holds in the bank”.
- TODAY/yb
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27147.2
DBS tells why it rebuked Josie Lau
Fri, Apr 17, 2009
The Straits Times
By Wong Kim Hoh
A DAY after becoming president of Singapore's leading women's group, Ms Josie Lau found herself in hot water at work.
DBS Bank, where she is a vice-president, is conducting an internal review over how she disregarded its advice against taking on the top post at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).
On Wednesday night, shortly after Ms Lau, 48, announced that she was the new president, the bank issued a statement making clear that it had told her not to take that position.
'She breached staff code of conduct'
'THE bank takes pride in the fact that many DBS employees pursue their interests and passion outside work, and are involved with various community/ charity/volunteer organisations in their personal capacity.
These employees had sought and obtained prior approval to do so, in accordance with the bank's staff code of conduct. Approval is granted on a case-by-case basis, depending on the demands of the proposed external appointment as well as the job responsibilities that the individual holds in the bank.
Josie informed the bank of her appointment as Aware Exco member on April 13, over two weeks after she was appointed on March 28. She had not sought prior approval for this appointment and thereby breached the staff code of conduct.
OCBC backs DBS stand
OCBC Bank backs the position taken by DBS Bank on the need for staff to seek approval before holding office in other organisations.
A key concern for financial institutions is possible conflict of interest, especially when someone senior takes on a role in an outside organisation, said OCBC spokesman Koh Ching Ching.
'It is important that financial institutions know of potential conflict of interest for their bank employees as we are required to regularly report to the regulators and our respective boards on any credit facilities to entities where our employees are directors, executive officers, guarantors or sureties,' she said. 'Financial institutions also need to know of potential conflicts for any possible supplier-buyer situations, even for accounts held by non-profit organisations or charities with us.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27147.1
The Myth of the Violent Singaporean Protestor
In the ISD Intelligence Service Promotion Ceremony on 15 April 2009, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, Mr. Wong Kan Seng said that they would implement the recently passed Public Order Act "firmly" to deal with those "intent on disrupting public order".
But what does he mean by disruption of "public order"? Prior to asserting that they will deal firmly, Mr. Wong paints a picture of public disruption when he said, "We have just seen the G20 protests in London. Thousands of protestors had taken to the streets, with the more violent among them damaging public property and business premises. In Thailand over the last one year, thousands of protestors have caused grave damage not just to physical property, but to livelihoods and the economy of the country as tourists are staying away. We have also seen on television street battles between protestors and authorities, causing injuries to many people and some have died as a result. I do not believe that Singaporeans would want such violence to happen here, and with what we have seen time and again in other countries, it would be naive of us to believe that nothing untoward will happen during street demonstrations".
There has been no such incidences of violence in the acts of civil disobedience in Singapore. In fact, it is the authorities who had upped their notch of violence in countering the these acts of civil disobedience in recent days.
When the Minister said, "In Singapore, it is only a tiny group of irresponsible and selfish individuals who have been pushing this line of civil disobedience. They do not care for the interests and safety of other Singaporeans; they are only interested in themselves", he tried to draw a parallel between the violent protestors of the United Kingdom and Thailand, to the peaceful protestors in Singapore like Seelan Palay, Shafiie Syahmi and the likes. This is highly misleading and regrettable.
Would the Singapore Police Force now acquire (or have they already acquired) 'non-lethal' devices like the stun shield to counter such protestors of civil disobedience? At the Trussco's exhibition of 'restraining devices' held on the same day as the ISD Intelligence Service Promotion Ceremony, Trussco's CEO, Mrs. Tina Wong said that the Singapore Police Force were "a major end user" of the Taser technology.
Amnesty International in providing a sample of manufacturers of exporters of 'non-lethal' devices, which could be used for torture as well, notes that Defenders Network a company based in Alabama, USA, had sold restraining devices such as Electrified High-Voltage Anti-Riot Shields which could emit up to up to 150,000 volts, to Singapore (among other coutries), because as Defenders Network claims, it can "maintain peace and order without drawing blood or endangering lives".
But are such devices really 'non-lethal' and do they not 'endanger lives'? The use of stun shield has resulted in at least one "unnecessary use of force" death in the USA prison systems. And also, there is the tragedy of Harry Landis, the Texas Corrections Officer. On December 1 1995, as part of the training to use such an electric shield, Landis was required to endure two 45,000-volt shocks. Shortly after the second shock, Landis collapsed and died. An inquiry later revealed that "the electric shock threw his heart into a different rhythmic beat, causing him to pass away".
The ability to burst the trigger and send at least 50,000 volts of electricity, which stuns or causes the death of a protestor, even in the pretext of maintaining "public order", is too much of a responsibility to be given to the police; especially based on a mere hypothesis, when there is no recent history of violent protestors in Singapore.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27146.1
“Zahari 17 Years” continues to be banned in S’pore - BFC
Friday, 17 April 2009
Film maker, Mr Martyn See, submitted six films to the Board of Film Censors on 31 March 2009. The following is the BFC’s letter which was received by Mr See on April 17.
Dear Mr See,
1. I refer to your letter dated 31 March 2009 regarding your submission of six films to the Board of Film Censors (BFC) for classification.
2. Please note that the 2009 amendments to the Films Act are not yet in force. As such, if you would like the BFC to consider the film based on the criteria in the amended Films Act, we would suggest that you collect the films and re-submit them after the amendments come into force.
3. We note that two of the films, “Speakers Cornered” and “Success Stories: Lee Kuan Yew”, were previously submitted and approved by the BFC. “Speakers Cornered” was approved and rated NC16 in April 2008 and “Success Stories: Lee Kuan Yew” was approved and rated PG in May 2007. If the content of the forestate two films has not changed since they were rated, the same ratings will continue to apply. “Riding The Tiger” is a documentary series commissioned by Mica (then Ministry of Information and the Arts) and subsequently aired over Channel NewsAsia in 2000. You may wish to note that Section 40 of the Films Act exempts any film sponsored by the Government from the requirements of the Act. As for the films “Singapore Rebel” and “One Nation Under Lee” we reiterate our suggestion that you collect the films and re-submit them after the 2009 amendments come into force. Should you need more details regarding the films (Amendment Bill), please refer to Second Reading speech on the Films Amendment Bill on Mica’s website.
4. Please be informed that the film “Zahari 17 Years” was previously gazetted by the Minister as a prohibited film under Section 35 (1) of the Films Act as the Minister was of the view that it’s possession or distribution would be contrary to the public interest. As the upcoming amendments to the Films Act do not relate to Section 35 (1), and the Minister has not changed his opinion, “Zahari 17 Years” continues to be a prohibited film. Please note that we will not be releasing this film for your collection as it is an offence for any person to be in possession of a prohibited film under Section 35 (2).
5. Please get in touch with the Customer Services and Operations Division with regards to collecting the rest of the films.
Yours sincerely,
Wang Chee Yann
Head (Films Standards, English)
Board of Film Censors
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27142.1
Former Ren Ci CEO Ming Yi approved several loans to staff (2nd version)
Former Ren Ci CEO Ming Yi approved several loans to staff (2nd version)
By Liang Kaixin, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 17 April 2009 0826 hrs
| ||||||
| ||||||
SINGAPORE: The sixth day of the trial against former Ren Ci CEO, Shi Ming Yi, threw light on the way staff loans were granted, even though the hospital did not have a formal policy on them in place.
The court on Thursday heard that Ming Yi had approved several loans to various staff.
Among them was Dr Ong Seh Hong who is currently the community hospital's chief operating officer and clinical director of Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre. Dr Ong is also a Member of Parliament for Marine Parade GRC.
When contacted by Channel NewsAsia, the MP said in a letter dated Friday: "I was an employee of GIC in 1999. I was offered by Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre to be Director, Medical & Paramedical Services in January 2000.
"However to leave GIC, I had to pay S$560,000 to settle my outstanding staff housing loan. I agreed to join Ren Ci on condition that I received a loan of S$60,000, to pay off in part the amount of S$560,000 and I paid the remaining S$500,000 from bank loan.
“When I borrowed the sum of S$60,000 from Ren Ci, I was not an MP. It was lent to me as staff, and was part of the terms on which I agreed to join Ren Ci. I have since repaid the sum fully."
The court also learnt that Ming Yi's former aide, Raymond Yeung, was offered an employment contract in 2001, despite his unsuccessful application for an employment pass.
Ming Yi subsequently granted Yeung a S$50,000 loan, even though the latter remained without an employment pass until 2004. This was recorded on Ren Ci's books as a loan made to Mandala Buddhist Cultural Centre.
At issue now is whether Yeung, who is an Australian citizen and only became a Singapore Permanent Resident in 2006, had received the loan as a legitimate Ren Ci employee.
The trial continues.
- CNA/yb
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27140.1
The dissenting civil servant and the online media
SINGAPORE - It is not uncommon for the citizenry to express dissenting views of the establishment. Even those within the establishment may harbor such views. The question is - are they able to express such views without fear of backlash from the establishment?
Readers may recall that some time before the General Elections of 2006, the authorities had to come out and reassure the public that their votes are secret despite the presence of a serial number on the voting slip. According to the authorities, the serial number is present as a measure to ensure that the voting slip is authentic. However, the fact remains that not all Singaporeans are convinced of the authority’s reassurance. One would not be surprised to find civil servants among such a group of unconvinced Singaporeans. Thus, there is this niggling fear for their job prospects that go through their heads should they decide to vote for the opposition. Serious attention should be paid to this group of voters in reassuring them the secrecy of their votes. It would be a pity if this fear factor interferes with the actual voting decisions because it is not a sin for a civil servant to express his dissenting opinion at the ballot box.
Casting votes aside, civil servants working in certain government ministries are not allowed to publicly express dissenting opinions on the establishment. Doing so will result in serious repercussions such as dismissal. Chua Beng Huat, currently Professor of Sociology at the National University of Singapore is one such example. Taking up a Director of Research post at the Housing and Development Board, he wrote critical pieces on Singapore politics which subsequently earned him the sack.
And even if the civil servant wishes to express dissenting views in the mainstream media, for instance by writing letters to forums, would their writings ever see the daylight? Our mainstream media is known for its pro-establishment stance, and it doesn’t come as a surprise that many articles critical of the establishment are locked away in the cold storage.
Thus, it is imperative that the online media must step up to fill the void. Of course, those responsible for the running of the online publications should exercise discretion, and advise dissenting civil servants to abstain from revealing their true identities in a bid to protect them from repercussions.
Until the General Elections of 2006, citizenship journalism wasn’t in vogue. Singapore Review was perhaps the only prominent entity that came closest to citizenship journalism. Until then, online forums was the common source for Singaporeans to vent their anger and pent up frustrations. The General Elections of 2006 could be seen as a fire of baptism for citizenship journalism in Singapore. Independent citizen reporters recorded the proceedings of various political rallies, and posted the videos on their websites, and appended their own reports.
The growth of citizenship journalism continued its momentum with the establishment of alternative media sites like The Online Citizen and others. Singapore’s high Internet penetration rate will only play to the advantage of such online media entities.
Whistle-blowing by civil servants alleging wrongdoings or irregular practices within government bodies is virtually unheard of. However, that could change with the proliferation of online media. The mainstream media with its pro-establishment stance is least likely to feature whistle-blowing reports that reflect badly on the establishment. It is likely that online alternative media entities will pick up the baton and cast the spotlight on the alleged government bodies. Of course, the onus is on these online media entities to protect the whistle-blowers.
Thus, it becomes increasingly likely that dissenting civil servants may resort to the online media as a platform to air their views.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27139.1